id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
50,421,130 | The counsel for the State further submitted that even if there are minor variations and discrepancies in the testimonies of PW-3 (the victim) and PW-4 (wife of the accused), there is corroboration regarding the key material facts of the case.I was residing in the room of my employer Moni.Vijay called me at about 12 Noon and gave me his bank passbook in my hand asking me to see whether there is any money.I told him that I was not that literate.I started looking in the passbook.Accused Vijay assaulted me with knife at various places of my body including forehead, two places at stomach, chest, above my left eyebrow.I became unconscious.After two days I regained consciousness at DD hospital where I was medically treated.It is incorrect to suggest that Asha w/o Vijay gave me meal and after eating roti, I had lied down on cot for sometime there to take rest.It is incorrect to suggest that after sometime Vijay came there."L.P 819/2018 Page 3 of 10Xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx When I had given loan sum to accused Vijay, then my salary was Rs.6000/- per month.One year ago, my husband Vijay had taken Rs.10,000/- as loan from Ranjit as there was shortage of money for purchase of land in village.Said Ranjit resides in Dhichaon Village and is a worker in the fields.My husband Vijay told Ranjit that he was giving money and called Ranjit for that.It so happened about one month back.I was not at home but was at the road upside as some CRL.L.P 819/2018 Page 4 of 10 vendor for slippers had come and I was purchasing slippers.As accused Vijay came there, fighting with Ranjit was taking place.My husband Vijay assaulted Ranjit by knife on his chest, forehead, stomach.I had seen it.People collected there.Ranjit became unconscious.Call at 100 number was made.Naveen Shokeen, employer of Ranjit came and took Ranjit to hospital.I had only seen above- said."One is married."Date and month I do not remember, 3/4 months ago I was at my home.From my fields I received a phone call on my mobile phone by unknown caller informing me that my employee Ranjit was lying there soaked in blood.I went to my fields.Police came there and took Ranjit to hospital at Jaffar Pur.The testimony of PW-3 (wife of the accused) is at variance and there is likelihood of her being not present at the time of commission of crime.By this petition under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') filed against the judgment of the Trial Court dated 22.09.2018 passed by Learned ASJ, Dwarka Court, in case FIR No. 48/2017, at Police Station Sagar Pur by which the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').The factual matrix from which the present proceeding arises are being adumbrated as follows:"Adumbrated in brief the case of prosecution is that on 26.03.2017 at about 12 noon at House no.6, Gulia Enclave, behind Anaj Mandi, Najafgarh, Delhi, the accused inflicted injuries by knife upon person of Ranjit Yadav.Accused was arrested on 26.03.2017, produced in court on 27.03.2017 and remanded to judicial custody and since then he is in judicial custody."L.P 819/2018 Page 1 of 10After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed.The accused was charged with offence under Section 307 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as of 08 witnesses including an eye witness PW-4, Asha (wife of the accused).Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances against him and claimed to be falsely implicated in the present case and stated that PW-3, Ranjit Yadav (victim), had illicit relationship with PW-4, Asha (wife of accused).The accused chose not to examine any witnesses in his defence.After appreciating and considering the rival contentions of the parties and scrutinizing the evidence, the trial Court recorded the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.Even other official witnesses, SI Satyawan (PW-7), ASI Surender Singh (PW-6) and HC Bhagirath (PW-5) led by CRL.L.P 819/2018 Page 2 of 10 the prosecution, corroborate in their testimonies regarding the consequential elements of the case.L.P 819/2018 Page 2 of 10Learned APP also contended that the trial court has erred in discarding the injuries suffered by the victim which were proved by PW-1 (Dr. Rajeev Kumar, Senior Medical Officer, from RTRM Hospital) and also the FSL report (Ex-PF) which proved the involvement of Respondent in the commission of the crime.We have heard the learned counsel for the State and also perused the relevant material available on record.At the outset we deem it appropriate to peruse the testimony of material witnesses i.e. PW-3 (the victim) and PW-4 (wife of the accused) and PW-2 (employer of PW-3).PW-3 (the victim) during his examination in chief deposed as under:"About two years ago, accused Vijay present in court in JC, correctly identified, had taken Rs.10,000/- as loan from me but I do not remember the date and month when it was so taken.Vijay was residing in room taken on rent from my employer Moni.I remained in the hospital for about one week.Police recorded my statement in the hospital after about 2 days of the incident."During cross-examination PW-3 deposed as under:"It is correct to suggest that for last 10 years I am working in the fields of Naveen.I used to reside at the house of Naveen which was nearby the fields.I had given the loan amount of Rs.10,000/- to accused, two years prior to CRL.L.P 819/2018 Page 3 of 10 incident.I used to demand my money back almost daily from accused.It is correct to suggest that I had gone to the home of Vijay on 24.03.2017 to demand money back and he had not given it back to me.It is correct to suggest that on 26.03.2017 at about 12 noon I had gone to home of Vijay to demand money back.Vijay had called me there.It is incorrect to suggest that at that time, accused Vijay was not there and had gone out previously and his wife Asha was there.I had given the loan in cash to accused Vijay after taking it from my employer.I had given the said loan without interest.Accused Vijay had told me, he will return back within one month.Loan was given at the house of accused Vijay in presence of his wife.I did not lodge any complaint against accused Vijay for not returning the loan sum as he assured me that he will pay back the loan.I did not go to house of accused as a matter of routine.Wife and children of accused Vijay were not at home on the day of incident.Accused Vijay had called me from fields and taken to his home on the day of incident.When I raised noise, on being assaulted by accused, no person from neighbourhood came at that time but had come later.Previous landlord of accused Vijay had come there.I do not know the name of that landlord..."PW-4, Asha (wife of the accused) during her examination in chief deposed as under:Accused was rickshaw puller.L.P 819/2018 Page 4 of 10During cross examination the witness deposed as under:-"...I was working in the fields of Naveen Shokeen, where Ranjit was working.It is correct to suggest that I as well as Ranjit were working in same fields.I was working in the fields on the day of incident.I used to work in the fields till 9 or 10am.I had heard the shout of Ranjit as "bachao".My place of residence was 2 fields away from my aforesaid place of working in the field.I have five children.Two children were at home at the time of incident and one of them was 7 year old daughter and other was 16 year old daughter.On the day of incident, Ranjit had not come to fields to work.It is correct to suggest that when I had reached at the spot, Ranjit was lying unconscious there.Again said, I had seen the occurrence and in the course of occurrence Ranjit became unconscious.Many persons of locality were there but I do not remember their names.Police recorded my statement at my home but I do not remember the date or month.My daughter had shown knife pieces to police.Police had not recorded statements of my children who were at home at the time of incident..."12. PW-2 (employer of the victim) who took the victim to the hospital during his examination in chief deposed as under:-I saw Ranjit unconscious soaked in blood.Someone had made a call to PCR.Ranjit was admitted there.I came back to my home from hospital.I know nothing else."L.P 819/2018 Page 5 of 10From the perusal of the above testimonies we find that there are major discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of these prosecution witnesses.As per the testimony of PW-3 (the victim), 'wife and children were not at home on the day of incident' and 'accused Vijay had called him from fields and taken to his home on the day of incident'.However, PW-4 (wife of the accused) during her cross examination deposed that her two children were present in the house at the time of incident and she came to the spot after hearing the cries of the victim by stating that 'I had heard the shout of Ranjit as 'bachao' and 'two children were at home at the time of incident and one of them was 7 year old daughter and other 16 year old daughter'.PW-4 (wife of the accused) deposed that 'my place of residence was 2 fields away from my aforesaid place of working in the filed', but PW-2 (employer of the victim) deposed that 'I went to my fields.I saw Ranjit unconscious soaked in blood'.As per PW-3 (the victim) no one was present at the time of commission of crime however, PW-4 (wife of the accused) deposed that she rushed to the spot on hearing the cries of the victim and other people collected there who with great difficulty separated the accused from PW-3 (the victim).PW-4 (wife of the accused) claimed to have seen the incident by deposing that 'My husband Vijay assaulted Ranjit by knife on his chest, forehead, stomach, I had seen it.People collected there' but on the other hand she deposed that 'I was not at home but was at the road upside as some vendor for slippers had come and I was purchasing slippers'.Perusal of the medical evidence shows the presence of injuries on the person of the victim which are grievous in nature but as discussed above there are severe infirmities and material contradictions in the testimonies of the material witnesses, even the investigation has been done in a very lackadaisical manner and it is not feasible to convict the respondent only on the basis of medical evidence.As far as contention of Ms. Kolluru, learned counsel for the state with regard to FSL report is concerned, we find that the irregularities in seizure of the case property and sending the same for forensic examination has not been met by the prosecution appropriately and we concur with the observation made by the trial court in this regard which is reproduced as under:-"22. ...Accordingly, the FSL report admitted as Ex. PF containing the result of examination that alleles from source of blood stained earth exhibit '2'; Shirt of accused '4a'; pant of accused '4b'; vest of accused '4c'; T shirt of victim '5a' and shirt of victim '5b' stated to be similar or from the same source are of no help to the prosecution since the prosecution has failed to establish that the case property after seizure till being sent to FSL nearly 6 months later to seizure was not tampered with during the period it CRL. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
504,227 | The facts in brief:The respondent No.1 is the Central Transmission Utility under the Ministryof Power and is engaged in the construction and maintenance of inter-statetransmission system spread across the nation.One such work has been entrustedwith the respondent No.1 towards the construction of 400 KV Double CircuitTransmission Line from Madurai to Tuticorin under the approval of Government ofIndia.(Judgment of the Court was delivered byM.M.SUNDRESH, J.) This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants, being the writpetitioners, challenging the order of the learned single Judge by which the writpetition filed was dismissed.The respondent No.1 is a deemed transmission licensee in the capacityof Central Transmission Utility as envisaged under Sections 38 and 40 of theElectricity Act, 2003 by the Government of India notification.The respondentNo.1 becomes a deemed "transmission licensee" in accordance with Section 14 of"The Electricity Act, 2003".An objection was raised by theappellants dated 18.11.2010, stating that they are involved in the manufacturingof salt and gypsum engaging 100 persons and in view of the proposed laying anderection of towers and overhead lines there is every possibility of an electromagnetic induction.Hence, it is stated in the representation that the proposedelectric towers will have to be realigned to avoid the power lines crossing overthe lands of the appellants.A reply was given on 21.12.2010 by the respondent No.1 stating thatthere will not be any electro magnetic induction and the lines will cross thesalt pans alone.It has been further stated that the route has been finalizedmeticulously taking into consideration various factors including the relevantinconvenience of the persons who are likely to be affected.Thereafter, thepetitioners have come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking a writof mandamus forbearing the respondents from entering into the petitioners' saltfactory and erecting high tension transmission towers.The learned single Judge after considering the entire case of theappellants as well as that of the respondents was pleased to dismiss the WritPetition.Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants beingthe writ petitioners have come forward to file this Writ Appeal.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that thedefinition of the word 'post' does not include a 'tower' and therefore, therespondent No.1 does not have the power or the authority to enter into lands ofthe appellants and erect such a tower.It is submitted that the proposedalignment has been changed to suit the convenience of few and therefore, theentire action is arbitrary.According to the learned counsel for theappellants, the appellants are proposed to have a salt factory and in view ofthe proposed action the entire proposed factory would be affected.The powerunder Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is not available to therespondent No.1 and in any case in view of the objections raised, the matterought to have been referred to the second respondent.The property of theappellants cannot be utilized to their detriments and the proposed action inerecting the towers amounting to acquisition, which is impermissible and inviolation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.The learned counselfurther contended that in the absence of a consent obtained from the appellants,the respondent No.1 cannot enter into the lands belonging to them withoutpermission.Thetelephone lines and connections were thereafter given from time to time.Tillthe landlord-tenant dispute arose between the appellant and M/s.The other contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants alsodo not deserve any consideration.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
504,254 | The Reference and the appeal were taken up together for hearing and both are now being disposed of by this common judgment.The relevant facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant Sushil Sharma along with one Keshav Kumar for the offence of murder and three other persons for harbouring Sushil Sharma after the murder have been noticed by the trial court in paras No. 112 and 17 and are as follows:1. Accused Sushil Sharma former President of Delhi Youth Congress (I), Naina Sahni (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) former General Secretary of Delhi Youth Congress(I) Girls Wing were working for Delhi Youth Congress.Office of Delhi Youth Congress earlier used to be at 4, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi.Later on office was shifted to 2, Talkatora Road, New Delhi.The deceased used to visit accused Sushil Sharma at the office of Youth Congress at both said places.In the year 1992 accused Sushil Sharma obtained flat 8/2A at Mandir Marg from its allottee Shri Jagdish Pd.Deceased was also visiting accused Sushil Sharma in the said flat at Mandir Marg.At times she stayed there in the night also.Later it is investigated by the State that both accused Sushil Sharma and deceased had married at the said residence in their own way.The deceased, thereafter, continued to live in the said flat claiming to be the wife of accused Sushil Sharma till she was murdered.In the heart of the National Capital Territory at Ashoka Road India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 was running its unit called Ashok Yatri Niwas.As per the license Bar-be-que was continuously run by the accused Sushil Sharma at said part of Ashok Yatri Niwas.The business of Bar-be-que being run there was called as Bagia Bar-be-que-.Arrangements were made of a kitchen, a tandoor in the said park.The park had fencing of bamboos called as Jafri and also for sitting of customers chair made of stem of tree.On the night of 2/3rd July, 1995 Constable Abdul Nazir Kunju PW3 who was posted at police station Connaught Place a day or two earlier along with PW4 Chander Pal 3151/Delhi Home Guard were assigned the duty to patrol the area of Ashoka Road Western Court etc. While on patrol duty at about 11 p.m. they reached near Ashok Yatri Niwas they heard the cry of a woman namely Anaroo PW-7 crying, hotel mein aag lag gayi.Hearing cry both PW3 and PW4 rushed towards Janpath lane where Ashok Yatri Niwas is situated.They noticed boom of smoke spiraling and flames leaping out of Bagia Bar-be-que from the side of the kitchen.Constable Kunju then rushed to telephone available at near by telephone booth to inform the control room (100).But the same was closed.Constable Kunju then left Home Guard Constable Chander Pal at the said place and rushed to the police post Western Court situated nearby to inform the police station on wireless.On return Constable Kunju PW3 noticed that smoke and fire had increased.Constable Kunju PW3 along with Home Guard Constable Chander Pal PW4 in order to find out the cause of smoke and fire entered the Bar-be-que from its back side.On entering from back side they found accused Keshav near Tandoor (a big oven) made for cooking articles of food.They also noticed accused Keshav putting wooden logs and small fire wood in the burring fire and increasing the fire with the aid of bamboo(balli), Constable Kunju PW3 asked accused Keshav that by such act fire would spread and complete hotel may be burnt.Accused Keshav then represented to Constable Kunju PW-3, I am a worker of a congress party.I am burning old banners, posters and waste papers of the party.Patrolling officer SI Sh.Ranbir Singh PW-62, security staff of hotel namely Sh.Rajiv Thakur PW2, Sh.Mahesh Prasad PW-35 Page 0796 also reached at Bar-be-que from the side of main gate of Ashok Yatri Niwas towards Ashok Road and reached at the gate of Bagia Bar-be-que seeing the fire.Accused Sushil Sharma was noticed by them standing by the side of kanat at the gate of Bar-be-que.Foul and pungent smell being emitted at the Tandoor was observed by the police staff.There having arisen a suspicion SI Rajesh Kumar and Constable Kunju PW-3 detained accused Keshav Kumar.SI Rajesh Kumar along with security staff of the hotel who had reached there and accused Keshav then went upstairs of the hotel to find out if fire had spread there.While they were upstairs, they noticed that flames in the Tandoor had flared up again.SI Rajesh Kumar and others then rushed down stairs.By that time accused Sushil Sharma had run away from there.The fire was doused.On getting closer to the Tandoor a torque of human being was noticed.Closer look revealed that it was a charred body of a female whose limbs had burnt.Intestines due to burning had come out of the body.Burnt bones were lying on the Tandoor.They also noticed near the Tandoor a black polythene sheet.Minute checking of sheet revealed blood spots at various places of polythene sheet.Later Senior officers of the police including IO Niranjan Singh, senior officer of the hotel Sh.K.K.Tuli also reched there.Accused Keshav was then handed over to IO Niranjan Singh.IO Niranjan Singh inspected the site.He noticed that over the Tandoor there was a burnt body.He looked at the body and found that the said body was of a woman aged 25-30 years.He also noticed that bones of one hand were lying on the Tandoor.One leg of the body was found burnt up to the knee while the other leg was found burnt up to the ankle.The other hand was also burnt up to the elbow and bones thereof were also on the Tandoor.Some of the hair of jura(hair knot) were not burnt.One plastic clip was in the hair knot.The English translation is as follows:I am a constable posted at Police Station Connaught Place.Today from 11.00 p.m. till 5.00 a.m. my duty was to patrol the area of Ashok Road, Western Court etc. At about 11.25 in the night I along with DHG Chander Pal No. 3515, while patrolling the area reached in the side lane of Ashok Yatri Niwas.I noticed a woman and two-three other men crying, hotel mein aag lag gayi aag lag gayi.I saw that from the wall side of Ashok Yatri Niwas, inside Bagia Bar- be-que restaurant there was smoke and flames of fire.I wanted to telephone 100 and also firebrigade from the telephone booth stand installed there.But telephone booth was closed.I left DHG Chander Pal No. 3515/DHG at the site and rushed for telephoning to the Page 0797 police station and fire brigade to the picket of wireless which was on the back of Western court and nearby.From there with the aid of wireless I informed police station Connaught Place and from the CPWD inquiry of the Western Court I telephoned PCR and firebrigade.I returned to the site after about 20 minutes.The flames and smoke had increased.I entered Bagia Bar-be-que restaurant Along with DHG Chander Pal from the back side.I saw a young man whose name now I have come to know Keshav Kumar son of Chiranji Lal r/o 2594 Bagichi Raghunath, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.On the Tandoor of the restaurant there were big-big wooden logs small wooden pieces of logs, he was pouring on the Tandoor and was increasing the fire by reversing the said wood by bamboos.I said to Keshav Kumar, by this the hotel would also be burnt.Keshav Kumar told me, He is a worker of the Congress party and was burning the old posters, banners and waste papers of the party.Foul smell was emitting out of the fire.In the meantime patrol officer SI RAJESH Kumar, PCR Head Constable Majid Khan, Constable Rajbir Singh and security staff of the hotel Sh.Rajiv Thakur, security guar Mahesh Prasad etc. also reached.At that time adjacent to a kanat installed at the gate of Bagia bar-be-que a young man whose name security guard Mahesh told Sushil Sharma and the owner of the restaurant was standing.Because foul smell was emitting out of the fire a suspicion arose to me and also SI Rajesh.Keshav Kumar accused was detained at the site itself, then Along with Security staff and SI Rajesh I went on the roof of Bagia bar-be-que so as to find out if from PVC wire fire had entered into the hotel.When we were on the roof, fire again broke out from Tandoor.We all then rushed downside but by that time all the three persons Sushil Sharma and his two associates had run away from the restaurant.We went near the Tandoor and checked the Tandoor.We noticed in the burning wood a human body and checking the same with attention the burnt body was of an unknown lady whose legs from the foot side had burnt and burnt bones were lying on tandoor.Due to burning intestine had come out.Near the Tandoor a black coloured polythene tirpal was there.When we checked attentively the polythene tirpal, there were spots of blood at places.There was spots of blood on the pant and kurta accused Keshav Kumar was wearing.General Manager Ashok Yatri Niwas Sh.K.K.Tuli had also arrived.In his presence security guard Mahesh told me and SI Rajesh that Sushil Sharma had arrived there at about 10.15 p.m. in his maruti car No. DL 2CA 1872 white in colour which he was driving himself.He had entered the hotel.Arrival of car and its number has been entered in the hotel register.On the Page 0798 site Mahesh also told that Sushil Sharma was standing near Kanat.Security staff and police was not permitted inside the Bagia Bar-be-que by him to reach the fire saying that he was burning the old banners of Congress, poster and waste papers.Statement read over to me is correct.Accused Keshav had blood spots on his clothes.Accused Keshav was arrested.Blood stained clothes of Keshav Kumar a white kurta Ex. PW75/9 and white pant Ex. PW75/10 were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW75/P.After holding inquest proceedings he sent the dead body to RML hospital where Dr.Joginder Singh(PW-85) prepared the medico legal report Ex. PW-85/A in which he noticed the following condition of the charred body:Whole body burnt exposing underlying bones and tissue, gastro intestinal contents are protruding outside.The left lower limb is amputated above the knee joint, right limb is amputated below knee joint.Brought dead.Since by that time the identity of the dead body could not be established the investigating officer had made an application to the hospital authorities to preserve the dead body and at the same time in view of the disclosure made by Keshav Kumar the investigating officer started the search for Sushil Sharma and the Maruti Car in which he had come to his restaurant.Both could not be traced out and the police had to obtain arrest warrants for Sushil Sharma from the concerned Court.On 04-07-1995 the police got an information from Chanakya Puri police station that Maruti Car No. DL-2CA-1872 had been found abandoned at Malcha Marg near Gujarat Bhawan where he had gone and spent the night of 2nd/3rd July, 1995 with PW-31 Mr. D.K.Rao after fleeing from his Bagia restaurant.So, he contacted her parents (CWs 1 and 2) for identification of the corpse but on seeing the charred body kept in the mortuary they simply wept but did not identify the same to be of their daughter Naina Sahni.On 05-07-95 the dead body was identified to be that of Ms. Naina Sahni by one Matloob Karim(PW-12) who was also a worker of Congress Party and claimed himself also to be very close to Naina Sahni.(Eyes, Ears, Nose, Mouth, Teeth and Tongue etc.) Both eye lids with face charred, eye balls destroyed, ears, nose and lips were also charred, teeth were exposed and studded with soot, other natural orifices were studded with soot particles.EXTERNAL EXAMINATION Revealed extensive charring of a female dead body beyond identification, having attained a Pugilistic attitude:owing to coagulation of the muscle proteins.Skull bone exposed, Partly burnt, blackened, showed multiple post mortem cracks with a few strands of partially burnt hair and metallic hair clip....intestines exposed to outside with portions of other internal organs in the abdomen, more on the left side.No evidence of firearm discharge from internal examination of the organs.HEAD and NECK Scalp tissue almost burnt except over a very insignificant (2.5 x 0.8 cm) area on the occipital region with a few strands of Page 0800 burnt hair.Skull showed multiple post mortem heat cracks partly charred and blackened.BRAIN, MENINGES and CEREBRAL BLOOD VESSELS:Reddish white thick heat haematoma present more on the left cerebral hemisphere above the dura adhered to the endoevanium on the same side.Meninges intact and pale.Brain shrunken and substance looked pale, no injury or haemorrhage anywhere.LARYNX, PHARYNX and OTHER NECK STRUCTURES Pharynx, Larynx and Tracheal rings intact ilyoid bone intact.Mucous membranes of Pharynx, Larynx and Trachea showed adhered soot particles.Blood vessels were destroyed and collapsed due to burns.THORAX Burnt as mentioned above.Leg was chopped off 23 cm.below the knee.Both the bones of the leg exposed being cut from the front showing beveling below and inwards.Patella (knee cap) bone was missing on the Rt.side Distal phalanges in the hand missing (chopped off) Upper limb was chopped off just below the elbow.Trachea and Bronchi: Intact, mucosa of Tracheal rings smeared with black soot particles.Pleural Cavity and Lungs: Pleural studded with carbon particles did not show any inflammatory sign to the naked eyes.Both lungs shrunken, dessicated and pale WT 200 gms.(Lt) 210 gms (Rt.) Abdominal wall, peritoneum: Abdominal and pelvic walls burnt, peritoneum- partly burnt.Stomach and contents: Contained about 500 ml of brownish-semi liquid material, smelt alcoholic, walls looked pale Pancreas, small and large intestines: Shrunken, dessicated, protruded out, no injury/abnormality was noticed.Dr. Murari Prasad Sarangi opined provisionally that the cause of death was due to haemorrhagic shock consequent to various anti-mortem injuries found on the dead body.The burns noticed on the dead body appeared to have been inflicted after death.Final opinion about the cause of death was kept pending by Dr. Sarangi till the receipt of the report about histopathological examination as well as the report of examination of viscera and blood sample.Although the investigating officer had also asked for X-ray examination of the dead body to find out if there was any fire-arm injury, in view of the recovery of fired cartridges from the appellant's flat at Mandir Marg, but X-ray examination could be conducted since the X-ray machine was not in order at the time of post-mortem examination which was conducted at Lady Harding Medical College.It is the prosecution case that accused Sushil Sharma in order to avoid his arrest by the police spent the night of 2nd July, 1995 at Gujarat Bhawan, Page 0801 New Delhi with PW-31 Shri D.K.Rao and from there he kept on going from one city to another.Sushil Sharma after going from Gujarat Bhawan had allegedly called up the said Mr. D.K.Rao on 4/07/95 from Bombay and at that time had told Mr. D.K. Rao that he had killed his wife.The news about the murder had spread throughout the country and the police everywhere was informed that Sushil Sharma was wanted in the present case.Sushil Sharma obtained anticipatory bail from a Sessions Court at Madras but it was cancelled by Madras High Court at the instance of the Delhi Police.Thereafter, as per the prosecution case, accused Sushil Sharma came to Bangalore but there he was arrested under Section 41 Cr.P.C.(a) on 10-07-1995 by Bangalore police when he was noticed moving around in a suspicious manner with one advocate Shri Anant Narain.During the interrogation of Sushil Sharma at Bangalore it transpired that he was staying in one hotel by the name of Pie Vihar along with one advocate Sh.Anant Narain.Accused Sushil Sharma had led the police team to that hotel where his advocate Sh.Anant Narain was found in room No. 110 and from that room accused Sushil Sharma produced a briefcase which was found to contain one .32 bore revolver No. 1277725(make Arminus) with its license in the name of Sushil Sharma, four live cartridges and some other documents also.That brief case and all the articles found therein were seized by the investigating officer.Accused Sushil Sharma was then brought to Delhi and pursuant to his disclosure statements he first got recovered one blood stained kurta-pyjama from the bushes near Gujarat Bhawan at Malcha Marg and then he also got recovered another blood stained kurta from Rangpuri area.Then he said to me to take out the bundle from the car.At that time Sushil said to me, I have murdered Naina.Immediately she is to be burnt in Tandoor.I got perturbed and continued to do as Sushil said.Sushil said Do what I say.Sushil Sharma put the dead body in the Tandoor and asked me to bring butter to raise the fire and put wood in the tandoor so that dead body is burnt.On account of fear I got more perturbed.In answer to one of the questions he also admitted that he was living with Naina Sahni at Mandir Marg.As far as his relationship with Naina Sahni, whom she had allegedly killed, is concerned this is what he had to say:She contested election of Shyama Parsad Mukherjee college.She lost.I was president of N.S.U.I. Delhi.She came in contact with me then.Her attendance was short in the college.She was not allowed to sit in the examination.Next year I got admitted her in the correspondence course.She was career oriented woman.I helped her in that.She went to London for CPL (Commercial pilot license).From 1994 to January 1995 she lived in a flat Opp.Birla Mandir as paying guest.That flat belonged to a lady working in Doordarshan.I have shown that flat to police.Police did not cite her as witness.I used to be called at various functions organized at her residence Along with other lady friends associated with her business and pilot course.She started living separately from her parents after there was a dispute between her and her father.She then lived at Gole Market.In the functions which were organized at the residence at Gole Market her parents visited and I also visited.She had a servant Ramu @ Bilas.She was not allowing anyone else to stay there including her parents.She remained busy in her career and I remained involved in politics.He has re-iterated what he had narrated in his first information statement to the police which we have already re-produced in the earlier part of our judgment.He deposed that on 2nd July, 1995 he was posted as constable at police station Connaught Place.On the night of 2nd July, 1995 while patrolling in the area of Ashok Yatri, Western Court etc. along with a home guard constable Chander Pal when they reached near Ashok Yatri Niwas at about 11.20 p.m. they found that a lady and two-three other persons were crying that fire had broken out in the hotel on which he along with Chanderpal rushed to that place where he saw that smoke and Page 0807 flames of fire were coming out from the side of kitchen.He immediately tried to inform through 100 number from a nearby booth but the same was found closed.I am burning the old banners, posters and waste papers etc. of my party.In the meantime the patrolling officer SI Rajesh Kumar, the staff of PCR and security officials Rajiv Thakur as well as Mahesh(PW-35) also came there.PW-3 then deposed that he saw accused Sushil Sharma, who was the owner of that restaurant as told to him by Mahesh, near the gate of the restaurant.He(PW-3) and SI Rajesh Kumar extinguished the fire.Mahesh Prasad then told him(CW-5) that that man was the owner of Bagia restaurant and his name was Sushil Sharma.This witness also deposed that accused Keshav Kumar was seen raising the fire and also that in the fire there was a human body of a woman.He also stated that Keshav Kumar had been apprehended at the spot itself while Sushil Sharma had run away.He has deposed that on 11.7.1995 Niranjan Singh (the Investigating Officer of this case) and one ACP Raj Mahender Singh( both of whom had gone to Bangalore on getting the information about the arrest of Sushil Sharma) had interrogated Sushil Sharma after taking over his custody from Bangalore police and further that Sushil Sharma had led the police party to Pie Vihar hotel, Bangalore.He further deposed that from room No. 110 Sushil Sharma produced one briefcase which contained one revolver, four live cartridges and some other articles which were then taken into police possession and sealed by the Investigating Officer Niranjan Singh.He identified the recovered revolver which is Ex.PW-47/2 and its license, which was also found in the briefcase was also identified by this witness and the same is Ex.As noticed already, DNA test was carried out with the blood samples of the parents of Naina Sahni and the tissues(muscle) taken from the burnt body of the woman lifted from the tandoor of the Bagia Bar-be-Que.Regarding the taking of tissue samples Dr. M.P.Sarangi(CW-6) is the witness.He had conducted the first post-mortem examination.It is the case of the appellant that he had conducted the post-mortem examination quite fairly.CW-6 has claimed that on 06-07-95 he had taken tissue samples and ribs/bones from the dead body and had sealed them and handed over to the investigating officer to be delivered to Dr. Lalji Singh and Dr. Lalji Singh has also deposed that he was present at the mortuary at the time of taking of these samples and further that on 7/7/95 in the morning the sealed box containing these samples were taken over by him at the airport from the investigating officer before leaving for Hyderabad.Of course an attempt was definitely made on behalf of the appellant to malign him also by suggesting to him during cross- examination that he had obliged the police.However, the appellant has not been able to bring out anything in his cross-examination from which such a conclusion could be arrived at by us.All these attempts to malign the doctors and scientists were as a result of clear impression in the mind of the appellant that he had really no escape route left.PW-42 Dr. Naveen Jain had taken blood samples of the parents of Naina Sahni.He has deposed that in July 1995 he was posted in casualty of RML Hospital.On 13th July, 1995 he was a duty doctor there and SHO Cannaught Place came there with two persons namely Sh.Harbhajan Singh and his wife Smt. Jaswant Kaur.Dr. Lalji Singh from Hyderabad had also accompanied them and he took about 10 ml each of blood of both Harbhajan Singh and Smt. Jaswant Kaur.He also deposed that he had signed the form of identification card Ex.PW-42/A-B along with Dr. Lalji Singh and the SHO.PW-83 Dr. Lalji Singh, Director of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad deposed that on 6th July, 1995 he was in Delhi when he received a telephone call from Director General Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, CSIR who told him that Commissioner of Delhi Police had approached him to request him to take up this case.He deposed that on the same day he was taken to police station in the office of DCP Dr. Aditya Arya.Thereafter he was taken to Lady Harding hospital where a dead body was kept and Mr. Niranjan Singh, SHO, Dr. Aditya Arya, DCP and 2-3 constables were there.The doctor there took out two ribs, bone of the hand and muscle pieces from the thigh and put them in separate container and sealed.He carried the samples duly sealed to CCMB, Hyderabad and handed over the whole box containing samples to Dr. G.V. Rao.PW-42/A and Ex.PW-42/B were filled and signed by him.He further deposed that he had also prepared a card of tissue samples.He took the blood samples on ice to CCMB, Hyderabad on 13.7.1995 and handed over to Dr. G.V. Rao.He also deposed that he supervised the analysis carried out by Dr.JUDGMENT P.K. Bhasin, J.Conviction of the appellant Sushil Sharma for the murder of one Ms. Naina Sahni @ Ravi Naina Sahni vide judgment dated 03-11-2003 rendered by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions case No. 88/96 pertaining to FIR No. 486/95 of Connaught Place police station and imposition of death sentence upon him vide order dated 07-11-2003 has led to the filing of an appeal by the appellant and making of a reference to this Court by the trial court for confirmation of the death sentence.ITDC entered into a license agreement on 10.11.94 with (i) Sh.Lalit Kishore Sachdeva s/o Sh.Ram Rattan Sachdeva r/o B-37 Gujranwala Town, Delhi (ii) Sh.Virender Kumar Nagpal s/o Sh.(late) Basant Lal r/o HIG 49, Sector E, Aliganj, Lucknow (iii) Sh.Manoj Malik s/o Sh.R.P.Malik r/o A-16 Nirman Vihar Delhi (iv) Sh.R.P.Sachdeva s/o Sh.Hansraj Sachdeva r/o 5/16 Line No. 2, Geeta Colony, Delhi and (v) accused Sushil Sharma s/o Sh.I.M.Sharma r/o MP-27 Maurya Enclave, Delhi partners of M/s. Excel Hotel and Restaurant Inc. 159 Kamla Market, Delhi.The license granted by ITDC permitted the user of park in front oif main gate of Ashok Yatri Niwas towards Ashok Road by said partners of M/s. Excel Hotel and Restaurant for running a Bar-be-que.Rajesh Kumar along with Sh.Majid Khan CW5 of Police Control Room, constable Sh.Teeth of the dead body were visible while intestines had come out.The tiles(plates) on the wall near the Tandoor due to fire had fallen.A big bamboo of wood one corner of which was burnt was there.A polythene tirpal on which some blood spots were there was there.IO Niranjan Singh then recorded the statement of constable Kunju PW-3 in Hindi.An associate of Sushil Sharma who had a healthy body, middle height and was wearing blue coloured printed shirt and pant was also there and another young boy well built, middle height were also present in the restaurant towards the side of Tandoor.With the aid of buckets containing water the fire was doused.The investigating officer PW-81 ACP Niranjan Singh seized from the place of fire one paijeb(anklet) besides other articles.Accordingly the police team reached there and on inspection of the car dried blood in the dicky of the car and some hair stuck on the back side of the front seat were noticed.One wrist watch was also found in the car.On 04-07-1995 the police had also searched flat No. 8/2A, DIZ Area, Sector-II, Mandir Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, where, as per the information supplied by accused Keshav Kumar, accused Sushil Sharma was residing.That flat was on the first floor.During the search of that flat the police had seized from there blood stained cloth piece of the mattress from a bed-room, blood stained carpet, some hair of a woman with blood on them, one lead of bullet, five empty cases of fired cartridges, some photos showing Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni and one diary in which it was written Sushil Sharma loves Naina loves Sushil Sharma.Besides these things some documents pertaining to Bagia Bar-be Que Page 0799 were also seized.It was also noticed that the plywood over the air-conditioner had a bullet mark/hole.That plywood piece was also taken into police possession.On enquiries from the houses in the neighborhood the investigating officer came to know that in that flat one Naina Sahni used to live with her husband Sushil Sharma.One Maruti Car No. DAC-3283 parked below that flat, which was found to be in the name of Naina Sahni, was also taken into possession by the police.Thoracic cage, intercoastal muscles and diaphragm were burnt more on the lt side.Lt. thigh was chopped off, 28 cms.below left.And superiliac spine, underlying thigh bone cut from the back showing beveling from above downwards vide overleaf.It appears that without waiting for the final opinion of Dr. Sarangi the investigating agency decided to get another post-mortem examination conducted from a Board of autopsy surgeons.Accordingly, second post-mortem examination was done on 12-07-1995 but this time by a team of three doctors headed by Dr. Bharat Singh(PW-44) and during that post-mortem examination Dr. M.P.Sarangi was also associated.During the course of the second post-mortem examination the dead body was subjected to X-ray examination and the X-ray reports showed the presence of one metallic piece in the skull and one in the neck region of the dead body.Those metallic pieces were then extracted out and were found to be lead bullets.As per the post-mortem report of the Board of Doctors the cause of death of the deceased Naina Sahni was due to coma consequent upon fire-arm injury on the head which was found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.During investigation the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased, fired cartridge cases and one lead bullet which were recovered from flat No. 8/2A, Mandir Marg, the live cartridges and Arminus revolver recovered from the possession of accused Sushil Sharma at Bangalore were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory for examination by a ballistic expert.After examining them and resorting to test firing by using .32 live cartridges which were recovered from the briefcase of the appellant at Page 0802 Bangalore from the .32 Arminus revolver the ballistic expert Shri Roop Singh(PW-70) gave a report(Ex.PW-70/A) confirming that the .32 Arminus revolver was a fire-arm and was in working condition and had been fired through.He further opined that the five .32 cartridge cases and one lead bullet, which were recovered from the flat at Mandir Marg and the two lead bullets which were extracted from the skull and neck of the deceased had been fired from the said .32 Arminus revolver.Regarding the piece of plywood which had also been seized from the aforesaid flat at Mandir Marg on which a bullet hole had been noticed at the time of inspection of the flat and which had also been forwarded to CFSL Shri Roop Singh gave his opinion that the hole observed on the plywood piece could also have been caused by the afore-said .32 lead bullet recovered from the flat at Mandir Marg.Blood stained articles seized from the Bagia restaurant on the day of the incident, those recovered from the flat at Mandir Marg and the dried blood lifted from the dicky of appellant's car at Malcha Marg were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory where on examination it was found that human blood found on all these articles was of B' group which was the blood group of the female whose body was being burnt on the tandoor and who later on was identified to be Naina Sahni @ Ravi Naina Sahni.As per the prosecution case, DNA test was also got conducted from the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad(CCMB) for confirming the identity of the corpse by sending there the blood samples of the parents of Naina Sahni and the tissues (muscle) from the thigh, radius and ulna bones and two ribs of the deceased.The DNA report (Ex. PW-87/A) confirmed that the dead body which was being burnt at the Bagia Bar-be-Que tandoor on the night of 2nd July, 1995 was that of Ms. Naina, who was the biological offspring of Smt. Jaswant Kaur(CW-1) and Shri Harbhajan Singh(CW-2).After the completion of investigation the investigating officer (PW- 81) came to the conclusion that Naina Sahni was killed by accused Sushil Sharma since he was suspecting that she was having some relationship with Matloob Karim(PW-12) as well as other persons and after killing her he with the help of co-accused Keshav Kumar burnt her dead body on the tandoor of Bagia Bar-be-Que.After the incident accused Sushil Sharma was harboured to save him from punishment for the crime by three persons, namely, Jai Prakash, Rishi Raj Rathi and Ram Prakash Sachdeva and accordingly a charge-sheet was filed in Magistrate's Court against these five accused persons alleging commission of offences under Sections 302/201/212/34 IPC.In due course, the case was committed to Sessions Court where the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 120-B read with Sections 302 and 201 IPC and also under Sections 302 and 201/120-B IPC against accused Sushil Sharma and Keshav Kumar while the remaining three accused persons, namely, Jai Prakash, Rishi Raj Rathi and Ram Prakash Sachdeva were charged individually under Section 212 IPC.All the accused persons had pleaded not guilty to the said charges framed against them and claimed trial.While the prosecution evidence was going on during the trial accused Keshav Kumar had moved an application confessing his guilt as far as the charge against him under Section 201/120-B IPC was concerned and he Page 0803 requested the court for disposing of his case in view of his confession.In that application dated 21-11-98 accused Keshav Kumar had stated as under:Number of applications moved by me have been rejected.I have told the police as well as the court that I have not conspired in the murder of Naina.I was not with Sushil Sharma.I was serving in Bagia restaurant of Sushil Sharma.On 2.7.95 in the night about 9/10 p.m. Sushil Sharma came and said to me, close the restaurant.I said, customers are eating food.Let them eat, Sushil Sharma said, Have you not heard what I have said to you.Do what I am saying'.I put off the lights of the restaurant at the instance of Malik.I helped Sushil in the burning of the Tandoor at his instance.I am in custody for the last three years four months.My case be disposed of.Again I request that my case be disposed of.However, at that time no orders were passed on that confession of this accused and his prayer for disposing of his case on the basis of his confession was kept pending till the conclusion of the trial.After the conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All of them pleaded false implication.As far as accused Keshav Kumar is concerned, at that stage also he admitted the correctness of the contents of his confessional application which had earlier been moved on his behalf by his counsel but added that it was moved because the Special Public Proseutor had told him that he would be bailed out at the final stage of the trial.From Madras he gave a telephone call at his residence in Maurya Enclave in Delhi when he came to know that one ACP Alok Kumar had visited his residence on 3.7.1995 and had removed his vehicle, licensed revolver, license of the revolver and bullets.He also claimed that ACP had given his telephone number and had also left a message for him that he should talk to him on phone and when he telephoned that ACP he told him to get anticipatory bail otherwise he would be arrested.He then obtained anticipatory bail from a Sessions Court at Madras for a period of 14 days.On 8.7.1995 he was called for an enquiry at some police station at Madras and that day in the evening some police officers from Delhi reached there and he showed them all the papers and they were convinced.He admitted that car No. DL-2CA-1872 belonged to him but regarding its recovery from Malcha Marg he pleaded that it was actually removed by the police from his residence at MP-27, Maurya Enclave, Delhi Page 0804 where it was parked by his driver.She learned the course of Pilot.None of the accused persons had adduced any evidence in defense.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence of the witnesses examined during the trial and making a thorough analysis of the same found accused Sushil Sharma guilty under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.Accused Keshav Kumar was, however, convicted only for the offence under Section 201 IPC for burning the dead body of deceased Naina Sahni.Other three accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Section 212 IPC.Vide order dated 07-11- 2003 the learned Additional Sessions Judge awarded death sentence to accused Sushil Sharma for the offence of murder and he was also imposed a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.For his conviction under Sections 201/120-B IPC he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Accused Keshav Kumar was awarded sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Since the death sentence imposed upon Sushil Sharma required a confirmation by this Court as provided under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 learned Additional Sessions Judge made a Reference to this Court and for challenging his conviction as well as the sentences awarded to him the convict Sushil Sharma filed an appeal.Accused Keshav Kumar, however, has not filed any appeal.So, we are now to decide the fate of convict Sushil Sharma only.The prosecution case is that the appellant Sushil Sharma had married one Naina Sahni and both of them were living together at flat No. 8/2A, DIZ Area, Mandir Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi till 02/07/95 when Sushil Sharma shot her dead with his licensed revolver.According to the prosecution he killed her because she was asking him to tell everybody that they were married to each other but he did not want to do that since it would have affected his political career and also because he had started suspecting that Naina Sahni had affairs with other persons also.As noticed already, the appellant Sushil Sharma had admitted that he knew Naina Sahni.Now, we are to consider whether from the evidence adduced by the prosecution it has been able to establish its case and whether conviction of the appellant Sushi Sharma is proper and if it is found to be so whether the death penalty is the only appropriate sentence which needs be awarded to him, as has been done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Undisputedly, there is no eye witness of the murder of Naina Sahni.So, the prosecution has sought to establish its case on the basis of circumstantial evidence and we shall now proceed to examine if the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution stand fully established from the evidence adduced by it and whether from those circumstances the guilt of accused Sushil Sharma stands established or not.K.K.Sud, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Mukta Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State took us very deep into the evidence of the witnesses during the course of hearing which became marathon since there were over ninety witnesses examined during the trial and voluminous documentary evidence was also referred to from both the sides.We may say at the outset that Mr.K.K.Sud, learned senior counsel for the appellant, with all the skill at his command had tried before us to break the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution.As a defense counsel he was entitled to do that.v. State of Punjab , had observed that while dealing with a Death Reference High Court is to consider the proceedings in all their aspects and then to come to an independent conclusion after a fresh appraisal of entire evidence.We shall now proceed to undertake that exercise.The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that accused Sushi Sharma was running the Bagia Bar-be-Que in the lawns of Ashok Yatri Niwas at Ashoka Road and his co-accused Keshav Kumar was employed there.The accused has not claimed during the trial and it was not contended even before us also by his senior counsel that he had no concern whatsoever with the Bagia Bar-be-Que and not even in the Grounds of Appeal it has been claimed by the appellant that he had nothing to do with Bagia Page 0806 restaurant where there was a Bar-be-Que.In answer to the very first question put to the accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Sushil Sharma had admitted that Bagia restaurant was being run as per an agreement with ITDC.Further, he also admitted that his Manager at Bagia Bar-be'Que was one Mr. Handa and the accountant was one Mr. Karan.Sushil Sharma had also not disputed that his co-accused Keshav Kumar was employed for Bagia Bar-be-Que who himself had also admitted that he was employed at the Bagia restaurant .So, it stands established that the appellant Sushil Sharma was the owner of Bagia Bar-be-Que and his co-accused Keshav Kumar was employed there.The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution against accused Sushil Sharma is that on the night of 02.07.1995 he came to the Bagia Bar-be-Que in his Maruti Car No. DL-2CA-1872 around 10 p.m. and after sometime he was seen there by the policemen burning a body of a woman on the tandoor of the Bar-be- Que with the help of his employee, accused Keshav Kumar.For establishing these facts the prosecution has examined quite a good number of witnesses.The first witness in this regard whose evidence we would notice is PW-7 Anaro Devi.She deposed that she had been running a vegetable shop near Ashok Yatri Niwas for twenty years and she used to sell vegetables to the Bagia restaurant.Two years back at about 11.30 p.m. when she was present at her shop fire had broken out in Bagia.One constable and a Home Guard came there when she informed them about the fire and asked them to extinguish the fire.As far as her statement that fire had broken out in the restaurant and one constable and a Home guard had come there is concerned the same was not challenged in her cross-examination.Mr. Sud had submitted that this vegetable vendor was having a kiosk on the pavement in the NDMC area and was always at the mercy of the police and so she had obliged the police by deposing in this case falsely.We do not think that this is any ground to disbelieve her.If she was having a kiosk allotted to her by NDMC then where was the occasion for her to be afraid of police.She is totally an independent witness whose testimony has remained unshaken.The next witness examined for establishing the second circumstance is PW-3 Head Constable Abdul Nazir Kunju on whose statement the FIR of this case was recorded.He then left the home guard at the spot and himself rushed towards the police post Western Court and from there he gave information to police station through wireless and also to fire brigade from PWD Enquiry of the Western Court and then rushed back to the spot.On reaching the spot he saw that the fire flames were going up and so he entered inside Bagia along with home guard Chander Pal and on reaching inside he saw that accused Keshav Kumar was standing near a tandoor and was keeping big and small pieces of wood into the tandoor and turning and shuffling them with a long wooden stick.On enquiry Keshav Kumar replied I am a worker of the Congress Party.He went along with SI Rajesh Kumar and Keshav Kumar to the roof of the hotel to ascertain if the flames of the fire had reached the top or not and when they reached the roof and saw down from there that the fire again flared up from the tandoor and then they came down.PW-3 further deposed that since foul smell was emanating from the tandoor he and SI Rajesh Kumar became suspicious and when they went near the tandoor they saw a human body inside the tandoor whose hands and feet were completely burnt and intestines were protruding out from the stomach.On a close look they found that the dead body was of a female and a black coloured tarpaulin was also found lying near the tandoor on which blood was noticed at different places.Keshav Kumar was overpowered but Sushil Sharma had fled away from there.The SHO had also reached the spot and recorded his statement Ex. PW-3/A. On 13th he had identified accused Sushil Sharma in the police station as the same person whom he had seen standing near the kanaat at the gate of Bagia restaurant.He has deposed that on 2nd July, 1995 he was on patrolling duty along with Abdul Nazeer Kunju(PW-3) from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. and while patrolling when they reached the side road of Ashok Yatri Niwas at about 11.30 p.m. they heard a woman and 2/3 men raising an alarm that some fire incident had taken place.They found that the said fire was inside Bagia Restaurant from where smoke and flames were appearing.Constable Abdul Nazeer Kunju while asking him to stay there went to make a telephone call to the police station and the fire brigade and came back within 15/20 minutes by which time the smoke and fire flames had become enriched.He also deposed that he along with constable Abdul Nazeer Kunju scaled the back side wall and entered the said restaurant for extinguishing the fire.On reaching near the tandoor they found that accused Keshav Kumar was trying to enrich the fire with the help of a wooden balli whereupon he and constable Kunju asked him not to do so otherwise the fire would spread in the entire hotel but Keshav said that he was a worker of Congress Party and he had burnt the old banners and waste posters of his Page 0808 party.He thereafter deposed that entrance gate of Bagia Restaurant was covered by the side covering of thick cloth(kanaat) and accused Sushil Sharma, proprietor of the hotel, as told to him by security guard Mahesh Prasad(PW-35), was standing there wearing white coloured kurta payjama.He also deposed that Rajesh Sahib, constable Kunju along with security staff took Keshav Kumar on the roof of the hotel for checking as to whether the fire had spread in the hotel.He further deposed that the man wearing white kurta pajama standing near the side covering of thick cloth (accused Sushil Sharma) came near the oven and scratched the fire with a wooden balli as a result of which the flames again erupted.He further deposed that by the time Rajesh Sahab etc. came down accused Sushil Sharma had left from there.Foul smell was coming from the fire and on attentively seeing an unknown human body of a woman was found lying whose burnt bones were lying on the oven and the intestines were also appearing.He also deposed that the white kurta and pants of Keshav Kumar were stained with blood and he was arrested.PW-4 thereafter deposed that 10/12 days after the incident he was called at Tilak Marg where ACP and the investigating officer and accused Sushil Sharma were present and he had identified accused Sushil Sharma as the same person who had left Bagia restaurant after flaming up the fire on the night of 2nd July.The trial Court had examined one PCR official also as a court witness.He is CW-5 Head Constable Majid Khan.He has deposed that on the night of 2nd July,1995 he was on duty on PCR Vehicle of which Ranbir Singh was the driver.They went to Ashok Yatri Niwas for drinking water and there they noticed fire in Bagia restaurant and then he Along with Ranbir driver and Mahesh Prasad went towards the gate of Bagia restaurant.There was a kanaat fixed at the gate and one man(appellant Sushil Sharma) was standing there from whom he enquired about the cause of fire.That man told him that they were burning old banners and waste papers and flags of Congress party and that man also said that he was leader of youth Congress.He correctly identified both accused Sushil Sharma and Keshav Kumar.25. PW-5 Krishan Kumar Tuli during those days was the General Manager in Ashok Yatri Niwas.He deposed that in the intervening night of 2nd/3rd July, 1995 at 12.45 a.m. he received a telephonic call from the security staff that fire had broken out in Bagia Bar-be-Que restaurant on receipt of which he went to Bagia Restaurant.Some burnt pieces of wood were lying on the tandoor of Bagia Restaurant and a dead body of a woman of 25/30 years in burnt condition was seen between the woods on the tandoor.Accused Keshav Kumar, Manager of Bagia restaurant was also present.Similarly no such suggestion was given to the investigating officer PW-81 ACP Niranjan Singh that he had not lifted any charred body of a female from the tandoor at the Bagia Bar-be-Que that day.So, in the absence of any cross- examination of these material witnesses on this vital part of the prosecution case their statements in this regard stood admitted by the accused.It is now well settled that if a witness is not cross-examined on any relevant point deposed to by the witness its correctness cannot be disputed.Even during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Sushil Sharma did not claim that no such thing had happened in his Bagia restaurant.He simply claimed that he did not know anything in this regard.Learned senior counsel for the appellant had sought to demolish the testimonies of PWs 3 and 4, the two policemen who had entered the Bagia restaurant on hearing the shouts about the fire in the restaurant, mainly on the ground that their conduct at that time negatives their very presence in that area.It was submitted that both these witnesses even after knowing that fire had taken place in the restaurant did nothing immediately to extinguish the fire and instead Constable Kunju(PW-3) went around from one place to another to inform the police control room and fire brigade and in his absence PW-4 constable Chander Pal also did nothing and kept on waiting for Kunju to come and only after Kunju came back after about twenty minutes that they went inside the hotel compound and extinguished the fire.Mr. Sud also submitted that Ashok Yatri Niwas itself is a very big hotel and, therefore, if at all PW-3 Kunju had to make a telephone call to the local police or police control room at first instance before doing anything himself regarding the fire he could have gone inside the hotel to make the telephone call but he did not go there and went around at different places looking for a telephone booth and that despite the fact that even near the hotel there were places from where he could make phone call he did not go there and went up to a distance of a kilometer for that purpose leaving the fire spot in flames.Mr. Sud further submitted that PWs 3 and 4 both claim to have scaled over the wall on the back side of the hotel to enter inside instead of entering from main gate.That also improbablises their version.It was also contended that although PW-4 constable Chander Pal has claimed that accused Sushil Sharma had also come near the tandoor and had scratched the wood pieces when constable Kunju etc. had gone upstairs but despite that neither PW-4 nor PW-3 made any attempt to apprehend accused Sushil Sharma and it is not believable that if actually Sushil Sharma was there and these two policemen had smelt something foul they would have allowed him to go away like that.Mr. Sud contended that this abnormal conduct of PW-3 makes his very presence in the area around Ashok Yatri Niwas highly doubtful and being a policeman he was conveniently introduced as a witness by the investigating officer.We find from the cross-examination of PW-3 that good number of pages have been unnecessarily wasted only to elicit from him that he could have made phone calls to the police and fire brigade from many nearby places instead of going up to a distance of half a kilometer.There is no doubt that these two Page 0810 witnesses behaved like that but that behavior of theirs is not sufficient to brush aside their version of the incident.Different persons react differently in a particular situation.PW-3 thought it proper to first ring up the fire brigade and the police station.That was his decision at that moment.At that time he was not suspecting any foul play.What we have to see if the evidence of these two witnesses, as it appears on record, inspires confidence or not.They could not have cooked up such a story unless it had actually happened that way.We also find from the cross- examination of PW-3 Kunju on behalf of accused Keshav Kumar that it was suggested to this witness that Keshav Kumar had, in fact, informed him that he was the Manager of the hotel and that he was working as per the instructions of the owner.This suggestion put to the witness also confirms his presence at the Bagia Restaurant.One suggestion was put to PW-3 on behalf of Sushil Sharma that name of Sushil Sharma was taken by Mahesh Prasad(PW-35) at the time of recording of the FIR Ex. PW-3/A. Another suggestion put to this witness was that face of Keshav Kumar was quite black due to smoke and fire.These suggestions also confirm the presence of PW-3 at the Bagia Restaurant and also that of Sushil Sharma himself as otherwise Sushil Sharma could not have known that at the time of fire at the tandoor face of Keshav Kumar had become quite black due to smoke and fire.As far as the fact that these two witnesses did not make any efforts to apprehend Sushil Sharma is concerned we do not think that it makes any difference.Both of them have claimed that foul smell from the fire place could be felt by them when the persons who had gone to the roof of the hotel came back.By that time they had not suspected anything foul and so there was no occasion for constable Chander Pal to have apprehended Sushil Sharma before that.From the suggestion put to one of these witnesses on behalf of Sushil Sharma to the effect that the face of Keshav Kumar had become black due to smoke and that Keshav had taken the name of Sushil Sharma when FIR was being recorded it also appears to us that after seeing that lot of policemen had reached the spot accused Sushil Sharma kept on watching everything from some distance from where he could not be noticed by anyone.Another reason put forth by Mr. Sud for discrediting PW-2 Kunju was that he had been rewarded by the authorities and that shows that he had deposed falsely to get rewarded.There is no doubt that PW-3 was given cash reward by the Government in connection with this incident, as admitted by himself in cross-examination, but that does not show that he had been introduced as a witness after promising him that he would be rewared if he would depose falsely against Sushil Sharma.This kind of an argument was once made before the Supreme Court also in Laxmi Raj Shetty and Ors.Nothing has been shown to us from which it could be said that this exercise of power by the trial Court, which undoubtedly vested in it, was exercised improperly.PW-5 K.K.Tuli is also a totally independent witness.So, we can say that from the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5 and CW-5 it stands established beyond any shadow of doubt that on the night of 2nd July, 1995 dead body of some woman was being burnt on the tandoor of Bagia Bar-be-Que.It was being burnt by accused Keshav Kumar who, as noticed already, himself had also confessed about that during the trial.Even from the evidence of PW-85 Dr. Joginder Singh, who had examined the dead body for the first time in the hospital where it was shifted, and the autopsy surgeons PW-44 Dr. Bharat Singh, Dr. T.D. Dogra(PW-68) and CW-6 Dr. Murari Prasad Sarangi it stands established that the charred corpse examined by them was that of a female and in this regard their findings were not challenged in their cross-examination on behalf of the accused and not even in the course of arguments before us by the learned senior counsel for the appellant.Now, we come to the evidence about the presence of appellant Sushil Sharma at the Bagia restaurant on the night of 2nd July, 1995 and the prosecution allegations that he was also burning the body.Their evidence we have already narrated.There are other witnesses also whose evidence has been relied upon by the prosecution to show the presence of Sushil Sharma at the Bagia Bar-be-Que.On 2nd July, 1995 he was doing his duty as usual at night time and that day his guest Ganga had come to see him.After five to seven minutes Manager Keshav Kumar asked him(PW-1) to close the programme and to go back to his house saying that his(PW-1's) duty was over.He also deposed that he closed his programme and Keshav Kumar switched off the lights and then they(PW-1 and his wife) left for their house.31. PW-2 Nisha was employed as a singer at the Bagia Bar-be-Que.She deposed that on 2nd July, 1995 she along with her husband was on duty at Bagia Restaurant from 8 p.m. to 12 O' clock and they started their duty at 8 p.m. She also then deposed the facts as had been deposed by her husband Philips.All of them were independent witnesses having Page 0812 no reason to depose falsely against the accused about his having been seen by them at his Bagia restaurant that night.However, learned senior counsel for the appellant had lots to say about the veracity of these witnesses.Regarding PWs 1 and 2 Mr. Sud had contended that they have been falsely introduced by the investigating officer to show the presence of Sushil Sharma at the Bagia Bar-be-Que on the night of 2nd July and the reality is that none of them used to perform any programme there nor holding of any musical events there was permissible since the restaurant had no permission from the authorities to have music programmes.We are, however, not impressed with this argument.PWs 1 and 2 have clearly deposed that they used to perform musical programmes at Bagia restaurant.Now, whether any permission was required to be obtained from some Government Department for such events or not and whether Sushil Sharma had obtained such permission were not the points in issue and necessary to have been established by the prosecution for making the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 acceptable.These two witnesses were not concerned with the compliance of the legal formalities, if any, by the owner of the restaurant for having musical evenings at the restaurant.They were artists and if they were asked to perform at the Bagia restaurant by its management they were not supposed to be confirming before accepting the offer whether necessary permission from the authorities had been obtained or not.Mr. Sud had also submitted that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not consistent inasmuch as PW-1 had also deposed that one Ganga had come to Bagia restaurant on that night and he had after sometime gone out of the restaurant to see him off while PW-2 does not depose anything about the visit of some Ganga and further that Ganga has not been examined to corroborate the version of these two witnesses.The prosecution has also not produced any documentary evidence to show that any musical programmes were conducted by PWs 1 and 2 at the Bagia restaurant.We, do not think that for these reasons the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 can be discarded.There is hardly any inconsistency in their statements.There was no necessity of examining their guest Ganga.Their evidence did not require corroboration from any other witness.Both of them have in any case corroborated each other.In fact, their version stood admitted by the accused when it was suggested to PW-1 in cross-examination that when lights were switched off customers had raised objection.It was also contended by Mr. Sud that PW-5 K.K.Tuli, General Manager of Ashok Yatri Niwas has not claimed that at the Bagia Restaurant music programmes also used to be performed by PWs 1 and 2 and also that on 2nd July he had seen any stage there for such a programme and even PW-7 Anaro Devi, PW-35 Mahesh Prasad, security guard, and PW-3 Kunju and PW-4 Constable Chander Pal do not claim that they had seen any stage there and so for this reason also evidence of PWs 1 and 2 should not be believed.This submission is also devoid of substance.These witnesses were examined to depose about what they had witnessed that night and they have deposed about that.Their not saying anything about the existence of stage Page 0813 for musical programme at the Bagia restaurant cannot make the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 in any way unreliable.Mr. Sud had also contended that in any event the presence of Sushil Sharma at the Bagia restaurant on the night of 2nd July is not at all established from the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and CW-5 who had all deposed falsely about the presence of Sushil Sharma at the time of burning of the dead body since they are policemen and so highly interested in the success of the case.It was also argued that the prosecution had cited the security guard of Ashok Yatri Niwas, Mahesh Prasad(PW-35), for establishing the presence of Sushil Sharma at the restaurant but he was not examined and was given up but later on he was summoned by the trial Court as a Court witness.He, however did not support the prosecution case in this regard and since all the above referred three policemen claimed that it was this security guard Mahesh Prasad who had told them that at the time of burning of dead body Sushil Sharma was the person standing at the gate of Bagia restaurant watching the burning of the dead body by Keshav Kumar and that he was the owner of Bagia restaurant their evidence becomes inadmissible being hearsay.Learned Counsel further contended that in any case the identification of Sushil Sharma by PWs 3 and 4 for the first time in Court is of no value at all since they did not know Sushil Sharma from before and no prior test identification parade was got done by the police for these witnesses.In our view, evidence of PWs 3, 4 and CW-5 cannot be discarded because they are policemen.Being a policeman is no disqualification to be a witness in a criminal trial.They had no reason to depose falsely against the accused.They were on patrolling duty and so were expected to be in the area under their jurisdiction.It was not unnatural for them to have been around Ashok Yatri Niwas at the time of incident at Bagia restaurant.We do not find anything in their cross-examination which may throw any doubt about the correctness of their version.In cross-examination it was not suggested to them that they had not seen Sushil Sharma at the police station.So, when these witnesses had already identified Sushil Sharma soon after his having been brought to Delhi from Bangalore holding of formal TIP was not necessary at all.In this regard Mr. Sud had also submitted that the statement of PWs 3 and 4 that they had seen Sushil Sharma at the police station was made as a result of their tutoring by the investigating officer to avoid the consequences of non-holding of formal TIP.In the present case the appellant was physically present at the police station when he was identified only few days after the incident by PWs 3 and 4 and so their evidence in Court cannot be rejected for want of formal test identification parade.And it is not that the prosecution ie relying upon the evidence of only these two policemen.In addition to their evidence PWs 1 and 2 have also deposed about the presence of Sushil Sharma at the Bagia Restaurant.They were the artists engaged to perform at Sushil Sharma's restaurant and so knew him.It is for the Court to assess the value of identification of the accused in Court for the first time when the identifying witness did not know the accused earlier to the incident.They had no axe to grind against Sushil Sharma nor any motive was attributed to them for falsely claiming that Sushil Sharma was seen by them at the Bagia restaurant.And as Page 0815 far as their statement that PW-35 had also told them that Sushil Sharma was the owner of Bagia Restaurant is concerned, even if it is ignored because PW-35 does not claim to have told them this fact also, it would not make any dent in the prosecution case since Sushil Sharma, as noticed already, has himself admitted that he was running the Bagia restaurant under an agreement with ITDC.Mr. Sud had also submitted that Mahesh Prasad when examined as a court witness had claimed that he Along with another person had apprehended two persons while they were running away and also that none of the accused present in Court were those two persons and further that the body lying on the tandoor was that of a man.Mr. Sud contended that since Mahesh Prasad was initially a prosecution witness, though finally examined as a court witness, his statement to that effect is binding on the prosecution.The contention was that the police has not disclosed as to who those two persons were who had been apprehended by Mahesh Prasad and some other person, as claimed by him, and what investigation was done about those two persons and in the absence of that information by the police the entire case becomes doubtful.There is no doubt that PW-35 had claimed so but that does not show that the evidence of other witnesses regarding the role of Sushil Sharma and Keshav Kumar becomes unreliable.On this aspect necessary cross-examination of investigation officer should have been done but that was not done and nothing was extracted from him which could show that some other persons other than Keshav Kumar were arrested at the spot.As far as the statement of Mahesh Prasad that he had seen the body of a man lying on the tandoor is concerned we think that in view of the evidence of the doctors who have clearly deposed that it was the body of a female the statement of Mahesh Prasad to the contrary cannot be given any importance.There is circumstantial evidence also to show that Sushil Sharma had come to Bagia Restaurant on that night.In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Sushil Sharma had admitted that the said car belonged to him.That car was found abandoned by a constable(PW-72) of Chanakya Puri police station on 4/7/95 at Malcha Marg near Gujarat Bhawan.Presence of the said car at Malcha Marg lying abandoned there confirms the version of PWs 1 and 2 that on 2nd night Sushil Sharma had come to his restaurant in the said car and it also shows that after fleeing from the restaurant in his car he must have thought to abandon his car because the police might have flashed the messages all around to intercept that car wherever it is noticed.The appellant, however, has taken a plea that this car was parked by his driver at his(appellant's) house in Maurya Enclave and from there it had been picked up by the police in his absence when he was at Tirupati from 1st July to 6th July.However, the appellant has not even attempted to establish it by examining anyone who might be living in his house including his driver to show that the police had in fact picked up his car from his house.So, this can be said to be a false plea taken by the appellant.We have, in any case, examined the prosecution evidence about the recovery of the said car of the appellant from Malcha Marg and found the same also to be reliable.The Page 0816 witness from Chanakya Puri police station is PW-72 Constable Mukesh Kumar who has deposed that on 4/7/95 he had noticed car No. DL-2CA-1872 lying abandoned at Malcha Marg while he was on patrolling duty there.He has also deposed that before leaving the police station he had been given the number of said car by the SHO saying that it was involved in the murder case of Connaught Place police station and he should keep an eye on the car with said number in case he comes across the car.This police witness had also no reason to depose falsely in this regard and we have no reason to disbelieve him nor anything material could be elicited from him in cross-examination which could discredit him.We are, therefore, of the view that from the evidence of PWs 1-5, 7 and CW-5 and also the evidence about recovery of appellant's car at Malcha Marg as deposed by PW 72 and the investigating officer(PW-81) who claims to have seized the car from there it stands established beyond any doubt that on the night of 2nd July, 1995 the appellant was also at the Bagia Bar-be-Que burning the body of a female on the tandoor there with the help of his co-accused Keshav Kumar.The third circumstance pressed into service by the prosecution is that the death of the female whose body was being burnt on the tandoor by the appellant and the other convict Keshav Kumar was homicidal.In our view the circumstance that body of the lady was being burnt on a tandoor of a Bar-be-Que, which is actually meant for roasting chicken, muttone etc. for human consumption, itself is sufficient to show that the lady had died a homicidal death.Bagia restaurant was not a cremation ground.There was no reason for burning the body of someone at the Bar-be-Que if it was not a homicidal death.That burning was done after turning out everyone from the restaurant.Regarding the post-mortem reports it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that to give it a colour of homicidal death the police had pressurized even the autopsy surgeons who had conducted the second post-mortem-examination to show the presence of bullets in the skull and neck region of the dead body by implanting the same there which could be quite easily done since at the time of first post-mortem examination skull was separated from the body and in that process there became sufficient gap through which bullets could be inserted inside.It was also argued that in fact there was no necessity of second post- mortem and it was got done since in the first post-mortem report no firearm injury had been noticed by Dr. M.P.Sarangi who had conducted the post-mortem examination and the police wanted the doctors to show firearm injury since the licensed revolver and some cartridges belonging to the appellant had in the meantime been removed by the police from his house at Maurya Enclave during his absence and had fired through that revolver and then planted the bullets in the skull of the charred body.In these circumstances the remarks of the learned trial Judge against Dr.' were unjustified.We are unable to accept this argument also because no such suggestion was put to PW-57 SI Om Vir who had taken the dead body for X-ray examination that he had implanted the bullets during the period dead body remained with him or that he had handed over the body to someone else before handing it over to the radiologist.It was not suggested even to the radiologist Dr. P.S.Kiran(CW-7) that she had implanted bullets in the skull.Of course, as noticed already, it was suggested to the investigating officer in his cross-examination that he had fixed the bullets in the dead body but he refuted that imputation.Burning of the dead body on the tandoor of his restaurant and telling the policemen that he was burning party flags and posters are sufficient circumstances to show that Sushil Sharma was responsible for the homicidal death of that woman.We will, hoever, refrain from making any comment regarding the acquittal of Keshav Kumar for the charge of murder since the State, which we find these days is quite choosy in challenging acquittals, has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of Keshav Kumar for the offence of murder.The prosecution is claiming that the appellant after the incident had been running around from one city to another and finally he could be arrested at Bangalore on 10/07/95 and then the appellant had got recovered his licensed revolver of .32 bore Along with its license and four live cartridges from a room in Pie Vihar hotel at Bangalore where he was staying with one advocate Shri Anand Narain.The appellant has claimed that he was falsely shown as arrested at Bangalore while the fact is that after his anticipatory bail was cancelled by Madras High Court he himself had surrendered at Bangalore.He was posted as Circle Inspector at Hauze Kote Police station, Bangalore on 11.7.1995 when the appellant Sushil Sharma had allegedly after his arrest got recovered his revolver etc. He is one of the witnesses to the recoveries of the licensed revolver of the appellant, its license and live cartridges from room No. 110 of Pie Vihar Hotel at Bangalore.This witness also deposed that the seized articles were seized vide memo Ex.PW-47/A. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution for establishing the recoveries of the revolver, live cartridges and the license etc. are PW-55 ACP Raj Mahendra who was posted in the Crime Branch of Delhi police on 11.7.1995, and the investigating officer PW-81 Niranjan Singh.Both these police officials have also deposed about these recoveries at the instance of the appellant Sushil Sharma from room No. 110 Pie Vihar hotel at Bangalore.All these three police officials corroborate each other on this aspect of the prosecution case and their evidence has remained unshaken in cross-examination on behalf of the accused.Learned senior counsel for the appellant had, however, sought to discard their evidence on the ground that the prosecution has not examined advocate Sh.Anant Narayan who was also allegedly present at the time of alleged recoveries in room No. 110, Pie Vihar hotel and there is no other independent witness to support those recoveries and based on the evidence of police witnesses only this Court should not accept the recoveries of the revolver and live cartridges etc. from Bangalore.There is no doubt that as per the prosecution case when the police team led by Sushil Sharma had reached Pie Vihar hotel at Bangalore one Sh.Anant Narayan, advocate was present in room No. 110 but his non-examination cannot render the evidence of the three police officials unreliable since he was the advocate of Sushil Sharma and it was with him that the appellant was found moving around in a suspicious manner at Bangalore.So, non examination of Sh.Anant Narayan has no adverse effect on the prosecution case regarding the recoveries from Pie Vihar hotel at Bangalore.Counsel for the appellant had also contended that the investigating officer had not disclosed at the Bangalore Airport that he was carrying with him revolver and live cartridges and since everyone knows that carrying of fire arms in an aeroplane is prohibited the only inference which can be drawn by this Court in the absence of evidence of disclosure of the presence of revolver Page 0821 and live cartridges with the investigating officer to the Airport Authorities is that no such recoveries were made at Bangalore and in fact the police had removed the same from the residence of the appellant.We do not think that even this submission of the learned Counsel has any substance.The investigating officer has claimed in his evidence that he had disclosed to the security staff at the Bangalore airport that he was carrying with him a revolver.We have no reason to disbelieve him.And in any case, even if the investigating officer had carried with him in the flight the revolver recovered from the possession of the appellant without disclosing the same to the security staff that would not belie the recovery the revolver etc. from Bangalore.At the most, the airport authorities could have taken action for the violation of security instructions against the investigating officer if at all there was any such lapse on his part and the security officials could detect the revolver at the airport.Learned State counsel had rightly submitted that recovery of revolver etc. from Pie Vihar Hotel at Bangalore cannot be doubted because it had not been mentioned in the remand application moved at Delhi that revolver had been recovered as at that time it was still not certain whether firing had been resorted to from applant's Arminus revolver or from some other weapon.In our view, the evidence of the three police officials regarding the recoveries of revolver, its license and live cartridges from the possession of appellant Sushil Sharma inspires full confidence and required no further assurance.As far as the appellant is concerned he has claimed that his licensed revolver Along with its license and live cartridges were taken away by one ACP Alok Kumar of Delhi police from his residence at Maurya Enclave in Delhi.We consider this to be a false plea because the appellant has not even attempted to establish the same either by adducing necessary evidence in his defense or from the evidence of prosecution witnesses.He has taken a plea that when he was away to Tirupati he had been informed on phone when he had called up his residence that one ACP Alok Kumar had taken away revolver etc. from his house.The appellant has, however, neither disclosed as to who had informed him that the police had visited his house and had taken away his revolver etc. nor has he examined that person or anyone else from his family who might be staying in the house at Maurya Enclave where he claims to have been residing those days.We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution has also been able to establish that the appellant was carrying with him at Bangalore .32 bore revolver (Arminus) with live cartridges.Since, the ballistic expert Sh.It was then submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the appellant was specifically charged for the murder of Naina Sahni only he cannot be convicted unless it is also established that Page 0822 the body being burnt on the tandoor of Bagia restaurant was that of Naina Sahni.Mr. Sud contended that the prosecution has failed miserably to establish the identity of the corpse and that although it has sought to establish the identity of the corpse by examining some witnesses but evidence of none of those witnesses is reliable.It was also submitted that even the DNA test relied upon by the prosecution cannot be accepted since evidence in that regard suffers from many infirmities.Now, we come to the evidence regarding the identity of the corpse lifted from the tandoor of Bagia Bar-be-Que.As noticed already, the prosecution case is that the deceased was one Naina Sahni and she was the wife of appellant Sushil Sharma although they had not got married publicly.It is also the case of the prosecution that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were living together as husband and wife in flat No. 8/2A, DIZ Area, Mandir Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi.He had also admitted that since there was some dispute between her and her father, CW-2 Harbhajan Singh, she had started living separately in Gole Market where he(accused) used to go whenever he was invited by her to attend the functions which used to be organized at her residence.Sushil Sharma had also admitted that CW-1 Smt. Jaswant Kaur was the mother of Naina Sahni.When a question was put to him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that CW Jaswant Kaur had deposed she did not join any marriage of Naina Sahni but he(Sushil Sharma) was living with Naina Sahni his answer was (at p.419 of trial court proceedings and page No. 351 of paper book, part-6) that 'It is incorrect.Naina Sahni lived Along with me at Gol Market'.So, Sushil Sharma admits that he was living with one Naina Sahni.However, besides this admission of the appellant there is a lot of other reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish that both of them were living together as husband-wife at Mandir Marg flat.Smt. Jaswant Kaur, the mother of Naina Sahni, was examined by the trial Court as a Court witness(CW-1) and her father Shri Harbhajan Singh was also examined as a Court witness(CW-2).Both of them have deposed that Naina Sahni was their daughter.CW-2 Shri Harbhajan Singh also deposed that his daughter Naina Sahni was residing in Gole Market, Mandir Marg with her husband accused Sushil Sharma.CW-1 Smt. Jaswant Kaur also deposed that Naina Sahni was living with accused Sushil Sharma at Gole Market.When they were cross-examined on behalf of accused Sushil Sharma it was not even suggested to anyone of them that they had wrongly deposed that accused Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were living together in a flat at Mandir Marg as a married couple.So, their statements that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were living together as husband and wife stood admitted by Sushil Sharma.Learned senior counsel for the appellant had, however, contended that the mother of Naina Sahni had claimed in her cross-examination that she had not attended the marriage of her daughter Naina then how can it be believed that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were married to each other.Mr. Sud contended that there is no other witness also who could claim to have attended their marriage and, therefore, it cannot be said that Page 0823 the evidence of the parents of Naina Sahni is sufficient to hold that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were living together as husband and wife.In the absence of any cross-examination of parents of Naina Sahni on their statement that accused Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were living together in a flat at Mandir Marg and that of CW-2 Shri Harbhajan Singh that his daughter Naina Sahni had married accused Sushil Sharma, their statements in this regard have remained unchallenged and stood admitted by accused Sushil Sharma.So, there was no need to examine anyone else who might have attended the marriage of the appellant and Naina Sahni.He has claimed that he was the personal servant of accused Sushil Sharma.He deposed that accused Sushil Sharma was living with his wife Naina Sahni at flat No. 8/2A, Mandir Marg.He also deposed that he knew Naina Sahni since 1992 when she used to visit the office of Youth Congress of which accused Sushil Sharma was the President.He himself was also living in the same flat at Mandir Marg where Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were living.In his cross-examination also it was not disputed on behalf of accused Sushil Sharma that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were living together at Mandir Marg in a flat.It was also not suggested to him that his statement that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were husband and wife was not correct.Criticising the evidence of this witness Mr. Sud had submitted that his evidence is also of no worth because in cross-examination he had stated that it was Naina Sahni who had told him that she was married to Sushil Sharma and that shows that he himself did not know about their relationship and so his statement in this regard cannot be relied upon because it is in the nature of hearsay evidence.We are not impressed with this argument also.PW-81 was asked on behalf of appellant himself during cross-examination as to how he was claiming that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were married to each other and it was then that he had stated that Naina Sahni herself had told that their marriage had been performed.Thereafter it was not challenged that Naina Sahni had never told him so.Having elicited an unfavorable answer from the witness in cross-examination the appellant cannot avoid its consequences.It had also been deposed by PW-82 that Sushil Sharma used to beat Naina Sahni.In this regard all that was suggested to him in cross-examination was that Sushil Sharma never beat Naina Sahni in his (PW-82's) presence and not that Sushil Sharma never beat her or that they did not even live together in flat No. 8/2A. So, it is clear that the appellant Sushil Sharma was not interested in disputing his relationship with Naina Sahni and their living together in flat No. 8/2A. And that is evident from another suggestion also put to PW-82 in cross-examination.It was suggested to him that Naina Sahni used to return home in the cars of Ministers.That suggestion which, of course was denied by PW-82, shows that Sushil Sharma was clearly admitting that Naina Sahni was living in flat No. 8/2A and he himself was also living with her as otherwise he could not have seen Naina Sahni coming back home in the cars of Ministers.This suggestion also shows that the appellant was also admitting that PW-82 was also residing in the same flat as otherwise there Page 0824 was no occasion for putting him this kind of a suggestion which he was not expected to admit or deny unless he was staying in the same flat where they were staying.So from the statement of PW-82 also it stands established that accused Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were living together as husband and wife in flat No. 8/2A at Mandir Marg.The prosecution has also examined one couple living in a flat opposite to flat No. 8/2A. PW-11 Mrs. R.K.Chaudhary, is a retired Government servant.She has deposed that in July, 1995 she was living in flat No. 8/2B, DIZ Area, Gole Market.She has also deposed that accused Sushil Sharma was living with his wife Naina in flat No. 8/2A which was in front of her flat.She also deposed that Sushil Sharma and Naina had stayed in that flat for about 2' years.This statement of PW-11 remained unchallenged during her cross-examination on behalf of accused Sushil Sharma.In cross-examination when it was asked from her whether she had seen Sushil Sharma and Naina before 2nd July, 1995 her answer was that both of them used to be present in the house almost daily.Another question put to this witness in cross-examination was as to how she came to know about the name of Naina.She answered that Naina herself had told her name.These questions put to this witness also show that accused Sushil Sharma was not disputing that he was living with Naina Sahni in the flat at Mandir Marg.He also fully corroborated the statement of his wife PW-11 Mrs. R.K. Chaudhary that accused Sushil Sharma was living with his wife in flat No. 8/2A, Gole Market, Sector-II.In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Sushil Sharma it was asked from him whether it was his guess only that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were residing there as husband and wife and in reply this witness admitted that it was his guess only.However, no suggestion was put to him that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were not living in flat No. 8/2A as claimed by him.A neighbour would be fully justified in guessing that a young couple living in the next door house must be husband and wife unless there is something very suspicious noticed in their relationship or behavior.So, just because PW-9 says that it was his guess only that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were a married couple his testimony does not become worthless, as was contended by the senior counsel for the appellant.The prosecution is also relying upon the testimony of PW-12 Sh.Matloob Karim who, as noticed already, was the first one to identify the dead body being burnt at Bagia Bar-be-Que to be that of Naina Sahni.He has deposed that he was the Organising Secretary of Youth Congress in the year 1989 when accused Sushil Sharma was its President and Naina Sahni was the General Secretary.He also deposed that he knew Naina Sahni from 1984 when they were in the student's union of Delhi University and because of their association they had fallen in love with each other but they could not marry being from different religions.They, however, continued to be close friends.He got married in December, 1988 while Naina Sahni married Sushil Sharma in 1992 as told to him by Naina herself.This witness further Page 0825 deposed that before her marriage Naina Sahni used to reside at 24/3, West Patel Nagar and after her marriage she was living at 8/2A, DIZ Area, Gole Market with Sushil Sharma.In his cross- examination it was not claimed that that Sushil Sharma did not even know him.PW-12 was asked to tell the address of Naina Sahni in Gole Market.It was perhaps thought that he would not be in a position to give the address which may throw some doubt about the veracity of his testimony.However, he correctly gave the address of Naina Sahni to be 8/2A, DIZ Area, Gole Market.In his cross- examination which was quite lengthy the whole focus was to tarnish the character of Naina Sahni and not to dislodge his statement that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were living together at Mandir Marg.Learned Counsel for the appellant had made an attempt to persuade us to ignore the testimony of this witness stating that he had clearly a motive to falsely implicate the appellant because of political rivalry and also because he could not succeed in marrying Naina Sahni.Nothing has been elicited from this witness in his cross-examination from which it could be inferred that he had any scores to settle with Sushil Sharma as members of the Youth Wing of the Congress Party or that they had ever contested any election for any particular post and one had defeated the other.In fact, in cross-examination this witness in answer to a question had stated that he had never contested any election.This witness has fairly claimed that he was in love with Naina Sahni but when they could not get married they parted and he then got married to a girl of his own community and Naina married Sushil Sharma.In cross-examination it was asked from PW-12 if he had been meeting Naina Sahni even after her marriage clandestinely.This suggestion also conveys an admission of Sushil Sharma that Naina Sahni was married to Sushil Sahrma.Although these kind of suggestions, as noticed already, were being put to PW-12 to show that Naina Sahni was a woman of loose character which allegation could not be established merely on the basis of these suggestions but in the process it stood definitely admitted by Sushil Sharma that he was married to Naina Sahni.We can, therefore, safely rely upon the statement of this PW-12 Matloob Karim also in favor of the prosecution case to the effect that accused Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were living together in flat No. 8/2A, DIZ Area, Sector- II, Mandir Marg, Gol Market, New Delhi.PW-15 is yet another independent witness examined by the prosecution to establish that Sushil Sahrma was living in the flat at Mandir Marg with Naina Sahni as her husband.He is Head Constable Amba Das.PW-15 was during July,1995, when this incident took place, the Beat Constable of Mandir Marg area.He has deposed that he knew Sushil Sharma as he was a prominent leader of Congress Party.Once he had gone to the house of Sushil Sharma while on duty for verification of the houses there and at that time accused Sushil Sharma had met him and told him that he should take care of his car No. DL-2CA-1872 and of car No. DAL-3283 of his wife and also to take care of their house as well since he and his wife did not stay at home during day time.This witness also deposed that on 02-07-1995 at about 9.30 p.m. he had seen accused Sushil Sharma going somewhere in his white Maruti Car No. DL-2CA-1872 from the parking area of the complex Page 0826 where he was living and at that time Sushil Sharma had waived his hand towards him but did not talk to him as he(Sushil Sharma) was in a hurry.This witness examined by the prosecution also could not be discredited in cross- examination.Except for putting him a suggestion that on 02-07-1995 he had not seen Sushil Sharma going away in his car, which he denied, his statement about Sushil Sharma living out Mandir Marg with his wife had remained unchallenged.Mr. Sud had cited some judgments reported as , and in support of his contention that just because some witness is not cross-examined on some point(s) it would not show that accused accepts that version of the witness if the version of the witness is intrinsically unreliable.This proposition would however not help the appellant here because evidence of none of the witnesses discussed above can be said to be intrinsically unreliable.In fact, in a judgment reported as (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 560, State of UP v. Nahar Singh and Ors.Hon'ble Supreme Court had very clearly held (in para 13) that if any part of testimony of a witness is not challenged in cross-examination the Court should believe it to be correct.All of them are wholly reliable witnesses and we see no reason to disbelieve anyone of them.Mr. Sud would like us to say that everybody on this earth had conspired against the appellant Sushil Sharma to get him convicted.We are, however, not persuaded to accept that right from a poor vegetable vendor(PW-7 Anaro), constables(PWs 3 and 4) and top police officers including the investigating officer ACP Niranjan Singh, doctors including the autopsy surgeons Dr. Bharat Singh and Dr. T.D.Dogra, everybody had conspired to depose falsely against Sushil Sharma.Mr. Sud had also contended that the investigating officer should have examined some paperwallah, cablewallah, dhobi etc. of Mandir Marg area to show that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were living in flat No. 8/2A, Mandir Marg, Gole Market.Here, we may also observe that even though the appellant Sushil Sharma has disputed that he was living at the flat in Mandir Marg with Naina Sahni and has claimed that in fact he was living in house No. MP-27, in Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi but he has not made Page 0827 even attempted to establish that which he could have easily done by examining his family members living with him or some one from his neighborhood there.The fact that Sushil Sharma was living at Mandir Marg flat with Naina Sahni gets further strengthened from recovery of some documents pertaining to his Bagia restaurant (Ex.PW-11/1-20) on 4/7/95 from the said flat which would not have been there in case he was actually not living there.In this regard the appellant's plea is that the documents of Bagia restaurant were taken by the police from PW-5 K.K.Tuli and shown to have been recovered from the said flat.PW-11/1-20 to the police.We have examined the evidence of independent witnees PW-13 Dhara Singh in whose presence these documents were recovered from the flat at Mandir Marg.His evidence also inspires full confidence.The fact is that he was living with her, as had been admitted by himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It also stands established that in the evening of 2nd July, 1995 Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were together present in the flat at Mandir Marg and at about 9.30 p.m. Sushil Sharma was seen going in his maruti car from Mandir Marg by PW-15 HC Amba Prasad, the Beat Constable of that area and sometime thereafter he was seen at his Bagia restaurant.After that day Naina Sahni was not seen alive by anyone.Page 0828 Her mother has claimed that she did not meet Naina after this incident and her father has also deposed that she was dead.In these circumstances, it was for Sushil Sharma to have explained as to where Naina Sahni had disappeared after 2nd July, 1995 if actually her body was not being burnt or to have disclosed as to whose corpse it was.In the absence of any explanation coming forth from his side there can be no other conclusion except that it was Naina Sahni only whose body was burnt on the tandoor of Bagia Bar-be-Que.We are further of the view that even if we had come to the conclusion that Sushil Sharma was not living with Naina Sahni at the Mandir Marg flat still the finding would have been that he only had killed her.The bullets extracted from the corpse were found to have been fired through .32 bore Arminus revolver of the appellant.The prosecution case is that when the police went to that flat on being informed by accused Keshav Kumar that Sushil Sharma was living there five fired cartridge cases and a lead bullet were found lying there and those cartridges and the lead bullet were also found by the ballistic expert Shri Roop Singh to have been fired from the licensed revolver of Sushil Sharma.We have already rejected the plea of the appellant that his revolver etc. were removed by the police from his house at Maurya Enclave in his absence.Appellant has claimed that Naina Sahni only was living in the said flat.So, from these facts the only conclusion is that Naina Sahni only had been shot at in her flat and the appellant only had done that.Learned senior counsel had, however, submitted that the recovery of cartridge cases from the said flat is highly doubtful and in fact the same had been kept there by the police itself after removing the appellant's licensed .32 bore Arminus revolver and its cartridges from his house at Maurya Enclave and firing from that revolver to show that Naina Sahni was murdered there.He also contended that the evidence of the witnesses to these recoveries is highly doubtful.It was contended that even though the cartridge cases were allegedly found in the flat on 4th July, 1995 but on that day the same were not taken into possession by the police and were seized on 5th July and that fact definitely casts a serious doubt about the genuineness of the said recoveries from the flat since there was no good reason for the investigating officer to have left such highly incriminating articles in the flat itself for a day.Learned Counsel had also submitted that if actually five cartridge cases and one lead bullet had been found in the flat on 3rd July the same should have been immediately seized and sent to CFSL which was not done and that fact also makes the whole story doubtful.He has stated that the flat was kept under surveillance of the SHO of the Mandir Marg police station from 3rd July and so there was no risk of these cartridges being removed from the flat between 3rd and 5th July.We Page 0829 have no reason to view the decision of the investigating officer not to seize the cartridges on 4th July with any suspicion and to hold that he had not seized the same since actually the same were not found in the flat.We have gone through the evidence of PW-16 Shri V.N.Sehgal, former Director of CFSL and that of police witnesses including the investigating officer on this aspect of the matter and have not found anything either in their chief-examination or cross- examination which could have made their evidence unreliable and the recoveries of five fired cartridge cases, one lead bullet from the flat suspect.Mr. Sud submitted that Shri V.N.Sehgal has claimed that Shri Roop Singh, ballistic expert had lifted the cartridges etc. from the flat but Shri Roop Singh does not claim so in his evidence and that shows that the alleged recoveries on 5th July,1995 were an eye-wash.If actually the investigating officer had not found fired cartridges in the flat on 4th July he would not have made the application Ex.PW-81/X-1 on 5/7/95 to the autopsy surgeon for getting X-ray also done for finding out if there was any firearm injury which he was suspecting to be possible because of his having found fired cartridges and one lead bullet and a bullet hole on the ply-board on the air-conditioner in the room in the flay at Mandir Marg.In case the accused wanted to belie the version of Mr. Sehgal Mr. Roop Singh could have been asked in cross-examination if he had lifted cartridges from the flat.That was not done.Thus, recovery of cartridges belonging to appellant Sushil Sharma from the flat of Naina Sahni and blood on various articles lying there also shows that at least on 2nd July, 1995 Sushil Sharma had definitely gone to her flat and had shot her dead and after killing her he had taken the corpse to his Bagia restaurant for being burnt there.In this case, for DNA test blood samples of the parents of Naina Sahni and the tissues taken from the thigh portion of the dead body, two ribs and pieces of radius and ulna bones were sent to the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology at Hyderabad(CCMB).There the blood samples of the parents of Naina Sahni and the afore-said samples from the body of the deceased were subjected to DNA test by the experts in the field of DNA, namely, Dr. Lalji Singh and Dr.CW-1 Smt. Jaswant Kaur has also deposed that she had not seen her daughter Naina Sahni after this incident.These statements of the parents of Naina Sahni have not been disputed by Sushil Sharma.In the DNA report Ex. PW-83/B-2 also it was stated that since other children of Shri Harbhajan Singh and Smt. Jaswant Kaur were alive the charred remains were definitely that of Ms. Naina Sahni.Mr. Sud, learned Counsel for the appellant would however, submit that no reliance can be placed on the DNA report relied upon the prosecution in the present case for some good reasons.He started his attack on the DNA evidence with the submission that Dr.G.V.Rao(PW-87) who had actually conducted the DNA test was not an 'expert' within the ambit of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act when he did this test and also that the DNA report is in any case not signed by him but one Dr. Lalji Singh(PW-83) claims to have signed it.in forensic aspects of DNA fingerprinting.He also claimed that he had examined around Page 0831 1300 cases pertaining to DNA Fingerprinting and that he had appeared in various courts throughout the country as an expert of DNA Fingerprinting.We have no reason to doubt his credentials as an 'expert' as contemplated in Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.He deposed that on 13.7.1995 he collected the blood samples of suspected parents namely Sh.Harbhajan Singh and Jaswant Kaur at Ram Manohar Lohia hospital and identification card Ex.G.V. Rao and had discussions also with him.After analysis and discussions, Dr.G.V. Rao had prepared a report Ex.PW-83/B and that on analysis it was found that the deceased was related to the suspected parents.Learned Counsel for the appellant had tried to show that there was every possibility of tampering of the samples.He, however, could not tell us as to what kind of tampering with the samples could be done to bring about a positive report that DNA extracted from the tissues of the charred body and from the blood of the parents matchs thereby confirming that the body burnt Page 0833 on the tandoor of Bagia restaurant on the night of 2nd July,1995 was that of Naina Sahni.Mr. Sud, however, went on maintaining that the prosecution has not ruled out tampering of both the samples.We will now examine the worth of those submissions also.Mr. Sud submitted that even though the tissue samples were allegedly taken by Dr. Lalji Singh to Hyderabad on 7th July in the morning although the same were taken from the dead body on 6th July but there is no proof that the samples were deposited in the malkhana to be kept in safe custody there for the night.In this regard we may notice here that Dr. Lalji Singh in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused that the parcel containing the tissue sample, ribs etc. had remained with him but in the custody of the police after it was taken at Lady Harding Hospital on 6th and he took over his custody at the airport on 7th morning so, it cannot be accepted that there was any possibility of tampering of the samples by the investigating officer whom in any case it was not even suggested in cross-examination that he had tampered with the samples.Mr. Sud then submitted that even though Dr. Lalji Singh claims to have taken the samples to Hyderabad on the 7th morning and says that samples were handed over to him at the airport but the prosecution documents belie his claim in that regard.Learned Counsel drew our attention to one document Ex. PW- 83/C which is a letter dated 13-07-95 written by DCP, New Delhi District to the Director, CCMB, Hyderabad wherein a request was made by the DCP to the Director, CCMB to depute some expert from his Institute for collecting necessary samples for establishing the identity of Naina Sahni.Our attention was also drawn to Ex. PW-83/D which is a forwarding note giving details of the samples which were to be sent to CCMB.Reference to this forwarding note is made in Ex. PW-83/C also.Mr. Sud submitted that these documents clearly show that the blood sample of the parents of Naina Sahni as well as the sample taken from the body had not been sent to Hyderabad till 13th July and, therefore, the statement of Dr. Lalji Singh had he had collected the tissue samples etc. on 6th July is either false or some fresh samples were sent to CCMB vide the said letter dated 13-07-95 but there is no evidence regarding taking of fresh samples from the charred body.Learned Counsel also highlighted some discrepancies in the documents which were prepared by Dr. Lalji Singh after taking the samples as well as some documents on which photographs of the parents of Naina Sahni had been affixed at the time of taking of their blood samples.Learned Counsel submitted that these infirmities have remained unexplained and caste a serious doubt about the genuineness of the DNA test relied upon by the prosecution.In our view, nothing significant turns around these documents pointed out by the counsel for the appellant.The substantive evidence regarding the DNA test is that of two experts, namely, Dr. Lalji Singh and Dr. G..V.Rao both of whom have given a very detailed narration about the test conducted by them.They have deposed about each and every step of the DNA test.Dr. Lalji Singh has categorically deposed that after collecting the samples of Page 0834 the tissues as well as the blood of the parents of the deceased frm Delhi he had handed them over to Dr. G.V.Rao immediately on reaching Hyderabad and Dr. G.V.Rao has also deposed that immediately on receipt of the samples he had started conducting the tests.Their testimony cannot be jettisoned merely on the basis of some insignificant deficiencies in the preparation of the documents prepared by them for the purpose of maintaining the identity of the samples intact.From their cross-examination nothing could be elicited which could show that the tests conducted by them were not preceded by safe custody of the samples or that during the course of tests proper procedure/technique was not followed by them.Dr. Lalji Singh has claimed that on 6th July, 1995 he was not given any letter of request for collecting the tissue samples but was orally requested.He also claimed that on 13-07-95 he had come again to Delhi and had collected the blood samples of Shri Harbhajan Singh and Smt. Jaswant Kaur.In view of this statement of Dr. Lalji Singh it is quite possible that when he came on 13th July, 1995 to Delhi he might have been given the afore-said letter dated 13-07- 95 and a forwarding note annexed therewith for record purposes but these documents do not in any way make the testimony of Dr. Lalji Singh that on 6th July, 1995 he had taken the tissue samples doubtful at all.Mr. Sud had also submitted with lot of force that Dr. Lalji Singh personally collecting the samples within a week by coming all the way to Delhi from Hyderabad shows that he was under the influence of the police and he wanted to go out of the way to oblige the police by giving a report which was favorable to the prosecution story.In our view this submission has also not force and we cannot reject the testimony of Dr. Lalji Singh, who undoubtedly is an eminent scientist in the country in the field of DNA tests, on this flimsy ground.If on the request of the police he had come to Delhi to personally collect the samples it shows his sincerity towards his job as an expert in DNA tests and he wanted to ensure that samples are taken properly.It may be noticed that the DNA technology had not become very popular during those days and, therefore, Dr. Lalji Singh taking that much personal interest in the taking of samples should not be viewed with suspicion.These kinds of accusations against eminent scientists appear to have been made by the appellant out of desperation.We have already noticed in the beginning of the judgment that the appellant Sushil Sharma's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was quite argumentative which showed his knowledge about the law relating to criminal trials and we have no manner of doubt that when he made allegations against each and every witness examined in this case of being unfair to him under the pressure of the police he must have realized that there was no door open for him from which he could escape from the clutches of law.We have very minutely gone through the evidence of Dr. Lalji Singh and Dr. G.V.Rao, who had conducted the DNA test, and we are not found any infirmity in their evidence which could persuade us to reject the test carried out by them and their conclusion that the samples of the charred body were of Naina Sahni.We are also of the view that if at all, the appellant had any doubt about the genuineness of the samples used for the DNA test he could have very well made a prayer for taking fresh blood samples of the parents of Naina Sahni for DNA test and comparing its result with the result Page 0835 already available regarding the DNA test of the samples of the charred body.He did not choose to do that and instead resorted to mud-slinging on the competence as well as integrity of the eminent scientists of the country.We are, therefore, of the view that the DNA test also establishes the identity of the woman who was being burnt on the tandoor of Bagia restaurant and it re-enforces our finding already arrived at from other circumstances that it was Naina Sahni only whose body had been burnt on the tandoor and it is not that we are basing our findings only on the DNA test.Even if DNA test had not been got conducted by the investigating agency the finding would have still been that the body of Naina Sahni only was being burnt on the tandoor.That is still not the end of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution.They are still aplenty.Besides deposing about the fact that Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were living together in the flat at Mandir Marg PWs 9 and 11 have also deposed about the relationship between Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni.PW-11 Mrs. R.K.Chaudhary had deposed that one day, which was a holiday, when they were watching television in their house they heard some noise from outside upon which they opened the door of their drawing room and saw that Sushil Sharma and Naina were scuffling with each other and Sushil was pulling her back inside the house but she(Naina) wanted to get herself released from him and wanted to come out of the house.In cross-examination on behalf of Sushil Sharma it was asked from her if she understood the meaning of scuffling.She answered that question and explained properly as to what was meant by scuffling.As far as PW-9 is concerned he also claimed in his cross-examination by the Special Public Prosecutor that once Sushil Sharma was pulling her(Naina) inwards whereas she was resisting and that at that time several persons had gathered over there.Learned senior counsel for the appellant had submitted that both these witnesses should not be believed because their statements regarding the sole incident narrated by them are highly vague and bereft of material particulars however, we feel that the details of the incident narrated by them Page 0836 could have been elicited during their cross-examination but no such effort was made and, therefore, the appellant cannot make a grievance that the statements of PWs 9 and 11 should be discarded on this aspect of the matter being vague.These two witnesses could not be discredited in their cross-examination on behalf of accused Sushil Sharma.Both these witnesses had no reason to depose falsely against Sushil Sharma nor any motive was attributed to them in cross-examination for deposing falsely and, therefore, we see no reason to reject their testimonies.PW-82 Sh.Ram Niwas Dubey deposed that he was working with accused Sushil Sharma, the Adhyaksha of Youth Congress, as peon from 1989 till April, 1995 at 4, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Gole Market from where the office of Youth Congress was shifted to Talkatora Road, New Delhi.He then deposed that the accused obtained flat No. 8/2A at Mandir Marg in 1992 where he was living with his wife Naina Sahni whom he knew since 1992 as she was General Secretary in the office of the Congress and used to visit accused Sushil Sharma at the office at Talkatora.He himself was living in the night inside the flat and used to observe them quarreling with each other on the topic of shaadi.Naina Sahni used to ask Sushil Sharma as to when they would disclose their marriage publicly to which accused Sushil used to say that at the appropriate time everyone would be told about their marriage.Once Naina Sahni had told him that accused Sushil had put sindoor on her head in front of the temple inside the flat.He thereafter deposed that there used to be quarrel between the two on her insistence of everyone being told about their marriage and the accused used to beat Naina Sahni by legs, fists and dandas.He further deposed that at the instance of accused Sushil he used to go along with Naina Sahni for reporting to the accused about her movements since Sushil Sharma suspected the fidelity of Naina Sahni.Although in his cross-examination on behalf of accused Sushil Sharma it was put to him that he never worked in the house No. 8/2A of accused Sushil Sharma, which suggestion he categorically denied, but we see no reason to disbelieve this witness also.He had also no reason to depose falsely against accused Sushil Sharma nor any motive for falsely deposing against Sushil Sharma was attributed to him in cross-examination.A suggestion was given to this witness in cross-examination that Sushil Sharma had never beaten Naina Sahni in his presence and not that Sushil Sharma had, in fact, never beaten her.It had also been put to this witness that Naina Sahni used to come back to her home in the cars of Ministers.By putting these kind of suggestion to PW-82 Sushil Sharma admits that in fact this witness was also living in flat No. 8/2A as otherwise there was no point in putting to him that Naina Sahni used to come back in the cars of Ministers.Obviously this witness could have answered this kind of a question only if he was living in the same flat.Therefore, just because the prosecution has not brought on record any documentary evidence such as ration card to show that PW-82 Ram Niwas Dubey was also staying with Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni at flat No. 8/2A, Mandir Marg it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to establish this fact, as was also the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellant.Regarding the kind of relationship between the appellant and Naina Sahni the prosecution had also examined PW-12 Matloob Karim.He has deposed that in 1989 he was Organising Secretary of Youth Congress whereas accused Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni were the President and the General Secretary respectively.He then deposed that he and Naina Sahni had been working together since 1984 from the time of NSUI and because of their association they fell in love with each other but being of different religions they could not marry but continued to be close friends.He also deposed that despite his marriage with in December, 1988 Naina and himself used to meet and talk as before.He further deposed that after August 1989 Naina told him to enquire about the antecedents of Sushil as he had proposed to marry her and he after making enquiries from Sushil's friends told her that Sushil was not a good person.Naina told accused Sushil Sharma about that who told her that the people were jealous of his progress and that he was a very good person.He then deposed that in the end of 1992 Naina rang him up and stated that she had solemnized her marriage with Sushil Sharma and that prior to her marriage she had disclosed every thing to Sushil about her friendship with him(Matloob Karim).He went on to depose that five six months subsequent thereto he received a phone call from Naina saying that she was trapped and that Sushil Sharma was not a good man, he hurls abuses and thrashes her on trivial matters.He further deposed that on being advised to inform police or her parents Naina told that parents will not co-operate with her because she had solemnized her marriage with Sushil on her own and in case of informing police Sushil will implicate her in a false case as he had good relations with higher police authorities.Some days after Naina again rang him up and stated that Sushil had turned her out of the house and she asked for help.He also deposed that on 2-7-95 also between 3 and 4 p.m. Naina telephoned him to request him to get her migrated to Australia.This witness also could not be discredited in cross-examination and we see no reason to disbelieve him and reject his evidence being that of a jilted lover having a motive to falsely implicate the appellant because of his himself not being able to make her his life companion, as was also the argument advanced by Mr. Sud.Thus, on the basis of evidence of PWs 9, 11,12 and 82 it also stands established beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sushil Sharma did not have very good relations with Naina Sahni because she was insisting on his telling everyone that they were married couple which he did not want and also because he was suspecting that she was having affairs with other persons also including her former lover PW-12 Matloob Karim.In view of the reliable evidence of all these witnesses we also come to the conclusion that there was a strong motive for the appellant Sushil Sharma to have killed Naina Sahni after having spent good number of years with her as her husband.The prosecution had also relied upon extra-judicial confession of the appellant made before PW-31 Shri D.Kishore Rao, an IAS Officer.On the midnight of 2nd and 3rd June, 1995 accused Sushil Sharma came to Gujarat Bhawan and met him.At that time he was looking tense, disturbed and in abnormal condition and told him Page 0838 'kuch gadbad hai' (there is something wrong).He further deposed that Sushil Sharma had also said to him 'I am tired.I want to take rest' and then saying so Sushil Sharma had lied down on the cot and said that they would discuss tomorrow.He further deposed that when in the morning he was about to leave for going to Ahmedabad Sushil Sharma told him to tell Gujarat Bhawan people to give the room for two days to Mr. Jai Prakash.PW-31 Rao had further deposed that in good faith he had asked the reception counter clerk to make reservation of the room and therafter he himself went to Ahmedabad.On 4th morning Sushil Sharma called him up on telephone from Bombay and told him that he was in serious problem and when he asked Sushil Sharma as to what was the problem he hesitatingly said that he had shot dead his wife.He then advised Sushil Sharma to surrender himself before the police telling him as to why he had called him up.We find from the impugned judgment of the trial Court that the learned trial Judge has disbelieved Mr. Rao's statement that Sushil Sharma had telephoned him on 4th July and had made a confession to him on phone.There was no basis whatsoever for the trial Court to have come to this conclusion.In order to lend more assurance to the prosecution case in general there is also evidence adduced to show that on 19/07/95 accused Sushil Sharma had after his arrest got recovered one kurta having human blood on it from near the bushes in the area of Rangpuri in Delhi.This recovery has been challenged on behalf of the appellant on the ground that except for the police witnesses(PW-66 and PW-81) there is no other independent witness to establish that recovery and, therefore, no reliance should be placed on this piece of evidence.We have gone through the evidence of the police witnesses in this regard and find nothing elicited from them in their cross-examination which could throw any doubt on the genuineness of the said recovery.Just because there is evidence of only police witnesses the recovery of blood stained kurta at the instance of the appellant cannot be rejected.Learned Counsel for the appellant had submitted that the prosecution had sought to establish recovery of another blood stained kurta pyjama also at the instance of the appellant from a place near Gujarat Bhawan but the trial Court had not accepted that recovery because no public witness had been joined.He had, however, denied his involvement in the murder.We have also experienced that these days whenever media people highlight some crime the investigating agencies perform their functions with much more diligence and perfection.We, therefore, reject the argument that the appellant did not get a fair trial.Now, we would sum up the various circumstances which we have found to have been established beyond any shadow of doubt and to be sufficient enough to uphold the conviction of the appellant Sushil Sharma.These are those circumstances:1) The appellant Sushil Sharma was running a restaurant by the name of Bagia Bar-be-Que in the compound of Ashok Yatri Niwas at Ashoka Road, New Delhi and his co-accused Keshav Kumar was one of the employees kept there by the appellant.2) On the night of 2nd July, 1995 a body of a female was being burnt on the tandoor of the said Bagia Bar-be-Que by the appellant and his employee Keshav Kumar.9) The charred corpse lifted from the tandoor of Bagia Bar-be-Que on the night of 2nd/3rd July,1995 was found to be that of Naina Sahni d/o Shri Harbhajan Singh and Smt. Jaswant Kaur.The learned trial Judge then, duty bound as he was to undertake the exercise himself for preparing the balance sheet of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, did do that for the sake of justice and after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances came to the following conclusion:Naina Sahni was living alongiwth the accused.The evidence indicated that she was treating the accused as her husband.The evidence indicated that the deceased Naina Sahni had been living along with accused after leaving the parents without recognized formal marriage between them.It has also been claimed by the father of the appellant that he and his wife are both aged and have been suffering from various ailments and all these years they have been managing their affairs with great difficulty and not only that on account of paucity of funds and limited sources of income he could not be of any assistance to his son during the long drawn trial and , in fact, he could not even visit his son in the jail all these years.It is further stated in the affidavit that the deponent and his wife in the evening of their life crave for mercy and submit with all humility that the death sentence given to their son is unwarranted.The appellant's father has also claimed that he is a pious man and has been performing various social, religious and charitable works and he was also the founder member of Gopal Mandir Trust, Pitam Pura, Delhi.The reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge stands answered accordingly. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
50,430,530 | 2 The prosecution case is that the complainant in C.R.No.I-343 of 2012, had read one advertisement of company, namely, G.W.D. Soft Private Limited situated at Asmita Land Plaza, Narayannagar, Mira Road (West).The advertisement::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:14 ::: rpa 2/10 905-ba-402,414-17.doc indicated that the is company selling magical pen which could read Holy Quran.The complainant visited the address given in the said advertisement on 3rd October, 2012, and approached the manager of the company.He was informed that if he invest an amount of Rs.30,000/-, in G.W.D. Ajmera Farms Private Limited Company, he would get Rs.1,000/- on every Monday for 48 weeks and also remanded Rs.30,000/-, back.He was also informed that the among the investors a luck draw would be drawn and the winner will be sent for Haj Pilgrimage.The complainant informed about the same to his brother.Subsequently the brother of the complainant visited the office of the company and handed over cheque of Rs.30,000/-, towards that scheme and agreement was executed and given certification with respect to the share of the company duly signed by the applicant.It was also written in the said agreement that the company will be investing said amount in the business of of Goat at Deonar, Mumbai and profit will be shared among investors and company equally and rs.1000/- will be given weekly.The complainant allegedly suspected something wrong and he instructed his banker for stop payment of said cheque given by him.Complainant then met the applicant and told his security person that he is a media reporter and wanted to meet the applicant with respect to his brothers transaction with::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:14 ::: rpa 3/10 905-ba-402,414-17.doc applicant company.It was alleged that the applicant is the director of G.W.D. Soft (Ghodwadi), Ajmera Firms Private Limited given an advertisement in Urdu Newspaper that by purchasing one share of the company for Rs.30,000/-, a person can earn Rs.1,000/-, every week for a period of one year.The complainant purchased one share and requisite documents were executed.Realizing that he has received the amount, the complainant and his wife purchased::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:14 ::: rpa 4/10 905-ba-402,414-17.doc more shares of the company totaling 11 shares of Rs.3,30,000/- and till 22nd October, 2012, the said company were in business of selling shares of the said company, and, they were repaying the investors.However, thereafter, the office of the company was found closed.The complainant learnt that police action has been initiated against the company and the bank accounts of the company are seized by the police.The complainant gave names of other investors who had invested money in the company.Applicant in both these application seeks bail.Bail Application No.402 of 2017 pertains to C.R. No.I-343 of 2012, registered on 14th October, 2012, whereas, Bail Application No.414 of 2017, pertains to C.R.No.I-399 of 2013 dated 2 nd October, 2013, registered with Mira Road Police Station, District - Thane.The complainant made more inquiries with respect to the said company on Internet and learnt that since 1999, the said company is doing business of goats at Deonar Mumbai.The said company is registered in the name of the applicant and his brother.The complainant further learnt that the said company is not having permission of non banking finance and, thereafter, the complainant lodged FIR with Mira Road Police Station on 13th October, 2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with 34 of IPC.3 Similarly, FIR was registered with the same police station by another complainant on 2nd October, 2013, and, the offences were registered vide C.R. No.I-399 of 2013, under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in the said complaint.According to the complainant the company had approximately sold 1806 shares amounting to Rs.5,41,80,000/-.4 Police conducted investigation.Applicant was arrested.His brother was also arrested.The applicant's brother was granted bail by this Court.::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:14 :::However, apparently, he had made inquiries, and, thereafter, lodged the FIR.Even, charge has not been framed against the applicant.Allegedly, there are several investors and in both the cases prosecution is relying on about 1273 witnesses, who are the investors in the company.It is submitted that it is not clear as to when the trial would began and come to an end.It is submitted that the matter involves voluminous documents and it would take a long time.Learned counsel adverted to Section 436 A of Cr.P.C. which relates to the provision regarding maximum period for which an under trial prisoner is to be detained.The charge-sheet has been filed and further detention is not necessary.::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:15 :::He was the co-accused in both this cases.There are about 1273 investors who were duped by the applicant and his brother.The amount involved in these transactions is to the tune of Rs.7,17,00,000/-.Applicant cannot claim parity on the basis of the orders granting bail passed in favour of his brother, as he was granted bail considering the role played by him in the transaction.It is also submitted that considering the magnitude of the crime and the manner in which the investors were duped in number and huge amount is involved in the transaction, bail may not be granted to him.It is submitted that while granting bail, the Court has to take into consideration the nature of crime committed by the accused and the interest of society is required to be protected from such persons.7 Having heard both sides, I have also perused the documents on record.The facts are implicit from the narration made hereinabove.The company of which the applicant is the::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:15 ::: rpa 8/10 905-ba-402,414-17.doc Director had induced members of public to invest the money with an assurance that the investors would earn dividends.It is also apparent that the complainant in C.R.No.I-399 of 2013, has stated that he had invested the amount on being satisfied that he had received the returns, he invested more money, and, subsequently, it was found that the police has initiated an action, and, thereafter, the company was closed.During the course of investigation, the amount lying in the bank account of the company has been seized in accordance with Section 102 of Cr.P.C. As stated hereinabove some cash amount was also seized.The investigation is completed and the charge- sheet is filed.There are about 1273 investors.Trial has not yet started.Applicant is in custody in both the cases from 3 rd January, 2015 i.e. almost for a period of 3 years and 10 months.Trial has commenced.It is also submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been released on bail in other cases registered in Telangana.The office of the company is attached under the provisions of MPID Act. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, bail can be granted to the applicant.::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:15 :::I-399 of 2013, registered with Mira Road Police Station, District-Thane, on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, in each C.R. with one or two local solvent surety/sureties in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:15 :::(vii) Applicant shall file an undertaking before trial Court that he has no objection for distribution of the seized amount from his bank account and other cash amount seized during the investigation to the investors;(viii) Bail Application Nos.402 and 414 of 2017, stand disposed of.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 23:26:15 ::: | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
50,430,544 | 2.The accused and victims hail from same village.Vijayarangan ( A-6) wished to marry Vani (PW-5).In this connection, there was animosity simmering between the family members.On 23.06.2009 at about 10.30 pm, Sankar (P.W.1) and his brother in law Ranjith while proceeding in the Hero Splendor motorcycle, hit Muthu (A-1) and Rajendiran coming in the bicycle.Soon after this incident, at about 10.45 pm Muthu(A-1) and other accused (A-2 to A-6) came to the house of Malar (PW-2) who is the sister of Vani (PW-5) and started abusing the family members of Margabandu (deceased).Hearing this, Margabandu (deceased) his sons Sankar (PW-1) , Babu (PW-3) and Ganesan (PW-6) came to the spot.They all were indiscriminately attackedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 by the accused A-1 to A-6 with wooden logs.After completion of investigation, the complaint of Shanthi (A-5) was closed as mistake of fact.3.Based on the material records placed by the investigation officer, the trial court framed the following 6 charges against Muthu (A-1), Subramani (A-2), Tilagavathi (A-3), Veeramani (A-4), Shanthi (A-5) and Vijayarangan(A-6).4.After examining 16 prosecution witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 16), one defence witness (D.W.1), 19 prosecution exhibits (Exs.P.1 to P.19), 4http://www.judis.nic.in 4 defence documents (Exs.D.1 to D.4) and 6 material objects (M.Os.1 to 6), the trial Court held A-1 to A-6 guilty of offence under section 148 IPC; A-1 guilty of offence under sections 324 and 294(b) IPC; A-2 guilty of offence under section 324 and A-3 to A-6 guilty of offences under section 324 r/w 149 IPC.All the appellants were found guilty of offences under section 148 IPC.A-1 and A-2 were found guilty of offence under section 324 IPC.A-3 to A-6 were found guilty of offence under section 324 r/w 149 IPC.6.The Learned counsel for the appellants reading the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, PW-1 the defacto complainant, PW-2 to whom the accused persons alleged to have first picked quarrel, PW- 16 the Investigating Officer would submit that, the incident occurred opposite to the house of Shanthi (A-5).The defacto complainant (P.W.1) and his family members were the aggressors.Knowing that, the other accused came to rescue them.In thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 fight, Margabandu fell down on the cement floor of Kalathumedu and sustained head injuries.The Doctor Sivaraj (PW-13) who treated Margabandu on 24.06.2008 did not find any external injuries, on his head.In the accident report Ex P-12, only a contusion on the right forehead and bleeding from nose was found.The patient has reported giddiness and he was in semi-conscious state.7.The defence exhibits, Exs.D-1 to D-4 disclose the fact that on 25.06.2008 at about 11.00 pm, A-5 and A-6 were assaulted by Margabandu and others.In the assault, A-5 and A-6 sustained injuries.Pursuant to the said complaint, Ex D-1 the FIR in Crime No.228/08 was registered.Ganesan (PW-6) and Ranjith were taken into custody and remanded vide Ex.Despite the said fact, PW-16 suppressed the counter case and laid final report.The delay in lodging complaint and the delay in forwarding the FIR to the court has given room to falsehood.When bothhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 side has sustained injuries and the scene of crime was in front of A.5's house, the present case and case in counter ought to have been investigated properly.As per the police Standing Order, the Investigating Officer ought to have placed before the trial Court all the materials including the FIR in the counter case, the statements of the injured and the wound certificates for the trial court to proper appreciation and to arrive at right decision.Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has screened those material facts connected to the counter case.Hence, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.Nevertheless, by placing those materials as exhibits and oral evidence by the accused themselves the trial Court had the opportunity of examining those exhibits and had concluded that the victims are not the aggressors.Since, no prejudice is caused to the defence by not placing the documents connected to the counter case.10.Regarding the delay in registering the FIR, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that, the occurrence took place on 23.06.2008 at about 22.45 hrs.The injured Margabandu was brought to the hospital at Vellore Adukambarai from Ampoondi.The delay in lodging complaint is due to the time taken for the defacto complainant to arrange medical treatment for his injured father.The trial Court considering the facts and circumstances has held that the delay does not render the prosecution case improbable.11.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondent.Exhibits and depositions perused.12.The prosecution witnesses admit that there was animosity between the two families and soon before the occurrence at about 10.45 pm, PW-1 and Rajnith hit their motorcycle on Muthu and Rajendiran.The scene of crime is the Kalathumedu.Which is opposite to the house of Shanthi (A-5) and Malar ( PW-2).The complaint of Shanthi (A-5) was received first by the police immediately after the intimation from the hospital where she washttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 admitted for treatment.The Police has given CSR No.360/08 and had registered the FIR much later after the registeration of the FIR given by Shankar (P.W.1) on 24.06.09 at 23.30 hrs.13.PW-1 in his evidence admits that the Police enquired him at Adukambarai Hospital.He examined Margabandu at about 1.00 am.So, the delay in registering the FIR at 23.30 hrs on 24.06.2008 in the light of the counter complaint arising from the same transaction gains significance.The delay is not an ignorable one.The evidence of PW-2 indicates that, on hearing the abusive words of Muthu, she came out from her house.Thereafter, Margabandu and others come to the spot.14.It is candidly admitted by PWs-1 and 2 that till Margabandu and others came to the spot, there was no violence.In the accident report Ex P- 12, recorded at about 1.00 am on 24.06.2008, the Doctor has recorded that Margabandu informed that he was attacked by 4 known persons.In the FIR, which came to be registered 24 hours after the incident, it was mentioned that 6 persons attacked with specific overt acts.Therefore, possibility for embellishment, falsehood and fake informations cannot be ruled out.http://www.judis.nic.in 915.The incident has taken place at Kalathumedu (a piece of land open to sky, used to dry grains, particularly paddy).The rough sketch - Ex P-15 indicates that the kalathumedu is cement floored.PW-13 - Doctor who first saw Margabandu has recorded the injuries found no external injury on the head.The sutures noted on the head in the post mortem certificate are surgical injuries.PW-12 - the post mortem Doctor has categorically deposed that the injuries found on the head is due to surgery.Therefore, it is clear that, Margabandu has sustained internal injuries on his head during the melee.16.The defence exhibits, Exs.D-3 and D-4 reveal A.5 and A.6 sustained injuries.They have gone to the Government Hospital at Vellore on the next day by 10.45 am.Before going to the Government Hospital, A-5 and A-6 were treated by the Doctor locally.Sutures on the head of A-6 were done by the private Doctor.From the evidence of DW-1 and PW-13, it is clearly established that on the night of 23/24.06.08 at Ampoodi village Kalathumedu, two groups have indulged in fight.Members from both groups have sustained injuries.The police have initially found that the defacto complainant and his family members are the aggressors.Later, knowing thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 the health condition of Margabandu has become critical and was shifted to Chennai Government Hospital and subsequently died on 29.06.2008, dropped the proceedings against PW-1 and others as 'mistake of fact'.17.In a case and case in counter, arising from out of same transaction, the Investigating Officer even if is of the opinion that, one among the two cases is a 'mistake of fact', he cannot with hold the material evidences against the other side.The duty of the Investigating Officer is to place all the materials incriminating both the parties and allow the judiciary to take the decision.If in the present case, Ex.D.10 was in the opinion of the investigating police a false complaint laid for defence purposes and the injuries on D.W.2 self-inflicted, the prosecution should none the less have filed Ex.21.According to the defence, A.5 & A.6 in the present case, sustained injuries in the said incident and the prosecution has suppressed the materialhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 facts about that in this case.In the light of the above referred materials and evidences, the plea of the defence cannot be ruled out.From the prosecution materials and evidence and other facts and material referred to above, the defence has succeeded in probabilising its defence.22.In the result, the Criminal appeals are allowed.20.03.2019 jbm Index: Yes Speaking order/non speaking order To1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.3.The Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 G.JAYACHANDRAN.J., jbm Pre Delivery Judgement made in Crl.Nos.160 & 335 of 2012 20.03.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 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. |
58,919,673 | (a) PW1 Prachiti is resident of Kalwa in Thane District.She has two daughters.PW3, who is victim of the crime in question is one of her daughters.She, at the relevant time, was a minor girl, aged about 5 years.After having lunch, PW1 Prachiti was attending the bride avk 2/16::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 ::: 220-APPEAL-97-2015.doc and her minor daughter the victim/PW3 was playing outside in the pendal.At about 3.00 p.m of 20 th December 2011, the victim/PW3 went missing.PW4 Ajinkya Gudhekar, who had also come for attending the marriage, found the victim/PW3 along with the appellant/accused returning from the forest area.He took the victim/PW3 from him and that is how the victim/PW3 reached her mother PW1 Prachiti.The victim/PW3 then disclosed the incident of her taking by the appellant/accused to her mother PW1 Prachiti.She disclosed that on the pretext of giving cold drink (pepsi) to her, the appellant/accused took her, denuded her, put finger in her vagina and inserted his penis in her mouth.the judgment and order dated 7th January 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, in Sessions Case No.16 of 2012, thereby convicting him of offences punishable under Sections 376 read with 511, 377 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.On first count, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous avk 1/16::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 ::: 220-APPEAL-97-2015.doc imprisonment for 3½ years apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence of 6 months.On second count, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence of 6 months.On third count, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::2 Facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused can be summarized thus :PW1 Prachiti, then, lodged report of the incident to Police Station Guhagar on 21 st December 2011 which has resulted in registration of Crime No.80 of 2011 for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code.Wheels of investigation were then set in motion.The victim/PW3 was sent to the Civil Hospital, avk 3/16::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 ::: 220-APPEAL-97-2015.doc Ratnagiri for medical examination.The appellant/accused came to be arrested.Clothes of the victim/PW3 as well as that of the appellant/accused came to be seized.On the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant/accused, the spot was traced out and it was inspected in presence of PW6 Gaurav Vesvikar - panch witness.On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant/accused.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::(c) The learned trial court framed the Charge for offences punishable under Sections 376 read with 511, 377 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant/accused.He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt to the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses.The victim of the crime in question avk 4/16::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 ::: 220-APPEAL-97-2015.doc is examined as PW3 .PW7 Arun Ombase, Police Inspector, is the Investigating Officer of the crime in question.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::(d) The defence of the appellant/accused is that of total denial.He, however, did not enter in the defence.(e) Upon hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellant/accused and sentence him as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.3 I have heard Ms.Nasreen Ayubi, the learned advocate appointed to represent the appellant/accused at the cost of the avk 5/16::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 ::: 220-APPEAL-97-2015.doc State.These remained with the police station for fairly large period.This long gap of time in seizing the clothes and reaching the same to the forensic laboratory indicates possibility of tampering of the said muddemal.However, none of the witnesses are examined except PW4 Ajinkya Gudhekar to show that the victim/PW3 was in the company of the appellant/accused.Infact, the possibility of taking her by PW4 Ajinkya Gudhekar and false implication of the appellant/accused to save the said witness cannot be ruled out.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::She, further, argued that, the report of Chemical Analyser itself shows that the muddemal was received in a sealed condition by the forensic laboratory.5 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the Record and Proceedings including the oral as well documentary evidence.It is case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused had taken the victim/PW3, who was a minor female child, aged about 5 years, to a secluded place in the forest and then attempted to commit rape on her and subsequently, indulged in carnal intercourse with her against the order of nature, by putting his penis in her mouth and ejaculating.Considering this allegation against the appellant/accused, the evidence of the victim girl assumes importance and she being a child witness, prone to the tutoring, her evidence needs to be 1 1996 Cri.L.J. 172 avk 7/16::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 ::: 220-APPEAL-97-2015.doc appreciated and evaluated with great care and caution in order to ascertain whether such witness is stating the true facts.6 The victim/PW3, in her statement before the court has stated that, she had gone for attending marriage of her maternal uncle named Tanu Mama, and at that time, a boy offered her pepsi and took her towards the forest area.She accompanied him.Then, at the forest area, the said boy removed her clothes as well as his clothes, made her to sleep on the ground and put his finger in her vagina.She, further, stated that, he then put his penis in her mouth and ejaculated.She, therefore, slapped him and he also slapped her.Then, as per version of the victim/PW3, some people came there in her search.This witness further deposed that there was bleeding form her vagina and the doctor examined her.7 During the course of cross-examination of this victim, not a single question was put to her in order to demonstrate that she is a tutored witness, not stating correct facts, but deposing at the instance of some other persons.Her cross-examination avk 8/16::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 ::: 220-APPEAL-97-2015.doc discloses that except some abrasion, she did not suffer any injury and her maternal uncle then gave her in the custody of her grandmother.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::8 It is, thus, seen that, there is nothing in the cross- examination of this witness to demonstrate that her evidence regarding sexual assault on her by the appellant/accused, to whom she had duly identified while in the witness box, is in any manner doubtful or untrustworthy of credit.This witness was in company of the appellant/accused, as seen from the evidence of the prosecution, from 3 p.m. of 20th December 2011 to 5 p.m. of that day, and as such, had ample opportunity to see him carefully.Hence, considering the fact that such incidents of sexual assault creates long lasting impression on the mind of the victim, evidence of identification of the appellant/accused by this witness cannot be faulted or doubted.9 Corroboration, as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the victim of the sexual offence, is not a matter of avk 9/16::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 ::: 220-APPEAL-97-2015.doc law and it is well settled that evidence of such victim, if found truthful and trustworthy, can be accepted even without corroboration and even in absence of injuries on such victim.Still, let us search whether evidence of this witness is gaining corroboration in material particulars from other evidence on record.PW4 Ajinkya Gudhekar is a witness, who had been to the village for attending the marriage.As per his version, upon finding the victim/PW3 missing from the marriage pendal, along with others, he started searching for the victim/PW3 and had found her returning from the forest area with one boy.He ascertained whether she is the same child who went missing and then took her in his custody.PW4 Ajinkya Gudhekar has categorically stated that when he took the victim in his custody, she started crying and then he reached her to her relatives.In cross-examination, it was attempted to demonstrate that it was, infact, this witness, who had taken the victim/PW3 and is falsely implicating the appellant/accused.However, cross-examination of this witness itself shows that he was not even acquainted with the present appellant/accused and there was no reason for him to avk 10/16::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 ::: 220-APPEAL-97-2015.doc falsely implicate the appellant/accused.In the wake of identification of the appellant/accused as the perpetrator of the crime, by the victim/PW3, such denied suggestions to PW4 Ajinkya Gudhekar are of no assistance to the defence to probabalise its version about false implication.Thus, evidence of PW4 Ajinkya Gudhekar is corroborating the version of the victim/PW3 that she was taken by the appellant/accused and then was molested by him.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::The Seizure Panchnama itself shows that seized clothes were packed in khakhi paper and those packets were wax sealed.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::This Seizure Panchnama also shows that after wrapping those clothes in khakhi papers, those packets were sealed with lac seal.This witness was also not discredited in the cross-examination.12 Seized articles, as seen from the Chemical Analyser's Report at Exhibit 37 were received in sealed condition by the forensic laboratory and those were subjected to chemical analysis.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::13 To sum up, evidence of the victim of the crime in question does show that she was allured by the appellant/accused on the pretext of giving pepsi to her and was taken in the forest area where she was denuded.The appellant/accused then removed his clothes and inserted his finger in her vagina.He then indulged in carnal intercourse against the order of nature by putting his penis in her mouth.The way in which the things happened and sequence in which the events took place, points out intention of the appellant/accused to commit rape on the victim and his preparation to achieve the intended act by taking the victim/PW3 to a secluded forest area and denuding her.Infact, he had fingered the victim/PW3 which indicates that the action of the appellant/accused was in an attempt to commit rape on the victim/PW3, but that attempt could not be completed.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be faulted with, so also, his conviction for offences punishable under Section 377 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.15 The appellant/accused was sentenced to suffer 3½ years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code and that of 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.Thus, it cannot be said that harsh sentence is imposed on the appellant/accused on these counts.By observing that the appellant/accused had committed the offence of outraging the modesty of the victim/PW3 punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, by applying criminal force to her, he was convicted on that count and independently sentenced on that count for 1 year rigorous imprisonment apart from imposition of fine.The learned trial court, while separately sentencing the appellant/accused on this count, has ignored the avk 14/16::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 ::: 220-APPEAL-97-2015.doc provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code.The offence of Section 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code, in the given circumstances, was made up of parts such as denuding the victim and fingering her.Hence, the learned trial court ought not to have imposed separate punishment for such part when the appellant/accused was ultimately convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code.To that extent, the appeal succeeds.Therefore the order :::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::i) The appeal is partly allowed.ii) Conviction of the appellant/accused and resultant sentence for offences punishable under Sections 376 read with 511 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained.His conviction for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is also maintained.But in view of the fact that the learned trial court has sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 of the avk 15/16::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 ::: 220-APPEAL-97-2015.doc Indian Penal Code, sentence of 1 year rigorous imprisonment apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.500/- and to undergo default sentence of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 :::iii) The appeal stand disposed of accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:48:51 ::: | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,920,272 | Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Abhishek Srivastava, counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dileep Kumar and Sri Rajrshi Gupta, counsel for the opposite party.By means of this application, the applicant Kripa Shanker Pandey @ Kripa Nand Pandey is seeking enlargement on bail in Special Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2011, State Vs.Dilip Mishra and others arising out of Case Crime No. 237 of 2010 under Sections 302, 307, 427, 429, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 2/3 (1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kotwali, District Allahabad during the pendency of trial.Brief facts of the case, according to the F.I.R., are that the complainant Kamal Kumar stated in his report that he is the cousin brother of Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi and for the last 4-5 years, he is living with Nand Gopal Gupta and looking after his business.Dilip Mishra, Block Pramukh, Chaka is a notorious criminal and having enmity with Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi.Rajesh Yadav and Kripa Shanker Pandey, who are the members of the gang of Dilip Mishra, told the first informant 4-5 days prior to the incident that they had managed everything and Dilip Mishra would get Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi murdered.It has been further stated that the complainant told all theses things to Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi, who said that he is a Cabinet Minister and is being provided security by the Government, as such he should not pay heed to the threats of Kripa Shanker Pandey and Rajesh Yadav.On 12.7.2010, the complainant was at the house of Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi situated at Bahadurganj.At 11 a.m. Nandi was going to the temple followed by the complainant.As soon as Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi reached the lane and proceeded towards the temple, his security guard Sanjai Singh, Press Reporter Vijay Pratap Singh and Rakesh Malviya started walking with Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi.He was also followed by his brother, P.S.O. Rathod and other people.As soon as Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi reached near his old house, there was a blast in a scooty parked therein causing serious injuries to Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi and his accompanying persons.The complainant took Sanjai Singh, Vijay Pratap, Rakesh Malviya, Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi and other injured to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital and admitted them.The complainant had full belief that this incident was given effect to by Dilip Mishra, Rajesh Yadav, Kripa Shanker Pandey and his men.In this incident, Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi was seriously injured, two persons lost their lives and some others were also injured.Sri Satish Dwivedi, counsel for the applicant, argued that there is no evidence against the accused.He is in jail since 15.7.2010, i.e., for more than four years.He has no criminal history.Bail Application No. 35002 of 2013; co-accused Vijay Kumar Mishra has been granted bail, vide order dated 17.8.2012 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 17646 of 2012; co-accused Rafiqu has been granted bail, vide order dated 6.8.2013 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 13233 of 2013; and co-accused Subhash Vishwakarma has been granted bail, vide order dated 25.9.2013 passed in Criminal Misc.Hence, on the ground of parity the case of the present accused Kripa Shanker Pandey stands on better footing, hence, he is entitled to bail.Counsel for the complainant has argued that the bail application of the accused Shiv Mohan Pandey @ Babloo was rejected, vide order dated 11.10.2011 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 23422 of 2011 and the bail application of the accused Prem Sagar Pandey was also rejected, vide order dated 9.1.2013 passed in Criminal Misc.The counsel for the complainant has further argued that a criminal misc.Hence, the accused is not entitled to parity on the ground of co-accused having been granted bail.Counsel for the accused has argued that parity can only be considered for granting bail and not for rejecting bail.In this regard, counsel for the accused has placed reliance on Yunus Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh, 1999 CrLJ 4094, in which it has been held that law of parity may be applied in granting bail to co-accused but cannot be invoked in rejecting the bail application of another co-accused.It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the accused applicant that the alleged material available on record against all the accused is in the form of statement of Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi in which he has stated that complainant Kamal Kumar, who is his cousin, told him that the accused Kripa Shanker Pandey and Rajesh Yadav had told him that they had arranged to murder Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi and, as such, he had full belief that Dilip Mishra, Mahendra Mishra, Rajesh Yadav, Kripa Shanker Pandey, Rajesh Pilot and their companions hatched up conspiracy and attacked him.It has been argued by counsel for accused that if there would have been conspiracy of Kripa Shanker Pandey with the other co-accused, he would never had revealed about the alleged conspiracy to the brother of Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi.Witness Smt. Saraswati Hanuman Jalke claimed that she used to work as a maid in the house of Colonel A.K. Pandey but she has not stated anything against the present accused Vijay Shanker Mishra.The next witness examined by the Investigating Officer was Santosh Jalke.This witness has also not stated anything to the Investigating Officer which could be incriminating against the applicant.The next witness examined by the Investigating Officer was Ashok Jain.He has also not stated anything incriminating against the present accused.Sri Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant, while strongly opposing the prayer for bail, has argued that it is a broad day light dare devil attempt on the life of Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi, the then sitting Minister of the State by getting explosives kept in a scooty.He has further argued that the incident was an outcome of well planned conspiracy hatched by Dilip Mishra and executed by the present applicant and other co-accused.This witness P.W.1 Kamal Kumar has stated that he saw Kripa Shanker Pandey when the accused had threatened him.He had not seen him before.He has also stated that at the scene of occurrence, i.e., place where the blast took place, he did not see any accused and in spite of the threat, there was no idea that the threat would actually be given effect to.As far as motive is concerned right from the inception of the F.I.R., the statements of the witnesses and the confessional statement of the co-accused, it is revealed that the main accused Dilip Mishra was nursing grudge against Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi as there was business rivalry between Vijay Mishra and Nand Gopal Gupta @ Nandi due to rice mill business and moreover, certain criminal cases were lodged against Dilip mishra who felt that he was being victimised.Dilip Mishra wanted to get rid off of the minister, therefore, he hatched up a conspiracy with the other co-accused.Counsel for the complainant has argued that charge was framed against the co-accused Rajesh Pilot also, who initially got his confessional statement recorded but later on after framing of the charge and after some of the accused were granted bail, he resiled from his confessional statement, which shows that the accused persons are pressurizing the witnesses.He has also argued that this co-accused Rajesh Pilot moved an application resiling from his confessional statement after the co-accused Dilip Mishra was released from bail.I think this would not be a ground to reject bail of Kripa Shanker Pandey.In fact this could give a cause of action, if any, to the prosecution against co-accused Dilip Mishra. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,920,304 | 2. Case of the wife, as deduced from the material on record, are as follows:(i) On 03.09.1992, marriage between the parties to the lis was solemnised.Out of wedlock there were two children.At the time of taking the case on file, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, son, Ajay Prakash was aged 17 and daughter, Niveda was aged 12 years.Wife has submitted that at the time of marriage, as Stridhana, articles such as 15 sovereigns of Gold, 2 silver lamps, 2 silver bowls (Chimizh), cot, bureau, grinder, brass and eversilver vessels worth 3 Lakhs, were given by her parents.It is her further contention that at the time of marriage, husband was working in the Army.Thereafter, on 30.04.1997, he retired from Army.(ii) Only for one year, after marriage, he was in good state of mind.Thereafter, the petitioner was suffering from intermittent psychopathic disorder.He ill treated, pushed her out of the house, beat her with lathi, visited the school, where the complainant worked as a teacher, sought for unnecessary information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 abused her, spoke ill about her chastity, paternity of the children and all the above acts, caused great hardship to her and affected the future of her children.On 03.04.2001, he beat her with a hot cooking pan.He also attempted to murder her by electrocution.(iii) She has further stated that on 25.02.2006, petitioner has slapped her, for which, she had taken treatment.When she was staying in her parents house at No.LIG-54, Anna Nagar, Cuddalore on 15.05.2009, he entered into the said house, beat the applicant and her father.According to the applicant/wife, an enquiry has been conducted by the said authority.Thereafter, Crl.The applicant has sought for, following reliefs,(i)for a direction under Section 18 that husband/petitioner should not disturb wife, children and her family members(ii) for a direction under Section 19 of the Act directing, the petitioner/husband to handover possession of the house, in which, she and her children were living and sent out.(iii) for a direction, under Section 20 of the Act, for maintenance for herself and children at Rs.10,000/- per month.- Lawyer's Notice sent by the petitioner/wife to the respondent/husband.P4 List of Stridhana Articles given at the time of Marriage.P5 copy of Pay Slip (5 Nos.).P6 Copy of the Marriage Invitation.P7 Copy of the complaint dated 16.09.2009, given to the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore.P8 Copy of the CSR dated 08.01.2009, given by the petitioner/wife to All Women Police Station, Cuddalore.P9 - Copy of the complaint dated 08.06.2009, given by the petitioner/wife to All Women Police Station, Cuddalore.P10 - Bill dated 07.02.2010 for paying the School Fee of the petitioner's son for one year.P11 Copy of the sale deed dated 22.11.95, which stands in the name of the petitioner/wife.Witness was scared of his father and always stayed in a room.In his proof affidavit, PW2, son, has further deposed that there was no limit for harassing his mother.Once his father beat his mother, in her thigh, with a hot pan.For the injury she had to take treatment.Thereafter, PW.2, had seen his mother being slapped on the cheek and on account of the injury, she had to take treatment for her twisted mouth.PW.2, has further stated that sometimes, the petitioner would push her out of the house and close the door.By compulsion, the petitioner would receive all his mother's income.The petitioner had never taken them outside nor bought anything to them.PW.2's maternal grandfather alone would buy things.School fees and other expenses, were incurred by his mother.Dresses were purchased only by his mother.Thus, in his proof affidavit, Ajay Prakash, PW2/son of the complainant, while supporting the version of his mother/complainant has also prayed for a direction against the petitioner for appropriate relief, for his higher eduction and permit them to stay in the house, which belonged to his mother, but, at the time of taking cognizance, was in possession of the petitioner.Husband/petitioner, in his proof/counter affidavit has submitted that parties to marriage belong to different communities.Since 15.07.1980, he had served in the Army, without any blemish.When he was married, complainant/wife, though completed her Secondary Grade Training, had no permanent employment.Out of her compulsion, on 30.04.1997, he was prematurely discharged.On his request, Indian Army recommended to the Tamil Nadu State Government to provide her employment and accordingly, on 07.11.1994, she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher.When he was taking care of the children, with the aid and encouragement, the complainant/wife completed her B.A., B.Ed., M.Phil.Children enjoyed all the concession granted by the Government, on the basis of his community certificate.Petitioner/husband has denied all the allegations made against him.According to him, he had shown love and affection to his family.He had acted as per his conscience.He has further contended that due to the ill advice of others, wife has filed a suit in O.S.No.319 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.Husband has marked the following exhibits.R1 Requisition letter of the petitioner/wife, to Indian Army.R2 Interview Card and Written exams results dated 23.09.1989 and 09.10.1994 respectively.R3 House Warming Ceremony Invitation dated 20.01.2002R4 Letter written to the petitioner by Mr.Panduranga Pillai, grandfather of the petitioner.R5 Marriage Registration Certificate (Petitioner Respondent)R6 Premature Discharge settlement particulars of the respondent/husband.R7 Treatment Records of the petitioner issued by ECHS.R8 - Treatment Records of the PW2, Ajay Prakash issued by ECHS.R9 APF and QSA statements of respondent/husband.R10 O.P. Chit of Petitioner/wife, issued by Government Hospital, Chengalpet.R11 List of Jewels (Appox.32.2 sovereign)R12 Documents relating to the home appliances purchased by the respondent from Military Canteen.R13 Proof of Respondent's pensionR14 Particulars of some special concession to Ex. Servicemen of Indian Army.R15 Copy of Fixed deposit receipts dated 11.10.2008 to 11.10.2010 in the name of the petitioner's father.R16 Proof showing PW2 as legal heir/nominee for receiving benefits of Group Insurance.R17 - Particulars of Eye Treatment of PW2 and purchase of spectaculars dated 27.07.2009gog;g[.FLk;g ft[utk;. gps;isfspd; vjph;fhyk;.Mf;fk; gf;fk; ,f;fhuz';fis kdjpy; itj;J kpf kpf bghWikahf ,J ehs; tiu mtUld; thH;e;J te;njd;/ vd;Dila epiyf;fhf mthplk; nfl;gth;fs; ahUk; ,y;iy/ mk;kh vdf;fhf ntz;o jpUg;gjpapy; bkhl;il nghl;lhh;/ vd;d fhuzk; c';fSf;Fs; gpur;rid vd;W mikjpahf nfl;f te;j mg;ghit mtkhdg;gLj;jplaJ ,d;Dk; 16 Mz;Lfspy; vj;jidnah epfH;r;rpfs; vd;id kd cisr;rYf;F Mshf;fp Mental Deprationf;F cs;shf;fp gyKiw gs;spapy; kaf;fk;.Fits te;js;sJ/ Doctor Certificate vj;jidnah cs;sJ/ gps;isfs; eLtpy; vd;id ghlk; elj;jtplhky; ,th; Twk; fLk; brhw;fs; epidt[f;F te;J kaf;fk; tpGe;j ehl;fs; gy/ vj;jidnah vj;jidnah ehd;gl;l mtkhdk; mGj ,kut[fs; fzf;fpy; ml';fhjit/ ,J kpf kpf rj;jpakhd cz;ik/ gyKiw kd cisr;ry; fhuzkhf jw;bfhiyf;F ehd; mtuhy; J}z;lg;gl;L vd;Dila gps;isfSf;fhf ehd; eil gpzkhf thH;e;J te;njd;/ xU jz;lid Fw;wthspf;F Tl jhd; bra;j ,d;d jtWf;hf ,e;j jz;lid vd;W bjhpa[k;/ Mdhy; ehd; vd;d fhuzj;jpw;fhf ,t;thW 16 Mz;Lfshf Jd;g[Wj;jg;gLfpnwd; vd;w nfs;tpf;F tpilna ,y;iy/ xU fztdplk; ,Ue;j fpilf;f ntz;oa md;g[.c';fs; jpdf;Typ/ tUkhdk; my;yJ rk;gsj;ij tYf;fl;lhakhf mgfhpj;jy;.c';fs; rPjd bghUl;fis ,y;yhky;; bra;jy; (m) bfhLj;J tpLjy;.kpd;rhuk;_nghd; tPl;od; cgnahfj;jpw;fhd fl;lz';fis fl;lhky; ,Uj;jy;/,it jtpu ntW bghUshjhu td;Kiwfs; (fPnH tplg;gl;l ,lj;jpy; vd;d vd;gjid Fwpg;gpLf).3/ bghUshjhu td;Kiwt/ vz;.td;Kiwapd; jd;ikMidj;J Mtz';fisa[k;.gpy;iya[k; jd; trk; itj;Jf; bfhz;L tPl;il tpl;L vd;id btspnaw;wptpl;lhh;.Jhd; bra;j bryt[ nghy; jw;nghJ nghyp Mtz';fis jahhpj;J tpl;lhh;.2.22.5.2009md;W Vw;gl;l cly; eyf;Fiwt[/ gps;isfSf;F Vw;gl;l (8.2.2009 ypUe;J) cly;eyf;Fiwit ehnd ftdpj;njd;(ECHS Smart card gps;isfSf;fhd/vd;Dila kUj;Jt fhh;il jd;trnk itj;Jf;bfhz;lhh;).8.2.2009gpg;hpthp 2009-ypUe;J vd;ida[k; vd; gps;isfisa[k; tPl;il tpl;L Juj;jptpl;L vd;Dila tPl;L rhtpa[k; vLj;J brd;whh;.g[lit/ gps;isfis Uniforms, Dress kw;Wk; midj;Jg; bghUs;fiska[k; tPl;Lf;Fs; itj;J g{l;of; bfhz;lhh;.vd; rPjdg; bghUl;fs;/ ehd; th';fpa bghUs;fs; midj;ija[k; g{l;o itj;Jtpl;lhh;/ (rhg;gpl jl;L/ Milfs;/ g[lit/ nghh;itfs;/ mj;jpahtrpag; bghUl;fs; midj;Jk; cwtpdh;fs; kw;Wk; ez;gh;fs; bfhLj;J cjtp cs;shh;fs;).4.22.5.2009vd;id tPl;oypUe;J fl;lhakhf btspnaw;wp tPl;Lf;Fs; xU $hjp eha;/ btspna xU eha; kw;Wk; g{l;il khw;wp g{l;otpl;lhh;.tPl;ow;F gof;Fk; g[j;jfk; vLf;f te;j gps;isia (kfid) ehia tpl;L fof;fr; bra;jhh;.Brtpypah; gzpg[hpa[k j';ifapd; gzp,lk; brd;W ,utpy; Foj;Jtpl;L gzp kpul;ly; bra;tJk;/ Efh;nthh; rhh;gpy; nehl;O!; tpLtJk; nghd;w bjhy;iyfs; mspj:J tUfpwhh;.;5.tPl;od; thpia fl;lhky; ntz;Lbkd;nw tpl:Ltpl;lhh;.njjpgpw tptu';fs;ghf;f 1/ 2/ 3kUj;Jthpd; rhd;wpjH; (m) kUj;Jt rPl;L,izg;g[M1/2/3/4rPjdg; bghUl;fs; gl;oay; 1/ 2,d;d gpw Mtz';fs;1/2/3/4gotk; --2(tpjp 6(1) ghh;f;f) FLk;g td;KiwapypUe;J bgz;fis ghJfhf;Fk; rl;lk; 2005/,d; gphpt[ 12 ePjpkd;w eLtUf;F kDbgWjy;ePjpkd;w eLth;/ Fw;wtpay; eLth; ePjpkd;wk; No.II, flY}h;.FLk;g td;KiwapypUe;J bgz;fis ghJfhf;Fk; rl;lk; 2005(43 of 2005) gphpt[ 12 fPH; jhf;fy; bra;a[k; ;kD.1.FLk;g td;KiwapypUe;J bgz;fis ghJfhf;Fk; rl;lk; 2005 gphpt[ 18/ 19/ 20/ 21/ 22 fPH; jhf;fy; bra;a[k; kD fPH;fz;l eguhy; Flk;g epfH;t[ mwpf;ifa[ld; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gLfpwJ.a) ghjpf;fg;gl;l egh; (Tick)b) ghJfhg;g[ mYtyh;c) ghjpf;fg;gl;lthpd; rhh;gpy; ntW egh;(bghUj;jkhd ,lj;jpy; (Tick) Fwpg;gpLf)2. ,e;j khz;g[kpF ePjpkd;wk;; ,e;j g[fhh;_ Flk;g epfH;t[ mwpf;ifia nfhg;gpy; vLj;Jf;bfhz;L fPH;fz;l nfhhpf;if _ my;yJ nfhhpf;iffis ,t;tHf;F NH;epiyf;f jf;f cj;jput[fis gpwg;gpf;FkhW gzpe;J nfhug;gLfpwJ.a) gphpt[ 18-,d; go ghJfhg;g[ cj;jut[ kw;Wk; _ my;yJb) gphpt[ 19-,d; go trpg;gpl cj;jut[ kw;Wk; _ my;yJc) gphpt[ 20-,d; go vjph; KiwaPl;lhsiu cj;jut[ kw;Wk; _ my;yJ mspf;Fk;go cj;juit kw;Wk; _ my;yJ)d) gphpt[ 21-,d;goahd cj;jut[ kw;Wk; _ my;yJe) gphpt[ 22-,d; go vjph;KiwaPl;lhsiu ,Hg;gPL tH';Fk;go cj;jut[ kw;Wk; _ my;yJf) nkw;Twpa nfhhpf;iffSf;F ePjpkd;wk; jf;fjhf fUJk; ,i;lf;fhy cj;jut[.i) gphpt[ 18-,d; fPH; ghJfhg;g[ cj;jut[ (Tick),k;kDtpd; thpir vz;.4(a) / (b) / (c) / (d) / (e) / (f) / (g)) ,y;vjph;KiwaPl;lhsh; fPH;f;fz;l bra;iffspypUe;J jil bra;jy; vd;id gfph;e;Jf; bfhs;sg;gl;l tPl;oypUe;J btspnaw;Wtij jil bra;jy;.ehd; trpf;Fk; Fwpg;gpl;l gFjpf;Fs; gphpntrpg;gij jil bra;jy;gfph;e:J bfhs;sg;gl;l trpg;gplj;jpy; jd;Dila chpikia Kw;wpYkhf tpl;L bfhLj;jiy jil bra;jy;(Tick) ehd; bjhlh;e;J vd;Dila trpg;gplj;jpw;F bry;Ytij cj;juthj gLj;jpf;bfhs;tjw;fhf cj;jut[.(Tick) gfph;e;J bfhs;sg;gl;l tPl;oypUe;J mtiu mth;fis mg;g[wg;gLj;jpf;bfhs;Sk; cj;jut[ (Tick) ,e;j gfph;e;Jf;bfhs;sg;gl;l tPl;od; ,izahd ntW trpg;gplj;ij jUjy;_my;yJ mjw;fhd thlifia fl;LkhW gzpj;jy;ntW cj;jut[fs; njitg;god; Fwpg;gpLf/iii) gphpt[ 20d;go gz epthuzk;(Tick) tUkhd ,Hg;g[ nfhug;gLk; bjhif ...........................kUj;Jtr; bryt[ nfhug;gLk; bjhif ...........................ghjpf;fg;gl;l egh; Msifapy; ,Ue;j brhj;Jf;fis vLj;J brd;wjhYk;_ehrkhf;fpajhYk;_mHpj;jjhYk; Vw;gl;l el;lj;jpw;F nfhug;gLk; bjhif ..............................(Tick) ntW ,Hg;g[fs; cl;gphpt[ 10(o)y; Twg;gl;Ls;s cly; hPjpahd my;yJ kd hPjpahd fha';fSf;fhf nfhug;gLk; bjhif U/7 ,yl;rk;ntW cj;jut[ njitg;god; Fwpg;gpLf ..................................................iv) gphpt[ 20,d;go gz epthuzk;vjph;KiwaPl;lhsiu fPH;f;fz;l bryt[fSf;fhf gzk; epthuzk; jUk;go cj;jut[.(Tick) czt[ cil kUe;Jfs; kw;Wk; mog;gil njitfs;bjhif U/4000_- khjk; xd;Wf;F (Tick) gs;spf;fl;lzk; kw;Wk; mJ bjhlh;ghd bryt[fs;bjhif U./5000_- khjk; xd;Wf;F tPl;Lr;bryt[f;fhf bjhif ---------------- khjk; xd;Wf;F (Tick) ,J jtpu ntW bryt[fSf;fhf.Kfdpd; cah;fy;tpf;fhf bjhif U/6 ,yl;rk;bkhj;j bjhif U/6/09/000 khjk; xd;Wf;F (Tick) ntW cj;jut[ njitg;god; Fwpg;gpLf kfd; kfs; vjph;fhy thH;f;iff;F je;ijapd; flikapy; ,Ue;J midj;J bghUSjtpa[k; bra;a[k;go cj;jutpLk;go jhH;ika[ld; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;.v) gphpt[ 21,;d;go ghJfhty; cj;jut[ vjph;KiwaPl;lhsiu FHe;ij _ FHe;ijfs; fPH;f;fz;l eghplk; xg;gilf;FkhW cj;jut[ (Tick) ghjpf;fg;gl;l egh;ghjpf;fg;gl;l eghpd; rhh;ghf Fwpg;gpl;l eghplk; me;eghpd; tptuk; .........................vi) gphpt[ 22,d;go ,Hg;gPL cj;jut[ ntW cj;jut[ njitg;god; Fwpg;gpLf tP;l;oila[k; mjpy; cs;s bghUl;fisa[k; kPl;Lj;jUk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;.Vw;fdnt ele;j _ ele;JtUk; tHf;F gw;wp tptu';fs; ,Ug;gpd;a) ,e;jpa jz;lid rl;lk; gphpt[ jw;nghJ ePjpkd;wk;....................................,y; epYitapy; cs;sJ. tHf;F Koe;jpUg;gpd; jug;gl;l epthuzk;............................b) Fw;wtpay; eilKiw rl;lk; gphpt .............. jw;nghJ............................. ePjpkd;wk; ................................,y; epYitapy; cs;sJ/ tHf;F Koe;jpUg;gpd; Kotpd; tpgu';fs;......................................c) ,e;J jpUkz rl;lk; 1956,d; gphpt[ ...................................go kD jw;nghJ .............................. ePjpkd;wk;.............................,y; epYitapy; cs;sJ.tHf;F Koe;jpUg;gpd; Kotpd; tpguk;...................................d) ,e;J thhpRhpik kw;wk; $Ptdhk;r rl;lk;/ 1956 gphpt[fs; ................................... jw;nghJ .............................. ePjpkd;wk;.............................,y; epYitapy; cs;sJ.e) $Ptdhk;r nfhhpf;if kD gphpt[ .................................... rl;lj;jpd; fPH; epYitapy; cs;sJ/ ,ilf;fhy $Ptdhk;rk; U:/------------------------------khjk; x;dWf;F khjhe;jpu/ $Ptdhk;rk; U: -----------------------------khjk; xd;Wf;F khjhe;jpu.Perusal of his testimony, does not indicate that the party-in-person/husband has alleged forgery of Ex.P3 - Discharge summary issued by Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore and also about the letter, vide R.O.C.No.474/A4/08, dated 08.01.2010, of the District Social Welfare Officer, Cuddalore, addressed to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore.Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment made in C.A.No.32 of 2011 dated 10.12.2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.Earlier in Crl.M.P.No.300 of 2010, filed by the respondent/wife, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Cuddalore, granted Residence order to the complainant to reside at Door No.222/5, Dhanalakshmi Nagar, Nehru Nagar, Cuddalore, with her two children and also directed the Revision petitioner/husband to pay maintenance to them, at Rs.5,000/- per month.Direction, has also been granted not to harass the complainant and her two children, mentally or physically.On appeal in C.A.No.32 of 2011, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, by judgment dated 10.12.2011 has reduced the quantum of maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,500/- per month and confirmed the other orders, passed by the trial Court.In this context, she preferred a complaint on 08.06.2009 to the All Women Police Station, Cuddalore and also to the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, on 16.09.2009 respectively.(iv) She has also filed HMOP No.105 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, for divorce.Wife has also filed O.S.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, for a permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner/husband not to disturb her.Pending disposal of the abovesaid proceedings, a petition has also been made to the Social Welfare Officer.(iv) for a direction, under Section 21 of the Act, for temporary custody of the children with her and consequently for an order against the husband not to disturb them.(v)for a direction, under Section 22 of the Act, for compensation to herself and to the children.(v) Before the Court below, alongwith the proof affidavit, wife has marked the following exhibits.P2 - Copy of the petition filed for permanent injunction before the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.P3, copy of the Discharge summary issued by Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore for taking treatment for the injuries caused by the respondent/husband.P12 Copy of the proceedings dated 03.09.2001, of the Employees Provident Fund, for obtaining loan.With the very same averments, she has also filed HMOP No.105 of 2009, for divorce, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.Pending disposal of the same, she has filed Crl.According to him, for the past 17 years, since Marriage, there was no problem between the spouses.Thus, denying the allegations made against him, the petitioner/husband has prayed for dismissal of the petition.R18 Fee particulars issued by the School for XI Standard.R19 Declaration Statement for ECHS attested by Notary Public.R20 Photographs of respondent's Family TourAfter considering the pleadings and evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Cuddalore, vide order, dated 07.04.2011, has granted residence order, allowing the complainant/wife and children to reside at Door No.222/5, Dhana Lakshmi Nagar, Nehru Nagar, Cuddalore and also granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to be paid, to the wife and children.Being aggrieved by the said order, Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2011 has been filed by the husband/petitioner before the learned Sessions Court, Cuddalore, on the grounds, inter alia that the trial Court, ought to have taken into consideration, an important legal lacuna, in not marking the Domestic Violence Incident Report.Adverting to the above, the appellate Court has observed that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore, has come to an irresistible conclusion that the husband/petitioner had inflicted cruelty, on the wife and exhibited the same attitude on the son also and also found that the version of PW.2, Ajay Prakash, son of the petitioner, was clinching, to prove the acts of domestic violence.On the contention of the revision petitioner that there is no need to pay maintenance, since the wife was divorced, the appellate Court has found that the order in the Domestic Violence application, was passed on 07.04.2011, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Cuddalore and whereas, divorce between the parties, was granted only on 20.10.2011, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore and thus, held that the order in Crl.M.P.No.300 of 2010, was earlier in point of time.The appellate Court has also taken note of filing of C.M.A.No.74 of 2011, filed by the petitioner/husband, against the order of divorce.While adverting to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in T.K.Surendran v. State of Kerala reported in 2009 (83) AIC 312 (Ker.) = 2010 (3) Crimes 9 (Ker.), and Shasi Bhushan Narayanan Asad v. Deoki Panjhiyare reported in 2010 (95) AIC 791 (Jhar), wherein, it has been held that when the husband and wife are in employment in equal footing, the husband cannot be asked to maintain his wife and while applying the said decision, to the facts of the present case, the appellate Court has held that, as the wife is also employed, she need not be given maintenance, whereas, the children are entitled to maintenance and accordingly, modified the quantum of maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,500/-, to be paid to the children.Being aggrieved by the abovesaid order, the petitioner-husband has filed the present revision case.A memo, dated 28.01.2014, has been filed by the learned counsel on record, for the petitioner, seeking permission to withdraw their appearance.Hence, Registry was directed to print the name of the petitioner, Mr.K.Arul @ Arul Prakasam.Thus, when Ex.Moreover this allegation has been omitted by Act 68 of 1976 for clause (iii) Therefore, fraudulent has been caused for cheating the court.Point No.2 One petitioner cannot be filed two application in two various open court at a time in the same date.Therefore fraudulent has been caused for cheating the court.Point No.3 An interim affidavit cannot be filed on the same date of two main applications are filing (or) cannot be filed symmetrically along with the main application.Therefore fraudulent has been caused for cheating the court.Point No.4 A permanent injunction petition cannot be filed without getting any order/office.Therefore fraudulent has been caused for cheating the court.Therefore illegality has been caused for cheating the court.Point No.7 Filing of forged records for purporting to be a record in a court of Justice in any proceeding is an offence, Defined under section 466 of the IPC.Substituted by Act 21 of 2000, section 91 and Schedule 1 for who ever forges (w.e.f 17.10.2000).Therefore illegality has been committed for cheating the court.Point No.8 Using as genuine a forged document (or) electronic record, who knows the reason to be a forged is an offence, Defined under section 471 of the IPC.Inserted and substituted by the Information Technology Act 2000 (21 of 2000) (w.e.f. 17.10.2000) Therefore illegality has been caused for cheating the court.After receiving such notice and then given the back dated complaint petition under domestic violence Act 2005 to the District Social Welfare Officer.When the same relief of suit is pending before in the Civil Court.14) On 8th motion, he has been endorsed as In view of oder in CMP 300/2010, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Cuddalore, The suit may be dismissed as in fructuous.Phenomena Points for Fraudulent and illegality:Point No.17 The minor son would not be entitled for maintenance, when he attain the age of majority defined under section 20(1) of clause (d) cf the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2003, Which made the provision of Cr.P.C., applicable and stand fortified.G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors.(2010) 8 sec.Hence the Appeal shall be allowed.(a) pass on order against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.04.2011 for set-aside.(b) pass on order against the complaint no CMP 300/2010 pending before in the Magistrate Court No.II at Cuddalore and all other orders to be quashed.(c) pass on order that this appellant has to be continue with other cases against the public servant, who has been committed fraudulent/illegality up on the court pass such other and further order or orders of this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.Ravichander, learned counsel for the respondent denied the allegations of fraud, forgery, misrepresentation made against the wife-respondent.There was no supporting evidence, either.On the contrary, he submitted that Ex.(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:After suffering residence and maintenance orders, the revision petitioner has filed an appeal in C.A.No.32 of 2011, dated 10.12.2011, before the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District.In the grounds of appeal, the petitioner has stated as follows:(iii) The trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the legal lacuna of not marking the Domestic Incident Report.But as per the lower Court records, Ex.P3, is the Discharge summary issued by Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore for taking treatment, for the injuries, allegedly caused by the husband to the respondent/wife.It is also his contention that the letter of the District Social Welfare Officer, Cuddalore District, is forged.Thus, according to him, both the documents, are forged.Filling of such documents and using the same as genuine in the Court, constitute offences, under Sections 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and thus, the respondent has committed fraud and obtained orders, from the lower Courts.The said Officer has recorded the statements and submitted a report.In the said letter, both the District Protection Officer, Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Cuddalore and District Social Welfare Officer, Cuddalore, have signed.At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to extract the letter, dated 08.01.2010, as follows:A copy of the complaint preferred by one Tmt.Vijayalakshmi, W/o.Arul, against Mr.As a Protection Officer, enquire for the complaints against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at No.2/5, Dhanalakshmi Nagar, Nehru Nagar, Cuddalore-1, into the matter on spot and make a Domestic Incident Report, enclosed herewith.This Court has perused the details of the domestic violence, alleged to have been reported to the District Protection Officer.The Protection Officer has recorded that on various dates, from 03.04.2001, till the enquiry was conducted, there were acts of domestic violence.kpul;otpl;L FoapUf;Fk; tPl;od; rhtpiaa[k; bjhpahky; bfhz;L brd;whh;/L.I.G., mz;zh efh;.flY}h;/fhiykhiy,ut[K.mUs;kfid vg;nghJk; je;ij K/mUSf;F gpof;fhJ/ vg;nghJk; mtid moj;J Jd;g[Wj;jpf; bfhz;nl ,Ug;ghh;/ mog;gjw;bfd;nw fhtyh;fs; gad;gLj;Jk; yj;jpia gad;gLj;jp fl;oypy; fhiya[k;.iffis jiyapYk; Cd;w br;aJ mtid Fg;g[w ftpH;j;jp cl;fhUk; ,lj;jpy; mog;gnj mth; gzp/ ,J rpW tajpypUe;J fz;K:oj;jdkhf mog;gjhy; mtDf;F ,d;dKk; gLf;ifapy; rpWePh; fHpf;Fk; gHf;fKk;.Kpf gae;j Rghtk; cilatdhft[k;.xU Kiw ,th; mo jh';fhky; tPl;il tpL;L btspnawpa[k; ,Uf;fpwhd;/ kfs;.jdyl;Rkp efh;.,ut[K.mUs;Vw;gLj;jpajhf ngRjy;~ tujl;riz bfhz;Ltuhikf;F mtkhdg;gLj;Jjy;~ FHe;ij bgw;bwLf;ftpy;iy vd mtkhdg;gLj;Jjy;~ khpahij Fiwthf mrp';fg;gLj;Jk;tifapy; Fwpg;gpLjy; my;yJ ngRjy;~ mtkhdg;gLj;Jjy; gl;lag; bgah;bgw;nwhh;.Vd;Dila nrkpg;g[/ 15 gt[d; eif tpw;W Loany; fl;oa vd; tPl;oy; ,Ue;J vd;ida[k;/ vd; gps;isfisa[k; khw;W Jzp Tl ,y;yhky; Juj;jptpl;lhh;.fle;j 10 khj fhykhf bgw;nwhUld;/ FHe;ijfSld; jdpna bgw;nwhUld; L.I.G, No:5, mz;zh efhpy; thlif tPl;oy; trpj:J tUfpd;nwd;.vdf;F ghJfhg;g[ mspj;j j';ifia/ bgw;nwhiu juf;Fiwthd thh;j;ijahy; v';fs; cwtpdh;fsplk; ngrp tUfpwhh;.g) nkw;go nfhhpf;iffis jtpu ePjpkd;w ,t;tHf;F NHYf;F jf;fbjd fUJk; ve;j cj;jut[k; tH';Fk;go nfhug;gLfpwJ.2. nfhug;gLk; cj;jut[fs;5/ nkw;go kD gphpt[ ------------------ goahd epthuz';fis nfhhp jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l kDtpy; Twg;gl;Ls;s tptu';fs; vd;Dila jfty; bgw;W vd;dhy; vGjg;gl;lit Mfk;.6/ nkw;go kDtpy; cs;s tpgu';fs; vdf;F goj;J fhz;gpf;fg;gl;L M';fpyk; _ ,e;jp_jkpH;_jkpH; bkhHpapy; tpsf;fg;gl;lJ/ 7/ ,g;gpukhz thf;FKykhdJ kDtpy; Twg;gl;Ls;s tpgu';fSld; nrh;j;J ,izg;g[ gotk; kUj;Jt rhd;W gpw ,izg;g[fisa[k; thrpf;FkhW gzpt[ld; nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ kD tpgu';fs; RUf;fk; fUjp kPz;Lk; xU Kiw ,';F Twg;gLtJ jtph;f;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 8/ kDjhuh; kDtpy; nfhug;gl;Ls;s epthuz';fis FLk;g td;Kiwfs; kPz;Lk; mth; kPJ epfH;j;jg;glyhk; vdf; fUJtjhy; ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpd; kD K:yk; cj;jut[fis nfhhpa[s;shh;.9/ vjph; kDjhuh; kDjhuiu bfhiy bra;JtpLtjhft[k; kPz;Lk; kPz;Lk; mtkhdg;gLj;Jntd; vd;Wk; ntiy mtUila uhqt ,l xJf;fPl;oy; fpilj;jjhft[k; me;j ntiyia ,y;yhky; bra;J tpLtjhft[k; vd kpul;o.a[s;shh;.nkw;fz;l kD gj;jp 1 Kjy; 12 tiuapyhd Tw;Wfs; vd;Dila mwpt[f;F vl;oa tiuapy; rhp vdt[k; ve;j jftYk; kiwf;fgltpy;iy vd;gija[k; cWjpahf Twfpnwd;/ kDjhuh;verified by me and signed before me ghJfhg;g[ mYtyhpd; ifbahg;gk;The respondent-wife, has marked Exs.P1 to P16, as stated supra.On the aspect of forgery and fraud, nothing seemed to have been elicited in the cross-examination of the respondent-wife.The District Protection Officer, has also signed the said letter.Even if a case is taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the report of the District Protection Officer, the party who suffered acts of domestic violence, has to adduce evidence before the Court of competent jurisdiction to substantiate the same, with reference to the reliefs sought for, in the report.On that aspect, perusal of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore, clearly shows that besides adducing the oral evidence, the respondent-wife has marked as many as 16 documents.The petitioner-husband has also adduced evidence and marked 20 documents.Considering the fact that the evidence adduced by the parties should be scrutinised thoroughly, in the opening sentence of the judgment in the appeal, the appellate Court has made a note of the same, before the analysing the evidence, adduced by both the parties.Finding of fact of the domestic violence, which is a requirement, under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for passing suitable orders, considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore, confirmed in appeal, by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore District, in C.A.No.32 of 2011 dated 10.12.2011, cannot be said to be perverse or without any evidence, warranting interference.Allegations made against the respondent, for the first time, in this revision case, by way of oral submission and written arguments, not only deserves to be rejected, it also requires to be condemned.The Sessions Judge, Cuddalore Division,Cuddalore District.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Cuddalore. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
589,310 | The respondent Trilok Singhhad accompanied Asa Singh and the latter went to Ram Lal fornegotiating the aforesaid purchase.The prosecution allegedthat Asa Singh and Boota Singh respondents were firstcousins and were residents of Chhidarwala.Boota Singh wasalso related to Trilok Singh inasmuch as Trilok sister iswedded to the cousin of Boota Singh.After the agreement,Asa Singh appears to have found some difficulties inarranging for the money to be paid to the vendee P.W. 16 RamLal and under the terms of the agreement if the money wasnot paid by the due date the entire amount of earnest moneyof Rs. 3200/- was liable to be forfeited.In such asituation the four respondents entered into a conspiracy toobtain money by means fair or foul.They accordingly hitupon a plan to obtain a taxi on hire and after takingpossession of it to do away with the driver and sell thetaxi at some other place and utilise the consideration ofthe sale for payment to Ram Lal towards the balance of thepurchase money.In execution of this common plan Asa Singhremained at Doiwala while Boota Singh, Trilok Singh andRaghubir Singh went to Dehra Dun and contacted Inder SinghP.W. 2 at Punjab Taxi Service, Dehra Dun.Trilok Singh andRaghubir Singh remained standing at the petrol pump a fewpaces away from the office of the Punjab Taxi Service.BootaSingh respondent went in and approached Inder Singh P.W. 2and introduced himself as K. Sharma of the Indian Army andgave out that he was on a round for recruiting girls for themilitary and for this purpose he needed the taxi on hire.The bargain was finally struck and Inder Singh P.W.2 agreedto provide Boota Singh with his taxi at the rate of Rs. 30per day.Boota Singh thereafter executed a document Ex. Ka-4in proof of the receipt of the car and paid Rs. 50/- asadvance.The receipt appears to have been signed by the respondent asK. Sharma.The signature of the Respondent was sent to theexpert along with his admitted specimen signatures and theexpert P.W. 32 Shiv Ram Singh found that it completelytallied with the signature of the respondent Boota Singh.The High Courtseems to have rejected this important document mainly on theground that it was not mentioned in the report filed by P.W.1 Harcharan Singh, brother of the deceased who had lodged awritten report at the Police Station Dalanwala, Dehra Dunstating therein that the respondent had hired the taxi atthe rate of Rs. 30/- per day on the ground that he had tovisit several places like Hardwar, Roorkee, Saharanpur,Meerut, Moradabad, Mathura, Brindaban, Aligarh, Agra etc.The description oil the car is given in the report and thewitness has expressed the apprehension that the respondentmay have killed the driver and driven away the car.Thebrother of the deceased was naturally upset because the taxihaving been taken on the 8th December had not returned for23 days but he did not know what had happened.In thesecircumstances, there was no occasion for Harcharan Singh tomention every possible detail in this report.Furthermore,what the High Court completely overlooked was that therespondent Boota Singh himself clearly mentioned in hisconfession that he had paid an advance of Rs. 50/- andexecuted a receipt.P.W. 2 Inder Singh deposes that on 9-12-63 which he wasin his office along with Pritam Singh and Jagir Singh anunbearded gentleman came to him at about 4 to 4.30 p.m. andrepresented that he wanted to have a taxi car on hire.thewitness goes on to say that the driver the car was his sonLal Singh the deceased and the number of the car was UPS-6679 and it was of Fiat make.The respondent Boota Singhwhom the witness i(identified later at a T.I.. paradesettled the hiring charges at Rs. 30 per day and paid anadvance of Rs. SO/-."The defence examined Amir Ahmad (P.W. 3) who was posted as a Head Constable, Karanpur outpost, Dehra Dun.He stated that Asa Singh was arrested by him on 6- 1-64 near Roadways Stand, Dehradun and that he took him to P.S. Dalanwala.In cross-examination he admitted that he did not make any entry as to the arrest of Asa Singh on 6-1-64 in the General Diary, that he left the accused at the Police Station without getting any entry made because it was the work of the officers.He admitted that he used to get entries of arrival and departure of accused made at the.Police Station and he signed the same.He was unable to explain why he did not ll adopt the same procedure in this instance.The alleged explanation that he did not get an entry made because he had no314 warrant does not appeal to reason.......... He also admitted that he was being prosecuted for murder by Meerut C.I.D. and that Meerut C.I.D. was responsible for his arrest.He has, therefore, a grudge with the Meerut C.I.D. He did not know Asa Singh before he arrested him.He had no warrant for his arrest.The respondent Boota Singh hasclearly stated in his confession that after going to Bombayhe contacted a broker for negotiating the sale of the car.P.W. 9 Anand Singh states that he was plying a taxi atBombay.The witness paid an advance of Rs.200/- and got a receipt in the name of Nirbhai Ram NarsicDas.The witness further states that of the three personswho met him two were Sardars and one was without a beard.The persons who was without beard gave out his name as J. P.Singh and he affixed his signature on the receipt.On18.12.63 Boota Singh as J. P. Singh took him to the officeof the Ex R.T.O. for getting the registration number changedat Bombay.Thereafter theso called J. P. Singh went inside the office and the witnessremained outside and waited right up to 6 in the evening butJ. P. Singh did not return.The C.I.D. Police, Bombaythereafter took the car into custody along with all otherpapers.The witness gave the receipt given to him by therespondent Boota Singh.The witness had identified therespondent Boota Singh at Dehra Dun and Raghubir Singh atNainital at an identification parade held by a Magistrate.Hehad a talk with the person who named himself as J. P. Singhand represented himself to be son of S. P. Bareilly.Hedemanded Rs. 18,000 for the car and offered a commission ofRs. 500 to the witness.The witness accordingly searched fora customer.D. P. Uniyal and o. P. Rana for the Appellant.A. N. Mulla, Yogeswar Pd., S. K. Bagga and Mrs. S.Bagga for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J.-This appeal by special leave is directedagainst the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 29thSeptember, 1970 by which the High Court acquitted therespondents of the charges framed against them by theSessions Judge Dehra Dun.The Sessions Judge, Dehra Dun by his order dated 16thJuly, 1969 convicted the respondents Boota Singh, Asa Singh,Trilok Singh and Raghubir Singh under section 302 read withsection 34 I.P.C. and also under section 120-B I.P.C. BootaSingh, Trilok Singh and Asa Singh were sentenced to deathunder section 302 read with section 34 and section 120-BI.P.C. while Raghubir Singh was sentenced to imprisonmentfor life for the offence under section 302 read with section34 and section 120-B I.P.C. The four respondents mentionedabove were also convicted under section 364 read withsection 34 and section 120-B I.P.C. and section 394 readwith section 34 and section 120-B I.P.C. and each of themwere sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven yearsunder each count.Boota Singh was further convicted of theoffence under section 419, I.P.C. and section 471 read withsection 465 T.P.C. and section 47] read with section 466T.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years,one year and four years respectively.As three of therespondents, viz., Boota Singh, Trilok Singh and Asa Singhwere sentenced to death, the Sessions Judge made a referenceto the High Court of Allahabad for confirmation of thesentence of death.The respondents who have been convictedby the Sessions Judge also filed appeals against theirconvictions and sentences.The appeal was heard by aDivision Bench of the Allahabad High Court which reversedthe judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and acquitted allthe respondents of the charges framed against them.the State of U.P. preferred an appeal tothis Court and after special leave was granted by this Courtthe appeal has been placed before us for hearing.At thetime when the special leave was granted, the Court issuednon-bailable warrants against the four respondents inpursuance of which Boota Singh.Trilok Singh and RaghubirSingh surrendered hut Asa Singh remained absconding.During the pendency of the appeal the respondent TrilokSingh died and it is, therefore, manifest that the appeal sofar as this respondent is concerned has abated.Before wetook up the appeal for hearing we segregated the appeal ofAsa Singh as he was absconding and directed that the appealagainst other respondents will be heard but the appeal ofAsa Singh will be kept pending.Lal Singh, the deceased son of Inder Singh was thedriver of the taxi and in fact the virtual owner of thetaxi.The taxi given to Boota Singh bore number UPS-6679.Inder Singh directed Lal Singh to take the taxi304with Boota Singh and his companions.Raghubir Singh andTrilok Singh boarded the taxi when it reached the petrolpump.From Dehra Dun the taxi came to Doiwala where theparty of Boota Singh was joined by Asa Singh.From there the respondents proceeded to Chhidarwalaby forest road and after crossing some forest barriersultimately reached Chiddarwala where it was decided tomurder Lal Singh and take complete possession of the taxi.In pursuance of this conspiracy Lal Singh was taken to theforest and killed by the respondents.According to theprosecution, as disclosed in the confession of respondentBoota Singh Ex. Ka-81, Trilok Singh first fired two shots atthe deceased and then Asa Singh dealt a gandasa blow on theneck of the deceased.At the time ofnegotiations with Raja Ram Narain Rane, Boota Singh gave outhis name as J.P. Singh and represented that he was son ofS.P., Bareilly.On the 18th February 1963 respondentBoota Singh along with Anand Singh P.W. 9 went to the officeof the R.T.O. at Bombay and contacted P.W. 35 Rati LalChhotu Bhai Desai who was a Motor Vehicles Inspector and whowas shown various papers by Boota Singh.Desai then saw thecar and discovered some tampering with the chassis number.The papers were? therefore, placed before the Police officerand Boota Singh sensing some trouble made good his escape.Meanwhile as Lal Singh did not return for quite anumber of days, his brother Harcharan Singh got worried andfiled a missing report before the Police Station Dalanwala,district Dehra Dun on 31st December, 1963 wherein heexpressed his apprehension that the person who had hired thetaxi may have killed Lal Singh and driven away the305car This report was treated by the Police as F.I.R. andinvestigation was started in the course of which the blanketof deceased Lal Singh was recovered from the forest and therespondent Boota Singh soon after his arrest made theconfession Ex. Ka-81 before a Magistrate making a cleanbreast of the whole affair.Subsequently, the respondentswere identified by some of the witnesses at T.I. paradesheld at Nainital and Dehra Dun.After the usualinvestigation, the Police submitted a charge against all thefour respondents on the basis of which they were committedto the Court of SESSIONS and convicted and sentenced LIindicated above.The central evidence against the respondents consistsof the confessional statement made by Boota Singh on 16thMarch, 1964 before Mr. M. L. Sharma, Magistrate First-classwho has been examined as P.W 23 and in the confession BootaSingh appears to have made a clean breast of the entirestory detailing the various parts played by him and hisother companions.The confession was sought to becorroborated by a large number of circumstances proved bythe prosecution at the trial and which will be discussedhereafter.In fact, the motive for the murder of thedeceased has been clearly indicated in the confession andwas also corroborated by the oral evidence led by theprosecution as also the statement of Respondent Asa Singhrecorded under section 342 of the Code of CriminalProcedure.The High Court does not appear to have made a correctapproach to the present case inasmuch as it first tried todeal with the various circumstances which went tocorroborate the confession and dealt with the confession inthe last and held that as the confession was not voluntaryno reliance could be placed on the same.We should haveexpected the High Court to have dealt with the confessionfirst because that was the sheet anchor of the prosecutioncase.The other circumstantial evidence adduced by theprosecution went to corroborate dk important facts andincidents mentioned in the confession.We have carefullyperused the judgment of the trial Judge and the High Courtand we are constrained to observe-that the High Court hasneither marshalled the evidence correctly nor has itconsidered the effect of some of the most important andvital circumstances which clinched some of the basic issuesarising in the case.It would appear that before reloading theconfessional statement of the respon306dent Boota Singh the Magistrate had put a number ofquestions to satisfy himself that the confession was beingmade voluntarily and without any coercion or undueinfluence.The respondent Boota Singh on being asked as towhy he was making the confession, clearly stated that he wasdoing so because he wanted to speak the truth.Boota Singhfurther testified that he was in police custody only for twodays before making the confession and where his treatmentwas good.The Magistrate also took care to see that therewas no police officer present in the court when theconfession was recorded.In his deposition, the Magistratestated that Boota Singh was produced before him at 1.30 p.m.On the 16th March and thereafter having warned him he sentthe respondent back in court custody and recorded thestatement at about 4.45 p.m. Thus, the respondent BootaSingh was given more than three hours for reflection.TheHigh Court conjectures that the respondent Boota Singh musthave been sent to police custody after being produced beforethe Magistrate on 16th March at .30 p.m. his finding of theHigh Court is contrary to the evidence of the Magistrate whoclearly deposed thus:-"At the time when the statement was recorded, the accused was produced by the Court Moharrir.No Sub- Inspector was present there.There was no constable as well.When the Court Moharrir came with the accused the accused was already in handcuffs.I got the same removed when he came inside.The Moharrir went outside with the handcuffs".This statement clearly shows that after 1.30 p.m. respondentBoota Singh was in the custody of the Court Moharrir and itwas from his custody that the respondent Boota Singh wasproduced before the Magistrate at 4.45 p.m. for recordingthe confession.For these reasons, therefore, the High Courtwas not justified in rejecting the confession or doubtingits veracity on the supposed belief that the respondentBoota Singh was in police custody from the time he wasproduced before the Magistrate to the time when thestatement was recorded.Another ground on which the High Court rejected theconfession was that the respondent Boota Singh was taken byK. N. Sharma, S.I. in police custody from 10-3-64 to ]2-3-64and the High Court thought that this period must have beenutilised for coercing the respondent Boota Singh to make aconfession which he ultimately made four days later.The High Court further found that Vikram Singh P.W. 59interrogated the respondent Boota Singh as far back as 9-1-1964 and it is not explained by the prosecution as to whythere was a delay of two months on the part of therespondent Boota Singh for making the con307fessional statement.The High Court further found thatimmediately after the S.I. sent the respondent Boota Singhto jail custody on 12-3-64, he submitted a report for theconfession of the respondent being recorded which throwsdoubt on the voluntary nature of the confession.The HighCourt further conjectured that from these circumstances areasonable inference can be drawn that third degrees methodsmust have been used by the police.With very great respectwe are constrained to say that the High Court indulged inpure speculation on this aspect of the matter.There isabsolutely nothing on record to show that the respondentBoota Singh was tortured or beaten while in police custody.In fact, D.W. 1 N. S. David, Assistant Jailor District JailDehra Dun who was examined on behalf of the defencecategorically stated that on 12-2-1964 K. N. Sharma, S.I.admitted the respondent Boota Singh in jail.The witnesstestified that at the time when he was admitted to jail hehad no injury on his person at that time.The witnessfurther states that there was an entry in the relevantregisters to show that Boota Singh was sent to the Court on16-3-1964 and there was no injury on the person of BootaSingh when he was sent to Court.Furthermore, on his returnfrom court to jail, there was also no entry with respect toany injury on his person.This circumstance, therefore,completely rules out the possibility of Boota Singh havingbeen assaulted, beaten or tortured by the police while intheir custody.Moreover, the High Court completelyoverlooked a very important fact which went to show that theconfessional statement was true and voluntary.Therespondent Boota Singh in his statement under section 342Cr.P.C. before the committing Magistrate which is ExhibitKa.113 in answer to question No. 22 stated thus :-"Bikram Singh, Sub-Inspector and Kundan Lal Sharma, C.I.D. Inspector, took us to P.S. Dalanwala and locked up us separately from each other.They beat me severely and pressed and threatened me that if I did not make a statement as desired by them, they would kill me.""There they beat me to unconsciousness and then brought me and then pressed me to make a statement.I was not at all in my senses, when they brought me back to the lock-up, the court had departed."This statement was completely falsified by the circumstancesindicated above yet Boota Singh gave a complete go by tothis plea taken by him before the committing Magistrate andin his statement before the Sessions Judge he categoricallystated that he made no statement before the Magistrate, buthis signature was taken on a blank paper which was308converted into a confession.In answer to question No. 21regarding the confession having been read out to therespondent Boota Singh, he stated thus:-"No I did not make any statement.He obtained my signature on a blank paper"To begin with, Boota Singh states in his confessionthat he was a resident of Churkana in the District ofSheikhupur and at the relevant time he was residing atKichha in the District of Nainital.Asa Singh and TrilokSingh were cousins, the sons of Chacha and Tau of each otherand live together at Chhidderwala.The sister of TrilokSingh was married to Piara Singh, the respondent's father'ssister's son at village Moonak, as a result of which AsaSingh and Trilok Singh used to visit the respondent atKichha off and on.The respondent then goes309on to state that Trilok Singh wanted to purchase land atChidderwala and had paid Rs. 1200/- as earnest money to HansRaj.The whole transaction was for Rs. 16,000/- or Rs.17,000/-? but as the purchaser was short of money.Trilok Singh, Raghubir Singh and Gopi Goojar alongwith Boota Singh conspired together to bring some taxi fromDehra Dun and sell the same, so that the balance of theconsideration money for the land might be paid and the sale-deed got registered.This really constituted the motive forthe incident leading to the murder of the deceased, LalSingh.The gist of the motive mentioned in the confession isclearly corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 16 Ram Lal whohas deposed that during the time of the occurrence Asa Singhand his brother Bal Singh wanted to purchase his land andthe transaction was settled at the rate of Rs. 225 perbigha, and 68 bighas of land were to be sold.The purchasershad given an advance of Rs. 3200/- which was to be forfeitedif the balance of the amount was not paid.It may bementioned here that the Respondent Asa Singh in hisstatement before the Sessions Court admitted the purchase ofthe land from Ram Lal and merely denied the knowledge as towhether Rs. 3200/- had been paid as earnest money.Therespondent Asa Singh statement that the land was to bepurchased by Bal Singh and not by him really makes nodifference as Ram Lal who was admittedly the purchaser wasan independent witness and he testified on oath to thetransaction relating to the sale-deed which provided theimmediate motive for the murder.The High Court seems tohave brushed aside the evidence or Ram Lal merely on theground that there was no documentary evidence to show thatthere was any negotiation between the parties before thesale-deed was executed and held that the evidence of Ram Lalwas not sufficient proof of the fact that Asa Singh was inany manner concerned with the land purchased by Bal Singh.In coming to this finding the High Court completelyoverlooked the fact that the nature of the transaction wasclearly mentioned in the confession which has been held byus to be true and voluntary.Once the motive mentioned inthe confession was corroborated by an independent witnesseslike P.W. 16 Ram Lal whose evidence was and could not bedisbelieved by the High Court, that was sufficient tocorroborate the310part of the confession which related to motive.The findingof the High Court on the question of motive appears to beagainst the weight of the evidence on the record.The next circumstance mentioned in the confession wasthat on 8th December, ]963 Asa Singh, Trilok Singh, RaghubirSingh, Gopi Goojar and respondent Boota Singh started in thetractor of Asa Singh and on reaching Doiwala Asa Singh andGopi stopped there but the other three, namely, TrilokSingh, Raghubir Singh and Boota Singh proceeded to, DehraDun by bus.Boota Singh went to the Punjab Taxi Stand andhad a talk with Inder Singh for hiring a taxi and wasultimately successful in persuading Inder Singh to give thetaxi to him on hire at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day.Therespondent further mentioned in the confession that he paidan advance of Rs. 50/- and gave a receipt to Inder Singh.Thereafter, three of them proceeded to Doiwala in the taxihired by Boota Singh which was driven by the deceased LalSingh who was the son of Inder Singh.Pritam Singh and P.W. 14 Jagir Singhthat the respondent had approached them for hiring the taxiand he himself executed the receipt Exhibit Ka-4 and affixedhis signature in their presence.The respondent had givenout his name as one K. Sharma.For these reasons, therefore, we are not in aposition to support the finding of the High Court thatExhibit Ka-4 was not a genuine document.Thus, Exhibit Ka-4being proved must be held to the strongest possiblecircumstance to corroborate the confession of Boota Singhregarding the first stage of the prosecution case, namely,the hiring of the taxi.Apart from Exhibit Ka-4 there is independent andreliable evidence to show that Boota Singh and others hadapproached P.W. 2 Inder Singh for living the taxi on hire torespondent Boota Singh and the deal was struck as a resultof which Rs. 50/- was paid in advance.In this connectionthe witnesses examined by the prosecution arc P.W. 2 InderSingh, P.W. 8 Pritam Singh and P.W. 14 Jagir Singh.At aT.I. parade held on 9-3-1964 at Dehra Dun Boota Singh wasidentified by P.W. 2 Inder Singh and P.W. 14 Jagir Singh asthe person who had approached him for taking the taxi onhire.At the same parade the respondent Trilok Singh wasidentified by P.W. 8 Pritam Singh and P.W. 14 Jagir Singh.All these witnesses were undoubtedly independent witnessesand were not known to Boota Singh at all, nor they bore anyanimus against him.There was thus no reason for them todepose falsely against the respondents.The respondent further gave his name asK. Sharma and wanted the taxi for 20 clays.The witnessfurther stated that Apart from the respondent Boota Singhwho masqueraded as one K. Sharma there were two more Sardarsnear the petrol pump where the car was standing.To the sameeffect is the evidence of P.W. 14 Jagir Singh an(l P.W. 2,Pritam Singh.The learned Sessions Judge has carefullyconsidered the evidence of these witnesses and has acceptedthe same.The High Court appears to have brushed aside theevidence of these independent witnesses on trivial andspeculative grounds.In the first place, the High Courtfound that there were tell tale circumstances in the easewhich did not exclude the possibility of the respondentBoota Singh and others having been shown to the witnesses atpolice station Moonak and Dalanwala before the T.I. paradewas held at Dehradun.The circumstances relied upon by theHigh Court may be summarised thus: P.W. 20 Sri Ram Bajajadmits that he had arrested Boota Singh and Trilok Singh atMoonak and kept both of them look cd up at Police StationMoonak.P.W. 59 Vikram Singh deposes as follows founded Boota Singh and Trilok Singh at P.S. Moonak.They had been under custody of the Punjab Police and they were Bapurdah." (Emphasis supplied(l).On the basis of the evidence of these witnesses the HighCourt suspected that the respondents must have been shown tothe witnesses at Police Station Moonak.In coming to thisfinding, however, the High Court completely overlooked theevidence of these very witnesses which completely excludedthe possibility of the respondent having been shown to thewitnesses.P.W. 20 who had arrested Boota Singh and TrilokSingh categorically stated thus:-"I arrested Boota Singh and Trilok Singh accused at Moonak in connection with that case.I made them Bapurdah and told them that they were to Be identified.I shut Both of them at P.S. Moonak in a Bapurdah state".(Emphasis ours) .The evidence of these two witnesses clearly shows that everypossible precaution was taken to keep the respondentBapurdah throughout and even at the Police Station Moonak sothat the respondent may not be able to see the witnesses.Similarly, P.W. 59 Vikram Singh clearly stated that althoughhe found Boota Singh and Trilok Singh at P.S. Moonak theywere in police custody and they were Bapurdah.In the faceof this clear and specific evidence where was the questionfor the High Court to conjecture or speculate that thewitness must have been shown to the.respondent at thepolice station Moonak.the High Court ought to have decidedthis question on the direct evidence of the witnessesconcerned rather than on pure surmises and conjectures.The High Court particularly relied on the evidence ofP.W. 3 Amir Ahmad who had stated that he had arrested therespondent Asa Singh on 6-1-1964 and taken him to policestation Dalanwala.The witness goes on to state that on 8-]-1964 the Station officer took him to Moonak and he wentalong with him.The witness further state(l that there.werethree Sardars with them and one of them was known as Gyaniand there were two drivers, one of them was Jagir Singh andthe other was Pritam Singh.Thus, the inference the HighCourt draws from this evidence is that the respondent AsaSingh was shown to the witnesses Pritam Singh and JagirSingh who were brought together from Dalanwala to Moonak.The trial Court discussed the evidence of this witnessand gave cogent reasons for rejecting the testimony of thewitness particularly when the witness was a disgruntled onehaving been suspended on a criminal charge and therefore,would be ready to oblige the defence.Moreover, the SessionsJudge while criticising the evidence of this witnessobserved as follows:-He was not given any direction for the arrest of the accused.He merely knew that the Station officer had left for his arrest.In the circumstances it was not expected of him to have arrested accused Asa Singh.The entire statement of the witness is untrustworthy and unconvincing."None of the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judgeappear to have been displaced by the High Court and were noteven noticed by it.In view of the admission made by thiswitness it is extremely doubtful if the witness in fact hadarrested Asa Singh and his entire story appears to be a purefabrication.For these reasons, therefore, the High Courtwas not at all justified in relying on the evidence of P.W.3 at its face value.Reliance was also placed on the evidence of P.W. 27Mahendra Singh who states thus:"On 6-1-64 S.O. Vikram Singh Head Constable Amir.Ahmad, Constables Raja Ram, Pritam Singh, Tej Ram, Mathma Singh and I reached Manak.There was none from the public from us.I do not remember the time when we started from there.We reached Mannak in the Right of 8th and 9th.We did not go to Police Station Manak.We stayed at Mannak in the night of 8th and 9th.We had gone there to arrest Boota Singh and "others".The High Court appears to have made much of the allegedadmission of the witness in the case that P.W. 3 PritamSingh had accompanied the police party to Moonak where BootaSingh was arrested, and there fore, there is a possibilitythat Pritam Singh might have been shown to Boota Singh.Inthe first place, the witness says nothing of the sort andthe High Court appears to have misread the evidence of thiswitness.The words used by the witness are "Constables RajaRam, Pritam Singh, Tej Ram, Mathma Singh and I reachedMannak`' which clearly indicate that he refers to PritamSingh Constable and not to Pritam Singh witness.The witnesshas further clarified this fact by making a categoricalstatement "that there was none from the public with us.(3) Whether necessarily entries should be made in the jail records for keeping the accused ba-parda while he is in the judicial lock up".The Full Bench of the High Court examined the matter and held that the propositions laid down in Dhakol Singh's case could not be regarded as a rule of law and had been far too broadly laid down to merit acceptance even as practical propositions and could only lead to the accentuation of the difficulties of honest investigating officers and truthful witnesses.The Full Bench answered the questions as follows:- "(1 ) It is not necessary that entry should be made in the various police records of the precautions that were taken for keeping the accused persons ba- parda while under police custody.4-.526 SCI/78316 (2) It is also not necessary to specify in the warrant of commitment of the accused when he is sent to judicial custody that he is to be kept ba-parda till The identification parade takes place, nor it is necessary to specify the precautions that the jail authorities are to take for keeping the accused ba- parda.(3) It is also not necessary that entries should be made in the jail records for keeping the accused ba- parda while he is in the judicial lock up."In the instant case we have already pointed out thatthere is positive and definite evidence that the respondentwas kept ba-parda wherever he was.Finally, the High Court relied on the circumstance thatBoota Singh was taken from Moonak to Sangrur and thence toDelhi for a T.I. parade but the T.I. parade ultimately nevertook place.In this connection, the High Court relies on theaffidavit of Vikram Singh where the deponent states in para2 as follows:-"In the present case, I took the witnesses to Delhi Jail on 24.2.64 for the purpose of identification of the accused Boota Singh and Trilok Singh.On 26.2.64 at about 8 A.M. I came back to Dehradun along with the witnesses".TheHigh Court however completely overlooked para 4 of theaffidavit of this very witness where he stated thus:-"I and the witnesses remained together and during that period the accused Trilok Singh and Boota Singh did not meet and the witnesses nor did they see us anywhere".Thus, from the affidavit of this witness it is clearthat although the respondents were brought to Delhi theywere not at all allowed to meet or see the witnesses.Inview of this clear statement there was absolutely no reasonfor the High Court to have conjectured that the respondentsmust have been shown to the witnesses at Delhi.This findingof the High Court is based on no evidence.Even though, according to the HighCourt, Pritam Singh was one.Of the witnesses who had anopportunity to see respondent Boota Singh yet it appears317when the T.I. parade took place at Dehra Dun on 9th March,1964 Pritam Singh was not able to identify Boota Singh whowas identified only by law.2 Inder Singh and P.W. 14 JagirSingh.This completely negatives the suggestion that PritamSingh could have seen the respondents either at Moonak orDelhi in which case he would have felt no difficulty inidentifying the respondent Boota Singh.For the reasons given above we see no reasons todistrust the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 8 and 14 arid we hold thatthe prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that therespondent Boota Singh had approached Inder Singh for hiringthe taxi and Inder Singh allowed Boota Singh to take thetaxi along with his son Lal Singh, deceased.In view of thefact that Inder Singh and Jagir Singh identified Boota Singhat T. I. Parade which has been proved by Magistrate M. L.Sharma, P.W. 23 there was no reason to distrust theevidence of identification of these two witnesses as againstBoota Singh.For the same reasons there was no reason todistrust the evidence of P.W. 8 Pritam Singh and P.W. 14Jagir Singh when319they had identified the respondent Trilok Singh at a r. 1.parade and also in court.Beforethe committing Court, the witness had stated that Lal Singhand others had taken food in his hotel in the beginning ofthe month of December and the payments was made by all ofthem collectively.He had also stated that of these personswho had taken food at the hotel had come out of the taxi ofLal Singh and stayed there for about 10 to 15 minutes.Hehas also stated that Asa Singh and Trilok Singh had also'come to take food.The witness, was, however, declaredhostile because he resiled from the statement made beforethe committing court and after his attention was drawn tothe statement, the aforesaid statement was transferred underSection 288 and in law became substantive evidence.Inthis statement he deposed as follows:-"My hotel is at the Chaurrah Bazar in Doiwala.In the beginning of the month of December, 1963 it was the time of 6 p.m. I was at my hotel.On the evening of that day these men came by a car to take food.The shop of Jaideo Singh is in front of my shop.These men took food at my320 shop.Dola Singh is called Jaideo Singh as well.He is present in the Court.He came to take his tea when these men were eating their food.Then he went back to his shop out of these men Trilok Singh and Asa Singh accused pre sent in Court were known to me from before.The car belonged to Lal Singh.He too was known to me from before.After taking their food these four men along with Lal Singh went away by the car towards Rishikesh.Out of those four men, two men were not known to me".In his statement in court the witness categoricallystated that the statement he had made before the committingcourt was correct.But in cross examination he made out anew case that the statement before the committing court wasmade at the instance of the police.Indeed, if it was so, hewould have at once complained to the committing Magistrate.Trilok Singh and Lal Singh were taking food together.Heknew these persons from before except respondent Boota Singhwhom he identified at a validly held T.I. parade andthereafter in the court of the committing Magistrate.Thewitness tried to explain in court that counsel for therespondent dictated the report to the reader who took downthe same and thereafter he affixed his signature.He furtherAdmitted that he did not tell the Magistrate that he wouldlike to read the statement made by him.He further admittedthat he did not say anything to the Magistrate in regard topressure.It is, therefore, clear that the statement of thewitness be fore the committing court was true and he isfalsely resiling from the same in order to protect therespondent.The High Court appears lo have brushed asidethe evidence of P.W.5 Khem Singh and P.W. 7 Jaideo Singhonly on the ground that these witnesses had made twoinconsistent statements on oath and made no effort to.The respondentalso mentioned that at the forest outpost Gopi affixed hissignature.P.W. 11 Digambar Dutt Bandola states in his evidencethat in December, 1963 he was a clerk at the Song Bridge,Doiwala and was in charge of the register of the TollBarrier.The witness proves the entry at page 6 of theregister about323the passing o'; a Fiat car bearing No. UPS-6679 going fromDehra Dun to Rishikesh at 6.00 in the evening.We havealready indicated the reason why this conclusion of the HighCourt was manifestly wrong and not legally supportable.According to Exhibit Ka-74 the car driven by Lal Singhpassed the forest barrier at about 6 p.m. It appears thatthere was another barrier at a small distance from SongBridge which is called the Bhamiawala outpost.The evidenceof P.W. 13 Bacchu Ram is to the effect that he was posted inDecember, 1963, at this outpost and he made entries in theregister of vehicles passing through the forest road.The prosecution alleged thatthe signature made by Lt. K. S. Chimni was actually made bythe respondent Boota Singh himself, but as his signatureswere not sent to the expert, there was no proof of the factthat it was the respondent Boota Singh who had signed theentry.Having regard to the identity of the car there couldbe no doubt that somebody else signed as Lt K. S. Chimni,but the occupants of the car were the respondents BootaSingh and his party including Lal Singh and it may bepossible that Gopi who according to Boota Singh in hisstatement may have affixed his signature at the outpost asLt. K. S. Chimni.The respondent Boota Singh then goes on to state thatall of them drank wine at the house of Asa Singh and chalkedout a programme324of committing the murder of Lal Singh for the purpose oftaking exclusive possession of the car and in pursuance ofthis conspiracy except respondent Raghubir Singh all thefour, namely, Boota Singh, Asa Singh, Trilok Singh and Gopitook Lal Singh to the forest.Trilok Singh fired two shotsat Lal Singh and Asa Singh dealt a Gandasa blow on the neckof the deceased.Thereafter the respondents took off theclothes of the deceased and set fire to them and left thedead body in the same condition.At the moment weare confining ourselves to the nature of the corroborationof the confessional statement of Boota Singh.The respondentBoota Singh then says that he along with Trilok Singh andRaghubir Singh went to sell the car at Bombay and all thethree of them drove the car by turns.Hedeposes that Exhibit Ka-11 is the register of the outpostand as he is illiterate the entries used to be made by theowners of the cars.It is manifestly clear that when the carpassed this outpost it must have been after the murder ofLal Singh had already been committed and the number plate ofcar had been changed, as admitted by respondent Boota Singhin his confessional statement.The relevant entry is ExhibitKa-27 and is dated 8.12.1963 and shows that a car bearingNo.This entryis signed by respondent Boota Singh as K. Sharma at twoplaces which are marked by the expert as Q-2040 and Q-2039.The signatures made by the respondent Boota Singh were325sent to the expert along with the specimen signaturesExhibits Ka-53 and 53A and which were numbered by theexpert as Q-3885 and 3886 and the expert has opined that thesignatures K. Sharma made on this entry namely Q-2040 and2039 (Exhibits Ka-27-28) have been made by the same personwhose specimen signatures have been taken and which aremarked by the expert as Q-3885 and 3886 vide evidence ofP.W. 32 Shiv Ram and his reports Exhibit Ka-64 and 65wherein he has given the detailed reasons for his opinion.Learned counsel for the respondent was not able to repel theopinion of the expert.This, therefore, clearly shows thatthe respondent Boota Singh had deliberately changed thenumber plate from UPS 6679 to UPM 3236 to conceal theidentity of the car and this was done after Lal Singh hadbeen put to death.Thus,it is established by unimpeachable evidence that therespondent Boota Singh not only made the entry in theregister Exhibit Ka-11 but also changed the number plate ofthe car to UPM-3236 with a view to conceal the identity ofthe car.The scene then shifts to Ambala where, according to theprosecution, Boota Singh accompanied by Raghubir Singh andothers went to Ambala and got the car insured.P.W. 27Balwant Singh Bhalla deposes that on 11.12.63 a man filledup the insurance form Exhibit Ka-29 and affixed thesignatures as J.P. Singh, and handed over the same to thewitness who was the agent of North India General InsuranceCompany.A bare look at the form Exhibit Ka-29 clearly showsthat the insurance form was filled for a period of one yeari.e.Unfortunately, however, thelearned Sessions Judge has rightly pointed out that theprosecution did not get the respondent Boota Singhidentified by the witness P.W. 29 Balwant Singh nor did heget the signatures made by the respondent Boota Singh as J.P. Singh sent to the expert for examination with his otherspecimen signatures.Even excluding these facts fromconsideration what has been prove(l by the evidence of thiswitnesses is that a car bearing no. UPM-3236 had beeninsured for one year with the company of the witness atAmbala.It has already been established, as indicated326above, that it was the respondent Boota Singh alone who hadchanged the number plate of the car in question, namely,UPS-6679 into UPM-3236 and that this is the car which wastaken on hire by Boota Singh and others and was carryingthem right from Dehra Dun to Doiwala, Rishikesh and further.The car also undoubtedly reached Ambala when one of theoccupants of the car, whoever he may have been, contactedP.W. 29 Balwant Singh and got the car insured for one year.Thereafter the respondentBoota Singh and Trilok Singh went to R.T.O's office,Raghubir Singh having stayed back at the hotel.Therespondents learnt there that the police was in theirpursuit, so the party left the car and came back.So far asthe present occurrence is concerned, the confession endshere but the respondent goes on to narrate another incidentin which also the respondent tried to get another taxi.The witness also identified Boota Singh before the SessionsCourt.The witness was subjected to a searching cross-examination, but nothing of importance appear to have beenelicited.P.W. 62 Raja Ram Narain states that he was a brokerdealing with the motor cars.The customer after examining the chassis and theengine number of the car became a little suspicious andasked the witness to verify the same and was not willing topurchase unless the car was a genuine one.The witness thenreported the matter.to Shri D. Silva and the motor vehicleInspector P.W. 30 Gulzar Singh deposes that he was attachedto the crime branch of the C.I.D., Bombay in December.1963.on 9.12.63 his officer Shri Silva informed him that carbearing No. UPM-3236 seems to be a stolen property and anenquiry should be made from the R.T.O's office.The witnesswent to the R.T.O.s office and took the car into hiscustody.After some time the man named Anand Singh camethere and gave him a receipt relating to an advance paymentof Rs. 200/-.The witness then took the documents from theR.T.O's office including the driving licence and theinsurance certificate etc. Thus, it would appear that twoindependent witnesss from Bombay, viz., P.W. 9 Anand Singhand P.W. 62 Raja Ram Narain Rane proved that the respondentBoota Singh contacted them for sale of the car and had shownthe car to them.But as there was some discrepancy in thechassis number328and the engine number P.W. 62 Raja Ram Narain Rane became alittle suspicious.Both these witnesses identified therespondent Boota Singh at Dehra Dun at a T.I. parade held byP.W. 23 M. L. Sharma as discussed above.Thereafter theyidentified the respondent Boota Singh both in the committingcourt and the Sessions Court.P.W. 62 Raja Ram Narain Rane had categorically statedthat he had not seen the respondent Boota Singh anywhere inthe intervening period i.e. between the time when he visitedhim at Bombay and the T.I. parade held at Dehra Dun.Similarly, P.W. 9 Anand Singh has also identified therespondent Boota Singh both in the identification parade andin court.In fact P.W. 9 Anand Singh had identified RaghubirSingh also.The evidence of these witnesses fullycorroborates the facts stated by the respondent Boota Singhin his confession which have been detailed above.The HighCourt has made no real attempt to consider the intrinsicevidence of these two independent witnesses which lends fulland complete assurance to and provide an independentcorroboration of the confession made by Boota Singh.Allthat the High Court says is that for the reasons it hadgiven for rejecting the other witnesses on the question ofidentification these two witnesses cannot be relied upon.The High Court completely overlooked the fact that there wasno question on these witnesses from Bombay having been shownto the respondent before the T.I. parade.There is not aniota of evidence to suggest this.Similarly, we have pointedout that the view of the High Court on the nature ofidentification evidence was clearly wrong.In thesecircumstances, therefore, as a matter of fact the High Courthas not at all considered the evidence of these twowitnesses which fully supports the prosecution case and thefinding of the High Court, therefore, in rejecting theevidence of these two witnesses is vitiated by thecircumstances mentioned above.Apart from the facts mentioned above, there is anunimpeachable circumstantial documentary evidence to provethe Bombay incident.Exhibit Ka-34 is a declaration formdated 16.12.63 which was given by the respondent Boota Singhin connection with the registration of the car at Bombay.There is another declaration form dated 18.12.63 whichis signed by the respondent Boota Singh as J. P. Singh.Thus, the prosecution hasadduced conclusive evidence to prove that the car seized bythe Police at Bombay was the same which was hired by therespondent Boota Singh and others from P.W. 2 Inder Singh atDehra Dun.This fact is proved both by oral and documentaryevidence discussed above and a very well reasoned finding onthis point has been given by the Sessions Judge which runsthus:-These particulars are identical with those of UPM 3236 seized by the Bombay Police.Thus the prosecution has been able to establish that the car seized by the Bombay Police was the one which the accused Boota Singh along with his companions hired from M/s Punjab Taxi service."The learned Sessions Judge has also pointed that theoriginal plate exhibit Ka-51 had been recovered by P.W. 18Vikram Singh from the Car UPM 3236 and sent to P.W. 26Shariq Alvi who found that there was tampering with thenumber of the plate.Brij Kishore of R.T.O's office Bareillystated that UPM 3236 was a fake number inasmuch as itrelated to a station wagon belonging to a Junior GovernmentHigh School, Pakkwara, District Moradabad.These factshave not been challenged by the defence.Even the High Courthas not reversed the finding of the Sessions Judge on thispoint.The dead bodywas recovered three weeks after the death of the deceased:During this period the naked body was ex posed to wind andweather.The skeleton was burnt and the flesh had peeledoff.According to the postmortem report, the lowercervical vertebra was separated from the rest .of theskeleton at the level of the joint and the head was found ata distance From the body.To begin with, the body of the deceased was recoveredat the instance of respondent Asa Singh and this fact wasproved by P.W. 17 Sher Singh and P.W. 31 Jasmer Singh andthe Investigating officer P.W. 59 Gulzar Singh.Thisevidence is clearly admissible under section 27 of theEvidence Act. The only comment made was that Sher Singh hadsome enmity with Asa Singh.the learned Sessions Judge,however, pointed out that there was no long standing, enmitybetween Asa Singh and Sher Singh.There were someproceedings about 8 or 9 years age and there were someproceeding under section 127/ 117 Cr.Sher Singh and Jasmer Singh.This,therefore.clearly establishes the identify of the corpusdelecti as being that of Lal Singh.l 5 were recovered lying at adistance of 3 Lo 4 yards from the body and this recovery hasalso been proved by Sher Singh, Jasmer Singh and InderSingh.Portions of these clothes were burnt which fullycorroborates the confessional statement of Boota Singh wherehe had stated that after taking out the same from the deadbody of Lal Singh they had set the clothes on fire.It Happears, however, that for some reason or the other only avery small portion of the clothes were burnt.5-526 SCI/78332 Another important evidence which clenches the issue wasthe recovery,- of Exhibit Ka-8 a dry cleaning receipt fromthe pocket of the coat of Lal Singh which is Exhibit Ka-13.This receipt bears the signature of Lal Singh.This, therefore, completelyclinches the issue and shows that the dead body could havebeen of none else than that of Lal Singh.Mr. Mullasuggested that this receipt may have been introduced by thepolice in the pocket of the coat during investigation.Thereis however no evidence to prove this fact.Nothing has beenshown why the police officers would have gone to the extentof fabricating the evidence against the respondents.Forthese reasons, therefore, we find ourselves in completeagreement with the finding of the learned Sessions Judgethat the skeleton recovered from The forest was that of LalSingh and we accordingly overrule the argument of Mr. Mullaon this point.Admittedly, accordingthe confessional statement of Boota Singh, Raghubir Singhwas not present in the forest at the time when Lal Singh wasmurdered.There is no evidence to show that Raghubir Singhwas present at Ambala.It is true that P.W. 2 Inder Singhand other witnesses had identified Raghubir Singh as havingaccompanied the respondent Boota Singh to Dehra Dun and hehas also identified as accompanying Boota Singh by P.W. 9Anand Singh, but it was contented that as.at the time whenthe respondent Raghubir Singh was identified at the paradehe had shaved off his beard, it would be difficult for thewitness to identify when at the time they saw him he had abeard.There appears to be some force in this contention.There is clear evidence to show that when Raghubir Singh wasidentified he had no beard it all.Tn these circumstances,therefore, the possibility of mistake in identificationcannot be excluded.Even the trial Court has not acceptedthe evidence of identification against him.In allprobability Raghubir Singh was there and was a co-conspirator as stated by the respondent Boota Singh himselfbut in view of the circumstances mentioned above, we find itunsafe to convict him when he has been acquitted by the HighCourt.We should not be taken as holding that the confessionof the respondent Boota Singh so far as Raghubir Singh isconcerned is false.Infact we believe it to be true, but asa matter of extra caution we would like to give benefit ofdoubt to Raghubir Singh.The offence of conspiracy isalso proved.We accordingly allow theappeal of the State against Boota Singh set aside thejudgment of the High Court and convict respondent BootaSingh of offences under section 302 read with section 34 andSection 120-B I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo lifeimprisonment for these offences.The respondent Boota Singhis also convicted under section 364 read with section 34 andsection 120-B I.P.C. and Section 394 read with section 31and section 120-B I.P.C.: and sentence him to undergorigorous imprisonment for seven years under each count.Boota Singh is also convicted under section 419 I.P.C. 471read with section 465 I.P.C. and section 471 read withsection 466 I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for two years, one year and four yearsrespectively.All the sentences are to run concurrently.Therespondent Boota Singh who is on bail shall surrender andserve out the remaining portion of the sentence.The appeal against Trilok Singh abates as he is dead.The appeal against Asa Singh will be taken on later after hesurrenders.The appeal against Raghubir Singh is dismissedand the order of` the High Court acquitting him isconfirmed.N.V.K. Appeal allowed against respondent No.1335 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,933,592 | This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.137 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagarcoil.Each was entitled for 1 ½ cents.Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for passing of the final decreehttp://www.judis.nic.in and the same was pending.The question is whether the petitioners have created a false document by executing the sale deed for the entire 3 cents.The petitioners are claiming title through their father who purchased the property from one Shanmugam. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,935,424 | Rejected md.CRM No. 7416 of 2018 Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 30.08.2018 in connection with Taherpur Police Station Case No. 61/2018 dated 18.4.2018 under Sections 395/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In Re:-Ashish Haldar ... Petitioner Mr. Prabir Majumder, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Taherpur Police Station Case No. 61/2018 dated 18.4.2018 under Sections 395/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.The petitioner claims that the basic ingredients of the charges levelled against the petitioner under the Penal Code have not been made out since the petitioner is only one of three charge-sheeted persons.The State produces the case diary and it appears from the investigating officer's report that there were two other yet unidentified persons with the three.Hence the charges.1 2 The State says that a supplementary charge-sheet may be filed on October 04, 2018 and the date fixed for framing of charges.The State also refers to the item seized from this petitioner.Considering the material, the petitioner's prayer for bail is refused at this stage.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,937,093 | The facts leading to the present case are that on 19/03/2013, prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Agar that on 15/01/2013, she along with her friends had gone to Ujjain Mahakaal Temple.After dharshan, on 16/01/2013 they all left to Chhindwara by train, however, the prosecutrix missed the train as she went to get water bottle from the station.Co-accused persons Rajaram and his wife Bhuribai met her in Ujjain station, by giving assurance to Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 05/09/2019 13:10:56 Cr.A. No.934/2015 2 safely send her back to Chhindwara, they took her to their house, where she was confined in a room for about more than 1 months.Thereafter, they sold her to present appellant, who took her to village Kulmadi near Agar in bus and kept her in room and committed rape upon her.(Passed on 05 /09/2019) This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") is preferred against the judgment dated 04/06/2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Agar, District Shahjapur in Sessions Trial No.153/2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 323 of IPC, 1860 read with Section 3 /4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & sentenced to undergo 10 Years R.I and 6 months R.I respectively, with fine of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.500/- and usual default stipulation.It is further alleged that when Tejaram goes out of his house, his mother would keep watch of the prosecutrix and would not allow the prosecutrix to talk with anyone.On 19/03/2013, she escaped from that house and came to the police-station through the forest and filed the complaint.During investigation police arrested Tejaram, his mother, sister, Rajaram and Bhuribai.Prosecutrix and Tejaram were sent for medical examination.Cr.A. No.934/2015 2Appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.However, he has not examined any witnesses in his defence.Trial Court, after considering the submissions advance by the counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 323 of IPC, 1860 read Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 05/09/2019 13:10:56 Cr.A. No.934/2015 3 with Section 3 /4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & sentenced to undergo 10 Years R.I and 6 months R.I respectively, with fine of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.500/- and usual default stipulation.Cr.A. No.934/2015 3Cr.A. No.934/2015 408. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case.Cr.A. No.934/2015 5The Registry of this Court is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant against appellant- Tejaram @ Teju.A copy of the judgment be sent to the Courts below along with record for information and compliance.Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No.934/2015 is partly allowed.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 05/09/2019 13:10:56 | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,941,822 | M.C. 2316/2019 Page 3 of 3(ORAL) Quashing of FIR No. 819/2014, under Sections 354/354-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Bawana, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 16th April, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties.As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute.They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice."In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared amongst the parties.Accordingly, FIR No. 819/2014, under Sections 354/354-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Bawana, Delhi and the proceedings emanating Crl.M.C. 2316/2019 Page 2 of 3 therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioner.M.C. 2316/2019 Page 2 of 3This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 30, 2019 p'ma Crl.M.C. 2316/2019 Page 3 of 3 | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,941,921 | C.C. as per rules.(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE mohsin Digitally signed by MOHAMMED MOHSIN QURESHI Date: 19/06/2020 14:22:33This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 filed for grant of bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No.29/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 Part 2 and 307/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Bargawan, District Singrauli.Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.The only allegation against the applicant is that he has assaulted Vivek Gupta with a 'Danda'.The offences except Section 307 of IPC are bailable.The conclusion of trial will take considerable time in the present scenario.The applicant will not influence the material/witnesses.He will participate and cooperate with the trial.Hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.I have heard the parties at length.Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that challan has already been filed coupled with the fact that in this Covid-19 era conclusion of trial will take time and without expressing any opinion Digitally signed by MOHAMMED MOHSIN QURESHI Date: 19/06/2020 14:22:33 2 MCRC-16648-2020 on merits of the matter, I deem it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,944 | 3. P.W.1 is the grand father of Muthulakshmi since deceased and heknows the accused.P.W.2 is the son of P.W.1 and father of the deceased.Thismade P.W.1 to question A1 and A2 as to why they had done like that and A1 and A2 responded as to who P.W.1 is to question it.Ten d ays thereafter, A3 andA4 under intoxication came P.W.1's house at about 6.00 p.m. and created ascene.At that time, A1 and A2 brought kerosene; A1 poured kerosene onP.W.1's grand daughter, namely, the deceased.Both A1 and A2 threw a lightedmatch s tick on Muthulakshmi.P.W.1 and his elder brother tried to saveMuthulakshmi and at that time, A3 attacked on the head of P.W.1 with a stickand A4 also with a stick attacked on his head.M.O.4 isthe match box.Muthulakshmi suffered burn injuries all over her body and shewas 19 years on that day.P.W.2 took P.W.1 and Muthulakshmi to the Government Hospital, Salem, where the police examined him and recorded his statement, inwhich, he had put his left thumb impression.P.1 is the said complaint.As far as theoccurrence proper is concerned, his evidence is that he ran towards the houseafter seein g his daughter in flames and at that time, he saw A1 and A2dropping the kerosene container and running.When he asked his daughter as towhat had happened, his daughter informed him that A1 poured kerosene on herand A2 set fire to her.He took his father/P.W.1 and his daughter/deceased to the hospital,where he was examined by the police.P.W.12 is the Head constable in the investigating police station.While he was on duty on 11.2.2002, he received information over wireless fromthe Government Hospital at Salem intimating that P.W.1 and Muthulakshmi since deceased have been a ted in the hospital.Immediately, he went to thehospital, where he found Muthulakshmi not in a position to talk.He observedP.W.1 and then examined him.P.W.1 gave a statement, which he reduced into writing; read it over to him and then he took his l eft thumb impression init.He registered that complaint as Ex.P.1 in his police station Crime No.148of 2002 for offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 341 and 307 I.P.C. Ex.P.2 isthe printed first information report prepared by him and he sent the exp ressrecords to the Court as well as to the higher officials.He received Ex.P.21,the death intimation from the hospital that Muthulakshmi died at 11.20 p.m.on 18.2.2002, which he handed over to the investigating officer.P.W.13 isthe investigating officer, who on receipt of the express records in this case,initially registered the case under Section 307 I.P.C., proceeded to the sceneof occurrence where in the presence of P.W.5 and another, he prepared theobservation mahazar Ex.P.2 and the rough sketch Ex.At 4.00 p.m. on thesame day in the presence of P.W.5 and another, he recovered the plastickerosene container; the match box and the sticks used by A3 and A4 under amahazar attested by witnesses.Then he examined P.W.1 and others by recording their statements.At 11.30 a.m. on 12.2.2002, he arrested all the accused,brought them to the police station at 1.00 p.m. and then he sent them forjudicial remand.P.23, which he sent to the Court as wellas to the higher officials.P.W.11 is the duty medical officer in the Government Hospital atSalem.P.17 is the intimation sent by him to the police.The symptoms noted by him are a contusion over the right scalp parietal regionand a bleeding right nose.Before P.W.11, Muthulaksh mi since deceased was brought on 10.2.2002 for injuries stated to have been sustained by her at 7.30p.m.on that night, at the hands of four known persons, by pouring keroseneand then setting fire.P.18 is the admission card and she had suffered 40%burn injuries.P.19 is the accident register issued by him for her.P.W.10 is the police constable, who identified the dead body of Muthulakshmiin the hospital for post-mortem.After post-mortem, he handed over the deadbody to the relatives.P.W.8 is the duty medical officer in the GovernmentHospital at Salem, who on receipt of Ex.During post-mortem, he found various symptoms on her, as noted by h im in Ex.P.14, the post-mortem report.The symptoms noted by him are as here under:Superficial infected burns wounds present over the face, and front andback of the neck, front of the chest, both shoulders, both elbow, and bothlower arms and back of the trunk except abdomens and lower limb.Deep burns wounds are present over the face, neck front of the chest,and both shoulders.The burns area reddish in colour, singing of eye brows and eye lashes.Head shaved.Other findings:Finger and toe nails intact, cyanosed.Peritonial cavity: empty.Pleural cavity: Empty, Heard: Chambers and valves normal cavity containedfluid blood, coronary vessels and great vessels normal.Lungs: C/scongested; Hyoid bone: Intact Stomach conta 30 gms of chyme present, nospecific smell Mucosa congested.Liver, Spleen, Kidneys: On C.s congested.Small intestine: Yellowish chyme present, no smell Mucosa congested.She would state that around 7.30 p.m. on the occurrence day, herdaughter was set fire to and her father-in-law was also assaulted.She alsonoticed that her daughter crying in pain.She also noticed the first accusedthrowing down the kerosene container and then running, while A2 throwing downthe match box and running.She tried to rescue her daughter along withothers.(Judgment of the Court was made by R.BALASUBRAMANIAN,J) Appellants four in number were tried in S.C.No.275 of 2002 on the fileof the Additional Court of Sessions, Salem for the following offences:At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge found all the accused guiltyof the offences referred to earlier and sentenced A1 and A2 to undergo oneyear rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 294(b) I.P.C.;imprisonment for life against all the accused for the offence under Section302 read with 34 I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment to accused 3 and 4for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. The sentences were directed to runconcurrently.Hence the present appeal.Heard Mr.R .Sankarasubbu, learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor appearing for the State.The prosecution case is that accused 1 and 2 at about 7.30 p.m.on 10.2.2002 abused Muthulakshmi, aged 13 in a filthy language and in thecourse of the same transaction, A1 poured kerosene on Muthulakshmi; A2 threw a lighted match stick on her a 3 and A4 prevented P.W.1 from rescuingMuthulakshmi, leading to the death of Muthulakshmi at 11.20 p.m. on 18.2.2002and therefore punishable for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C.It is the further case of the prosecution that in the cou rse of the sametransaction, A3 and A4 had also assaulted P.W.1 with sticks causing injury onhis person and therefore they are punishable for the offence under Section 324I.P.C. In substantiation to their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13an d marked Exs.The defence examined a policeconstable on their side as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D.1, the statement ofMuthulakshmi since deceased, which she is stated to have given while alive.On receipt of the death intimation from the GovernmentHospital on 19.2.2002 , he altered the section of offence from one underSection 307 I.P.C. to one under Section 302 I.P.C. and prepared the alteredprinted first information report Ex.On 11.2.2002, P.W.1 was brought before him by his son P.W.2 forinjuries stated to have been sustained by him at 7.30 p.m. at the hands offive males.On examination, he f injuries on his person and issued Ex.P.16,the wound certificate.P.13 the requistion for post-mortem,conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Muthulakshmi.Bladder: empty; Uterus: empty; normal in size.Pelvis, Head, Membrane: Intact, Brain:C/s congested.Spinal coloumn: intact."Doctor opined that death would have occurred as a result of shock due toeffect of burns.6. P.W.6 is the Judicial Magistrate No.2 at Salem.At 2.00 p.m. on12.2.2002 when he was in his office, he received Ex.P.4, the requisition fromthe hospital to record the dying declaration of Muthulakshmi.Accordingly, hereached the hospital a 30 p.m. and by examining Muthulakshmi, got satisfiedthat she was in a fit and conscious state of mind.He secured the presence ofP.W.9, the duty doctor to be by his side when he was testing the fit andconscious state of mind of Muthulakshmi.Before recording the dyingdeclaration P.W.6 made an endorsement Ex.P.5 stating that the patient isconscious and fit to give dying declaration.Then he proceeded to record thestatement by examining her.She stated as here under:- the translation inEnglish is by us:"My father is working as a coolie in Leigh Bazaar, Salem.At 7.00p.m.on 10.2.2002, I was in my house; my father and grand father were talkingaloud near the house; A1 and A2 entered my house and they found fault with meas to why I informed my ho that A2 abusing me one week earlier; I was watchingtelevision; A1 had a Kerosene container and poured kerosene on me; A2 threw alighted match stick and then they ran away; the elders came and doused thefire."P.6 is the said dying declaration.At the foot of the dying declarationP.W.9 had given a certificate Ex.P.15 stating that the patient is fullyconscious and in a fit state of mind during recording the dying declaration.Further down, P.W.6 had give n his certificate stating that after recordingthe dying declaration, he read it over to her, she admitted the same as trueand correct and that he was satisfied that the patient is fully conscious andin fit state of mind during recording the dying decl aration.P.W.9, the dutydoctor present by the bed side of Muthulakshmi, when P.W.6 was recording thedying declaration, had also stated that he had given the certificate Ex.P.15at the foot of the dying declaration.P.W.7 is the Judicial Magistrate No .1,Salem.On receipt of Ex.P.8, the order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate,she proceeded to examine Palani, Arumugam, Ammasi and Kalliappan under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.P.8 order is passed on the basis ofEx.P.7 the appli cation filed by the investigation officer.The witnesseswere examined by her on 27.3.2002 and those statements are Exs.However, he would admit that he had not seen that earlier occurrence and h eonly heard about it.As far as the occurrence proper is concerned, he wouldstate that when he was in the tea shop at 7.30 p.m., persons present theretold him that there was a commotion in his brother's house and accordingly hewent there, where he f ound Muthulakshmi standing outside her house.He alsosaw the first accused pouring kerosene on Muthulakshmi from the containerwhich he was having and A2 throwing a lighted match stick on her.All of themwent to the rescue of Muthulakshmi and at that time, P.W.1 was also assaulted.P.W.1 and Muthulakshmi were taken to the hospital.P.W.4 is the mother of thedeceased.P.W.5 witnessed the preparation of Ex.P.2 the observation mahazar andrecovery of the incriminating objects under Ex.P.3 as referred to earlier.P.W.13 conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex.P.24 the inquest report.After completing all the leg al formalities, P.W.13 filed the finalreport against the accused before the Court on 30.4.2002 for offences underSections 302 read with 34, 294 (b) and 307 I.P.C.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure based on the incriminating materials made available againstthem, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false andcontrary to facts.But wefind from the records that after the cross examination of P.W.13, theinvestigating officer in this case, was completed at the first instance, thedefence examined the very same officer on 20.12.2002 b y further crossexamining him.In such further cross examination of P.W.13 conducted on20.12.2002, (characterised by the learned trial Judge as D.W.1) had deposed ashere under:"On 11.2.2002 I recorded the statement of Muthulakshmi; that was inthe evening; Ex.D.1 is the said statement;Question: Has she told you that she was in a conscious state of mind?Answer: Since I found her in a conscious state of mind, I proceeded to recordthe statement as narrated by her;I did not record in the statement that she was in a fit and conscious state ofmind; I deny that she was not in a fit and conscious state of mind whilegiving statement.But however, she was in a fit and conscious state of mind;Muthulakshmi told the do ctor that in perpetrating the crime on her, fourmales and two females took part.Question: Have you investigated the case from that angle?Answer: yes;In the investigation, it came to light only four accused, who are before theCourt, alone have committed the crime and no witness spoke about theinvolvement of any women in the crime; Muthulakshmi since deceased also do not say anything about that in her statement and that is why I filed the finalreport only against the accused; it is true that P.W.1 had told the doctorthat he had suffered injuries at the hands of five known persons.However,during investigation, P.W.1 told me that A3 and A4 alon e attacked him and Iaccordingly proceeded further with the investigation.I deny thatMuthulakshmi-since deceased gave a statement during investigation as narratedby me.on the previous night.It is seen from Ex.P.16 that P.W.1 had not sufferedany fracture.The injuries on the other hand are stated to be simple and theopinion is shown to be based on X-ray findings.Though P.W.1 had been crossexamined at length on the manner in which he shown to have suffered injuries,yet we do not find any material worth mentioning in his evidence to disbelievehim that he had also received injuries in the course of the same transaction.Therefore, for th e present, we conclude that P.W.1 was present at the crimescene where the crime was perpetrated on his grand daughter Muthulakshmi.11. P.W.1 is the grand father of the deceased and father of P.W.2.P.W.1 is aged about 75 years.His evidence shows that ten days after the occurrence, namely, theoccurrence day, A3 and A4 under intoxication came in front of his house andstarted creating a scene and that resulted in a commotion opposite to hishouse.As the commotion was going on, A1 and A2 had appeared there a nd A1 was having a kerosene container in his hands.P.W.1 would state that A1 afterpouring kerosene on his grand daughter, namely, Muthulakshmi set fire to herand A2 also threw a lighted match stick.He had struck to his evidence on theoccurrence pr oper in his evidence in cross and therefore his evidence inchief as to how his grand daughter had come to sustain burn injuries at thehands of A1 and A2 remain intact.This evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated bythe oral evidence of P.W.3, who is anothe r resident of the same village.Apart from giving details of the earlier occurrence in which Muthulakshmi wasbullied by A1 and A2, he would proceed to state that on the occurrence day, hewas at the tea shop at about 7.30 p.m. and on coming to know the re was acommotion in his brother's house, namely, P.W.1, he ran to the place where hefound Muthulakshmi standing outside her house.He also saw the first accusedpouring kerosene on Muthulakshmi and then A2 throwing a lighted match stick on Muthulaksh mi, as a result of which, Muthulakshmi was engulfed in flames.Once again we will have to state that this witness though cross examined bythe defence, did not give any favourable answers in favour of the accused.Therefore, without any hesitation, we hold that the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 3individually as well as in corroboration to each other establish theinvolvement of A1 and A2 in perpetrating the crime on Muthulakshmi.Theevidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 also show as to how P.W.1 had sustained injuri es.Therefore, the prosecution had definitely established by the direct/primaryevidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 as to how P.W.1 had came to sustain injuries and asto how Muthulakshmi was set on fire.In addition to the above, we have theevidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4, who are none else than the father and mother ofMuthulakshmi.P.W.2's evidence as far as the occurrence proper is concernedshows that on his daughter catching fire, he ran to the scene and at thattime, he saw A1 and A2, dropping the kerosene c ontainer and match boxrespectively, moving away from the scene and when he asked his daughter as towhat had happened, his daughter told him that A1 poured kerosene on her and A2 set fire to her.P.W.4's evidence is also to the same effect, namely, as sheran towards her house, on hearing her daughter crying in pain, she saw A1,dropping the kerosene container and A2 dropping the match box, running.Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, we have no hesitation to say,establish the presence of A1 an d A2 at the crime scene and moving away fromthe crime scene immediately after the occurrence.Once again we will have tostate that nothing worth mentioning had been elicited in their crossexamination as to what they spoke in their evidence in chief c ould not betrue.The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4lend support to the oral evidence of P.W.s1 and 3 to the limited extent,namely, that immediately after the occurrence, A1 and A2 were seen runningaway from the scene of occurrence after dropping the keros ene container andthe match box.We immediately saythat there is a judicial dying declaration recorded by P.W.6 in the presenceof P.W.9, the duty medical off .A perusal of the evidence of P.W.s 6 and 9show that Muthulakshmi was in a fit and conscious state of mind when P.W.6chose to record her dying declaration.P.W.6 would state that on receipt ofEx.P.4, the intimation from the hospital to record the d ying declaration ofMuthulakshmi, she had reached the hospital at about 2.30 p.m. and aftersatisfying himself that Muthulakshmi was in a fit and conscious state of mind,proceeded to record the dying declaration.His evidence also shows that hesecured the presence of P.W.9, the duty doctor to be by his side.At thebeginning of Ex.P.6, the dying declaration, the Judicial Magistrate hadcertified that the patient is conscious and fit to give dying declaration; atthe foot of Ex.P.6, P.W.9 had certifi ed about the fit and conscious state ofmind of Muthulakshmi and at the end of the dying declaration, the JudicialMagistrate had once again made an endorsement about the fit and consciousstate of mind of Muthulakshmi.From the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 9 , we do notfind that when P.W.6 was recording the dying declaration, any of the relativesof Muthulakshmi were by her bed side, and there is no chance to influence hermind.Therefore we have no hesitation at all to conclude that there are nosuspiciou s circumstances at all in recording of the judicial dyingdeclaration.Though P.W.6 had deposed as to what Muthulakshmi told him during the dying declaration, yet we have decided to look into the dying declarationitself.P.6 is the dying declaratio n, in which, Muthulakshmi in a crispmanner had implicated A1 and A2 in the crime perpetrated on her.She hadstated in Ex.P.6, as she was watching television, A1 brought kerosene and thenpoured it on her and A2 set fire to her by a lighted match stick and then bothran away.This dying declaration is consistent with the oral evidence ofP.W.s 1 and 3 as referred to earlier.This dying declaration unerringlyimplicates A1 and A2 with the crime.Therefore, in the light of ourdiscussion referred to above, we have no reason to disbelieve the judicialdying declaration and accordingly, we are accepting it as a true and voluntarydisclosure made by Muthulakshmi to P.W.6, the Judicial Magistrate as to howshe came to sustain burn injuries and at whose hands.This dying declaration,as already stated, establishes the involvement of A1 and A2 in the crime.Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty at all for us in holding thatbesides the evidence of P.W.s1 and 3 as direct/primary evidence, there is t heevidence of P.W.s 2 and 4 as corroborative evidence to the evidence of P.W.s1and 3 and Ex.P.6, the judicial dying declaration establishing the involvementof accused No.1 and No.2 in the crime.The further cross examination ofP.W.13 done by the acc used and Ex.D.1 do not in any way improve the case in favour of the accused.Even at this stage itself, we want to add that in thejudicial dying declaration, Muthulakshmi had not implicated A3 and A4 at all.It is not in the evidence of either P.W.1 o r P.W.3 that A3 and A4 also in anymanner participated in the crime perpetrated on Muthulakshmi by A1 and A2.The oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 do not in any way implicate A3 and A4 inthe crime committed on Muthulakshmi since deceased.In these circumstances, holding that the prosecution had established the involvement of A1and A2 alone in setting fire to Muthulakshmi, we hold that the prosecution hadmiserably failed to establish that A3 and A4 also are responsible for thecrime perpetrated by A1 and A2 on Muthulakshmi.The resultant positionwould be A3 and A4 has to be acquitted forthwith and accordingly they areacquitted.A faint argument is advanced by the learned counsel for theappellants that the evidence on record shows that there was a quarrel in frontof the house of P.W.1 before A1 and A2 committed the crime on Muthulakshmi.Therefore, we went though th tire materials in that context.What are allavailable from the evidence, as we could understand, is that A3 and A4 underintoxication went opposite to the house of P.W.1 and created a scene.Thereis no material at all to show that Muthulakshmi was an y where near the scenewhere there was a quarrel.The evidence only shows that Muthulakshmi wasstanding and she was a girl aged about 19 years.Her dying declaration isthat she was inside her house and watching television and the accused set fireto her as indicated earlier.Therefore, assuming there was a commotion at thecrime scene, it has nothing to do with the act of A1 and A2 committing thecrime on the innocent Muthulakshmi, who was just there watching television.Therefore we deny any rel ief to A1 and A2 based on Exception 4 to Section 300of the Indian Penal Code.Hisconviction was confirmed.Consequently, the appeal stands disposed of as here under:The judgment under challenge so far as appellants 1 and 2 areconcerned convicting them for offences under Sections 294(b) I.P.C. and 302read with 34 I.P.C. is confirmed. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,949,856 | A.420/2002 Page 1 of 15 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.A.420/2002 Page 1 of 15(iii) RI for seven years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment to undergo SI for six months with an identical sentence for the offence under Section 366 read with Section 34 IPC; SI for six months with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default to undergo SI for three months for the offence under Section 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC.For the offence under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, A-3 was sentenced to RI for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.During the pendency of the present appeal, A-3 expired and, therefore, the appeal, as far as A-3 is concerned, stands abated.A.420/2002 Page 2 of 15The charge against the Appellants was that in furtherance of their common intention, they wrongfully confined the prosecutrix (PW-5) at the urinal and at the wall of Block No.15 Park, Kalyanpuri on 24 th March 1996 at around 1 am, abducted her with the intent to commit illicit intercourse and in furtherance committed gang rape.The case of the prosecution was based on the statement first made by PW- 5 to the police.Her husband used to ply a three wheeler scooter rickshaw (TSR) and on 24th March 1996 at around 10.30 pm, he returned home and informed PW-5 that the petrol of his TSR had got run out.He had parked the TSR at Kalyanpuri Bus Stand.He had returned home to take some petrol and bring back the TSR after restarting it.PW-6 used to store petrol at his house for exigencies.7. PW-5 and PW-6 then took the petrol and headed for the Kalyanpuri Bus Stop.At around 11 pm, as they reached near School No.1 of the Kalyanpuri Main Market before Jalebi Chowk in between Blocks No.11 and 12, three persons surrounded them.Two of them pointed a knife at her whilst the third dragged her to the backside of the market into the park where there was a urinal.One of them committed forcible intercourse with her and thereafter the two others also did so in turns.She stated that the three accused were Crl.A.420/2002 Page 3 of 15 calling each other by their respective names and that is how she knew that A-2 raped her first and then A-1 removed her clothes while A-3 raped her.After that she was almost unconscious.The fourth accused, Anil had taken away her husband, PW-6, to one side by pointing a knife on him.According to her, the accused kept him accosted turn by turn while subjecting her to rape.PW-5 became unconscious after this.A.420/2002 Page 3 of 15When she came to her senses, PW-5 found herself at her house.The next morning at around 7.00 am, PW-5 and PW-6 went to the P.S. and her statement was recorded (Ex.PW-5/A) and an FIR was registered.Sub-Inspector (SI) Khushal Singh (PW-15) recorded the statement of PW- 6 and went to the house where PW-5 handed over to him her petticoat (Ex.1), blouse (Ex.P-2) and Sari (Ex.P-3) which she was wearing at the time of occurrence.Those clothes where converted into a sealed pullanda.PW-15 then came to the spot of occurrence along with PW-4 and PW-5 and prepared a rough site plan (Ex.PW-15/A).10. PW-15 sent PW-5 to SDN Hospital for her medical examination along with a lady Constable where her MLC (Ex.PW-4/A) was prepared.The MLC showed that she was brought there at 2.35 pm.While there were no Crl.A.420/2002 Page 4 of 15 external marks of injuries, there were some graze abrasions on the back, below the left armpit and lumbar region.The vaginal smear was taken on two slides, where were kept in a pullanda.A.420/2002 Page 4 of 15His under clothes were seized.He is also supposed to have made a disclosure statement (Ex.She named the accused in this statement as well.On the same day, on the identification of PWs-5 and 6, he arrested A-2 from his house and got him medically examined.His blood sample was also taken.No recovery could be made at his instance.The other accused Anil subsequently surrendered in the Court and was placed under formal arrest.Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30 th April 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.82/2001 arising out of FIR No.122/1996 registered at Police Station (PS) Kalyanpuri convicting the Appellants, Jasbir Singh (Appellant/Accused No.1: A-1), Manjeet Singh (Appellant/Accused No.2: A-2) and Chander Kiran (Appellant/Accused No.3: A-3) (since deceased) for the offences under Sections 342/365/366/376(2)(g)/506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).A-3 was additionally convicted for the offence under Section Crl.The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 1st May 2002 whereby each of the Appellants was sentenced:(i) to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one year for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 IPC;(ii) to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment to undergo SI for three months for the offence under Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC;While two accused would hold her, the third would commit the act and the fourth would hold the knife to her husband.First, it was committed by pushing her against the wall and thereafter they dragged her to a small temporary bathroom which was surrounded by boundary/walls.PW-5/B).He was then sent for medical examination.On the following day, that is, 26 th March, 1996, the statement of PW-5 under Section 164 Cr PC (Ex.PW5/G) was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM).At the end of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and by an order dated 1st March 1997, the trial Court framed charges against A-1 and A-2 in the manner indicated hereinbefore.The co-accused Kiran Singh @ Kaka Crl.A.420/2002 Page 5 of 15 was declared a proclaimed offender (PO) at that stage.As far as accused Anil was concerned, he was charged with abetting the aforementioned offences.A.420/2002 Page 5 of 15On behalf of the prosecution, 20 witnesses were examined.In the present case, since we are concerned only with A-1 and A-2, only their respective statements under Section 313 Cr PC need be referred to.Both A-1 and A-2 denied the incriminating circumstances put to them and claimed innocence.As far as A-2 is concerned, he claimed not to know the other co-accused.He claimed to have surrendered before the police on 5th April 1996 as he knew they were after him.Later when the report of FSL was received, that evidence was put to him and he denied that as well.As far as A-1 is concerned, he too denied the circumstances and claimed not to know any of the co-accused.He too claimed to have been falsely implicated by the police.On behalf of the defence, three witnesses were examined.Anoop Singh (DW-1) was a building contractor at Kalyanpuri who was living just Crl.A.420/2002 Page 6 of 15 opposite the DDA Park.He stated that the locality used to remain busy as there was a market with STD booths running late into the night, a police post near Jalebi chowk, and as most residents would stay out of their houses on the road side till late in the night.He claimed that he normally used to sleep at around 12 or 12.30 am and did not notice any incident on the night of 24th March 1996 outside his house.According to DW-1, the police did not make inquiries from him or in the area.He stated that there was no toilet in or around the DDA Park.DW-1 was cross-examined by the learned APP.In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was engaged only in private construction and was not a registered contractor.In the impugned judgment dated 30 th April 2002, the trial Court came to Crl.A.420/2002 Page 7 of 15 the following conclusions:A.420/2002 Page 7 of 15(i) The testimony of PW-5 and her husband (PW-6) was supported by the medical evidence.(ii) The defence witnesses were neither trustworthy nor truthful.It was noticed in respect of DW-1 that he first denied the suggestion that there was no petrol pump near the DDA Park but immediately stated voluntarily that it was near the corner of the park.DWs-2 and 3 were clearly interested witnesses and, therefore, unreliable.(iii) The evidence on record proved beyond reasonable doubt that the three accused had forcibly abducted PW-5, confined her in the park as well as in the toilet area and gang raped on knife point her one after the other.By a separate order on sentence, the trial Court sentenced each of the accused in the manner indicated hereinbefore.On behalf of the State, submissions of Mr. Hirein Sharma, the learned APP were heard.Analysis and reasonsThe substantive charge against the two Appellants is their having Crl.The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must Crl.A.420/2002 Page 10 of 15 necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."A.420/2002 Page 10 of 15In the present case, on the core part of the testimony of PW-5 is consistent and cogent.This core element includes the three accused along with accused Anil surrounding her; two of them pointing knives at her and the third one dragging her to the rear of the market into the park where there is a urinal; each of them in turns committing gang rape upon her while the fourth accused kept her husband confined elsewhere; her being rendered unconscious and her finding herself later at home.Since she was unclean, she washed her clothes but not enough to remove the traces of semen which were later confirmed by the FSL.PW-5 was able to identify the accused who kept calling each other by their names.She was able to also identify the under-pants of A-1 which were seized in her presence by the police.He too confirmed that the boys who dragged away PW-5 were having knives with them.It was around 12 midnight Crl.A.420/2002 Page 11 of 15 when he went to the urinal near Block No.15, Kalyanpuri behind the market where he found PW-5 in an unconscious state, undressed/naked and having no clothes on her body.He took her clothes which were lying nearby, put them on PW-5 and with his arm around her shoulder took her home.When he sprinkled some water on her, she regained consciousness and disclosed the facts to him.PW-20/A to 20/D) constitutes another important piece of evidence in the prosecution.Her petticoat did contain semen stains of the AB group and the under wear contained semen stains of B group.Human semen was detected, apart from on the petticoat, on the vaginal smear.PW-20 was examined to prove the above report.Nothing much emerged in his cross-examination to discredit this evidence.It was noted that while the petticoat was having AB group, the underwear contained semen belonging to the B blood group.As far as the sentence awarded to the two accused is concerned, the Court is satisfied that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC is reduced from imprisonment for life to RI for 10 years with the fine amount and default sentence remaining unaltered.The sentences and fines awarded to each of the Appellants for the other offences do not call for interference.Conclusion and directionsConsequently, while confirming the judgment of the trial Court convicting the two Appellants for the offences with which they were charged and the order on sentence for the offences other than the offence under Section 376(2)(g) together with fines and default sentences, the Court modifies the sentence awarded to each of the Appellants for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC from imprisonment for life to RI for 10 years with the fine amount and default sentence remaining unchanged.A.420/2002 Page 14 of 15 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
51,045,453 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Ashok Kumar Yadav @ Ashok in Case Crime No. 199 of 2020, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 392, 436, 427, 325 IPC, Police Station- Gosainganj, District- Lucknow.The applicant has been arrested on the basis of suspicion.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 of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 6.8.2020 Arun/- | ['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. |
51,047,249 | In brief, the facts of the case are that present petitioner Jaynarayan Para was the Chief Municipal Officer of Nagar Panchayat, Joura, at the relevant point of time.At Present, he is working as Chief Municipal Officer at Sabalgarh, District Morena and accordingly he is a public servant.No.1/State.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Morena, in Special Case No.2/2012 [Suresh Yadav Vs Rajesh Verma and others] whereby the complaint filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B of IPC and under Sections 5, 8 and 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Gwalior, for enquiry and thereafter for filing enquiry report. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 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. |
51,055,744 | Four days before her husband had gone to his house at Jamra.When he did not return, on 28.8.2014 she went there and saw that her husband was playing cards.She told him that his son is sick and in spite of that he is playing cards here.On account of that, applicant and her Jet Balram gave beating to her by M.Cr.C.No.10338/2014 (Kalyan Jatav Vs.State of M.P.) 2 means of kicks and fists and her husband poured some inflammable substance on her private parts by which she sustained burn injuries.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The case is listed today for admission.Heard on admission.Case diary is available.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.186/14 registered at Police Station, Myana, District Guna, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 326-A, 324, 323, 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC.As per prosecution case, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with applicant Kalyan about eight years ago.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(Sushil Kumar Gupta ) Judge ms/- | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
51,057,013 | In default of payment of fine he has to undergo one year and six months rigorous imprisonment respectively.Prosecution's case in short is that the deceased Kalawati was the wife of the appellant.The appellant was habitually beating his wife after consuming liquor.On 30.8.1995 the appellant assaulted the deceased Kalawati after consuming some liquor and he also told the deceased Kalawati that she should commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil upon her.The deceased poured the kerosene oil upon her and set herself on fire.Thereafter, the appellant took the deceased to Primary Health Centre, Tendukheda.Dr. Ahirwar (PW2) had sent an information to the Police about the incident and that the deceased was admitted in the hospital.On receiving a requisition, Dr. Ahirwar recorded the dying declaration Ex.P/8 of the deceased Kalawati.Investigation Officer Sub Inspector R.C. Jat (PW7) had also recorded a dying declaration Ex.(Delivered on the 23rd day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 5.8.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in ST.P/10 of the deceased.The deceased was shifted to the district Hospital, Narsinghpur but, she took her last breath at about 11.40 p.m in the night.A merg enquiry was initiated.In post mortem, Dr. B.K. Saksena (PW1) found that the deceased Kalawati died due to burn injuries.He gave his report Ex.P/2 in that respect.After taking evidence of the parents and relatives of the deceased, the Police had registered a crime and after due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadarwara who, committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Narsingpur and ultimately it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara.The appellant abjured his guilt.He took a specific plea in the case that he was falsely implicated.He had more than a sum of Rs.1 lac in his bank account and, therefore, there was no 3 need for the appellant to harass the deceased Kalawati for dowry demand etc. Actually she sustained the injuries while she was cooking.When it was informed to the parents of the deceased that she sustained burn injuries they demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac from him and since he had not given that sum to the parents of the deceased they stated falsely against the appellant.In defence one Laxmi Prasad Soni (DW1) who took the deceased Kalawati to the hospital, was examined to explain the behavior of the parents of the deceased at that time.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased died due to an accident and it was not a case of suicide.Police as well as the doctor had recorded the dying declarations due to the instigation of the parents and relatives of the deceased and also the dying declarations are inconsistent with each other and therefore, they are not believable.State of Maharashtra" [(2008) 16 SCC 705] and "Muthu Kutty and another Vs.State" [(2005) 9 SCC 113].It is also 4 submitted that the investigation was not fair and the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter.It is prayed that the appellant be acquitted from all the charges.In the alternate it is prayed that the appellant has suffered the trial and appeal since last 17 years and therefore, he should not be sent to the jail again.On the other hand the learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be on the sound footings and therefore, there is no basis by which any interference can be done in the judgment.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it needs to be examined that whether the deceased Kalawati committed suicide ? Whether the appellant harassed her in her life time ? Whether the harassment comes within the purview of Section 107 of I.P.C ? Whether the appellant can be convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A or 306 of I.P.C ? and Whether the sentence imposed upon the appellant can be reduced,The prosecution has examined Dr. B.K. Saksena (PW1) to prove the post mortem report.Dr. Saksena has categorically accepted in para 15 of the cross-examination that there was no smell of kerosene on the body of the deceased and therefore, it is submitted by the learned defence counsel that she died due to an accident at the time when she was cooking.However, Dr. Saksena saw the body after her death and before her death she was treated by Dr. Ahirwar (PW2) and there was a possibility that 5 her body could be cleaned at the time of her treatment.Dr. Ahirwar has stated that he examined the deceased Kalawati and recorded an MLC report (Ex.P/3).She sustained 90% burn injuries and a foul smell of kerosene was there on her body.In para 12 of his cross examination, he has stated that some of her hair were found burnt but remaining hair of the deceased were present on the body and a deep smell of kerosene was coming out from her hair.There is no basis by which the testimony of Dr. Ahirwar can be disbelieved and therefore, it is apparent that before sustaining the burn injuries the deceased got the kerosene poured upon her.It is not a case of the prosecution that some one else poured kerosene upon the deceased.In her dying declaration Ex.P/8 as well as Ex.P/10 she had stated that she herself poured kerosene upon her and set herself on fire.Under such circumstances, looking to the evidence of Dr. Ahirwar (PW2) it cannot be said that the deceased sustained the burn injuries due to an accident but, certainly she herself poured the kerosene upon her and set herself on fire.Hence, it is a case of suicide.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly held that it was a case of suicide.Bala Prasad (PW3), father of the deceased, Prahlad (PW4), Ganesh Prasad (PW5), brothers of the deceased, have stated that the marriage of the deceased took place three years prior to her death.The appellant was not sending her to her parent's house frequently.He used to take her to her parents house and to return along with him only.Bala Prasad and Ganesh 6 Prasad have stated that the deceased was taken to the house of her parents for once, two times or three times.There is a material contradiction between the evidence of these witnesses.However, it is confirmed by these witnesses that the appellant was taking the deceased to her parents house and bringing her back with him.According to the brother Ganesh Prasad the deceased came to her parents house for 2-3 times and her last visit to her parents house was a month before her death.It is stated by Prahlad (PW4) that the appellant was not leaving his wife to her parents house because they could not provide a motor cycle to the appellant.In this connection a letter Ex.P/9 is produced before the Court at the time of evidence of Bala Prasad, the father of the deceased.He has stated that he had no knowledge that his daughter was also named as "Radha".However, the letter Ex.P/9 is an inland letter which was addressed to Prahalad Kumar (brother of the deceased) and senders name was Brij Mohan 7 Kumar (the appellant).The deceased died in the year 1995 therefore, in November and December 1993 where the dispute of the deceased and the appellant was not such that a false letter was to be created by the deceased or relatives of the deceased against the appellant.Under such circumstances, looking to the addresses of the Sender and Receiver and postal seal of the post office it is clear that the letter was written by the deceased in name of "Radha".In the letter Ex.P/9 only one line is given that a motor cycle be provided to the husband of the deceased but, it appears that such demand was not prosecuted further.Otherwise in the subsequent two years, there should have been some dispute followed by demand.Prahlad and Ganesh Prasad could not state anything about the demand in their case diary statements.On the contrary Ganesh Prasad in his merg statement had stated that there was no grievance against the appellant.No Panchayat took place for such a demand and therefore, none of the witnesses have stated in their case diary statement about that demand of the motorcycle.It appears that a letter Ex.P/9 was searched and obtained by the father of the deceased, much after the death of the deceased and therefore, they changed their version in the Court accordingly but, if such demand was prosecuted by the appellant then that should be in the knowledge of the appellants and witnesses and they should have told to the police about that demand from the very beginning.Under such circumstances, 8 version of letter Ex.P/9 has no force at present.It appears that appellant never prosecuted his demand of motor cycle further and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was harassing the deceased for demand of the dowry.If there was any harassment relating to the demand of the dowry then certainly the police had to file a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C but, in the charge sheet no offence under Section 304-B of I.PC was alleged.Bala Prasad, Prahlad and Ganesh Prasad have stated that the deceased was complaining about the assault done by the appellant after consuming the liquor.There is no material contradiction about these fact in their evidence.Such allegation of harassment is duly supported by the dying declaration (Ex.P/8) recorded by Dr. Ahirwar (PW2) and also by dying declaration (Ex.P/12) recorded by the Sub Inspector R.C. Jat.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is inconsistency in both the dying declarations and therefore, they should not be believed.Dying declaration was to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate and therefore, if it was recorded by a doctor in the absence of the witnesses then it should not be believed.Shri Jat has stated that no Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar is posted at Village Tendukheda and therefore, it was not possible to obtain the presence of the Executive Magistrate for recording of the dying declaration and since the deceased was to be shifted to the District Hospital, Narsinghpur therefore, it was essential for the Investigation Officer as well as the Doctor to record the dying 9 declaration.There is no inconsistency in both the dying declarations.Only few lines are additional in the dying declaration Ex.P/8 that the deceased had stated that the appellant directed her to commit suicide with the help of kerosene and he sweared on her parents that she should commit suicide.He simply recoded the statement of the deceased.Under such circumstances, there is no inconsistency in both the dying declarations.To contradict the statements of Shri R.C.Jat, it is strange that the trial Court had called Tahsildar Shri R.K. Shrivastava as a Court witness to show that whether he was available at Tendukheda on 30.8.1995 or not.Shri Shivastava has categorically informed that he was on leave on 30.8.1995 and he was at Bhopal at that time.Under such circumstances, it is conclusively proved that no Executive Magistrate was available at that time when the doctor recorded the dying declaration.It is also apparent that the parents and relatives of the deceased did not reach the Primary Health Center, Tendukheda and therefore, neither the deceased nor the doctor was under impression of her parents and relatives.There was no need to Dr. Ahirwar or Shri Jat to add any fact on their own while recording such a statement of the deceased.Learned Additional Sessions Judge asked a Court question that Shri Jat has recorded the statement of 10 the deceased in absence of witnesses and therefore, it was an act flouting the Police Regulations.If some one is dying then the Investigation Officer is entitled to record the case diary statement of that witness.For recording the case diary statement, there is no need of any witness and if that witness dies thereafter, then statement under section 161 of the Cr.In case of Sanjay (supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court discarded some portion of the dying declarations due to contradictions between the dying declarations.Similarly in the case of MehiboobSab Abbasabi Nadaf (supra) there were four dying declarations in which there was a material contradiction and therefore, due to inconsistency those dying declarations were discarded.There was nobody from the side of the parents and relatives of the deceased at that time to tutor her.The doctor and the Investigation officer had no reason to create a false statement of the deceased at that time.Ultimately he directed her to commit suicide.It is stated by the various witnesses including the father and brothers of the deceased that the appellant was in a habit to assault the deceased after consuming some liquor.He was harassing the deceased in such a manner.He was not permitting the deceased to go to her parents house by her own.One Laxmi Prasad Soni (DW1) was examined to prove the relations of the appellant with the deceased but, he has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was called by the appellant.When he reached to the house of the appellant, the deceased was lying and the appellant was sitting.The appellant directed the witness to take the deceased to the hospital and lodge a report in the Police Station.Thereafter, Laxmi Prasad Soni, Kamlesh and 13 Suresh Kumar Purohit took the deceased in a jeep to the Primary Health Centre, Tendukheda.From the evidence of the defence witness Laxmi Prasad Soni, two important facts came out, firstly that the appellant neither visited the hospital with his wife nor lodged any FIR in the Police Station by himself. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,105,939 | In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal, can be stated as follows :-The appellant is resident of Mahavir Nagar, Ahmednagar.Many person, who were mainly youngsters, had gathered there to watch the match.When the match was over, appellant - Dinesh and his friends like Chandrakant alias Kaka Shelke, Laxman Shelke, Parshuram Shelke and Bhau Pagare went towards the cycle shop of Kaka Shelke, which is situated just opposite to this temple.Deceased Raju Dinde went towards the cycle shop and after seeing the appellant and his friends near shop, he started giving abuses to them.As there was no reason for giving such abuses and Raju was attempting to quarrel without any reason, the appellant and his friends started assaulting Raju with ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 513/12 3 fist blows and kicks.During the incident, the appellant took out a knife from pocket of his clothes and gave blows of knife on the chest and abdomen of Raju.Raju collapsed due to these blows.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::Then Kaka Shelke threw a stone on the face of Raju.Raju died on the spot.Few youngsters, who were returning from the temple, witnessed aforesaid incident.Nobody dared to intervene in the incident.When appellant and his friends realised that Raju was no more, they dragged the dead body of Raju up to garbage heap, which was lying near a bridge.The bridge is situated in the vicinity of the aforesaid shop.The appellant and his friends then tried to clean up the things like blood by using water.Then they returned their respective houses.On the same night, after some time of the incident, the appellant started repenting over the incident.Then he went to Police Station Tophkhana from Ahmednagar and he gave report about the incident.The Police Station Officer of this police station recorded the report of the appellant and on that basis, the crime at C.R. No. 125 of 2011 came to be registered at 00.35 hour of 31.3.2011 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 and 34 of I.P.C. The P.S.O. gave report about this information to Superior Officer.The Deputy Superintendent of Police - Sham ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 513/12 4 Ghuge rushed to the police station.He took over the investigation of the case.Ghuge visited the spot of offence.In his presence inquest panchanama came to be prepared by other Police Officer.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::Articles like clothes of the deceased and blade of knife, which was found in the dead body, were taken over under inquest panchanama.The dead body was referred for the P.M.The accused came to be arrested.His clothes and shoe pair were taken over under panchanama.Panchanama of spot of offence also came to be prepared in presence of panch witnesses.The appellant showed this spot to police.It shows that pool of blood was found at north-west corner near the door of the shop, inside of the shop.There was platform of 5 ft.x 5 ft.in front of the shop, having cover of tiles.Many blood stains were found on this platform.The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 145 of 2011, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar.The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence punishable under section 304 (1) of Indian Penal Code.Rigorous imprisonment of 10 years is given to the appellant and fine of Rs.10,000/- is also imposed for this offence.He is also convicted and ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 513/12 2 sentenced for the offence punishable under section 201 of Indian Penal Code.Both the sides are heard.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::Blood was found both inside of the shop and outside of the shop.Articles like earth sample mixed with blood, razor having blood stains, three stones having blood stains were taken over from the spot under the spot panchanama.It transpired during investigation that shirt of the appellant was having blood stains and he had burnt the shirt on the backside of the aforesaid temple and he had taken a T-shirt of his friend.Statement of that friend came to recorded.On the basis of statement given by the accused, the recovery of pieces of burnt shirt was made.Cover of the knife used in the incident was also recovered from the top of the roof of the temple on the basis of statement given by the appellant.The appellant disclosed that he had purchased the knife from one shop and he took the police to said shop.Statement of the shop owner came to be recorded.Statements of so many eye witnesses came to be ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 513/12 5 recorded.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::Kaka Shelke could not be traced, but aforesaid other friends of the appellant came to be arrested.When chargesheet was filed Kaka Shelke was shown as absconding accused.The aforesaid articles were sent to C.A. Office.The charge was framed for the aforesaid offences.The appellant pleaded not guilty.The other accused, who faced the trial, also pleaded not guilty.The accused/appellant took the defence of total denial.He also took the defence of alibi and he examined his father to show that he was present in the house at the relevant time and he was watching the aforesaid match in the house on T.V. The Trial Court has held that evidence is sufficient to prove the offence of homicide.The Trial Court has held that the offence under section 304 (1) of I.P.C. is proved as the incident was started by deceased by giving abuses.It was submitted for the appellant that evidence given by prosecution is not convincing and further, there is no corroborative evidence of independent witnesses.It was submitted for appellant that the so called first information report given by appellant cannot be used against him.Both the sides cited some reported cases.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::Appeal No. 513/12 6The appellant has not disputed that Raju Dinde died homicidal death.Though there is no dispute over the cause of death, for better appreciation of the evidence, it is desirable in this case to make short discussion about the evidence given on the cause of death.The panch witnesses of inquest panchanam have turned hostile.The evidence of two Police Officers and Exh. 70 show that they noticed bleeding injuries on the head, chest and abdomen of the dead body.The blade of knife had remained inside the body at lumbar region.Dr. Sanjay (PW 12) conducted the post mortem examination.His evidence shows that as many as eight antimortem injuries were found on the dead body.There were stab injuries on left thigh, at umbilical region, at right lumber region, at left lumber region and over chest.One penetrating injury was found over epigastic region.One crushed injury was found on face at left cheek.The P.M. report at Exh. 67 is proved in the evidence of doctor and it is consistent with the evidence given by doctor.The doctor has given opinion that the stab injuries were caused by using sharp weapon.Doctor has given opinion that the death of Raju took place due to haemorrhagic shock due to aforesaid stab injuries.This evidence is sufficient to prove that ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 513/12 7 Raju died homicidal death.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::The prosecution has examined eye witnesses like Deepak (PW 5), Dnyaneshwar (PW 6), Amol (PW 7), Sonu (PW 9), Ravi (PW 10) and Ganesh (PW 11).All the witnesses have turned hostile.No incriminating circumstance is brought on the record during cross examination of these witnesses by the prosecutor.Special Judicial Magistrate, Ghugarkar (PW 13) is examined to prove the statements of some eye witnesses recorded under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code.As the witnesses have turned hostile, there is no need to discuss such record.Two brothers of deceased viz. Avinash (PW 8) and Devidas (PW 15) are examined to show that on that night at about 1.30 hours, they learnt from police that Raju was murdered.Their evidence also shows that they further learnt that one of the accused had given information about the murder to the police.Though the name of appellant was not informed to them, the circumstance that at 1.30 hours of that night police approached them and gave aforesaid information is important as it helps in appreciation of other evidence.This circumstance needs to be treated as relevant circumstance.Pandharinath (PW 17), A.S.I., was attached to ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 513/12 8 Tophkhana Police Station.He has given evidence that appellant came to the police station on that night and he gave report about the incident.This witness has deposed that he recorded the report given by the appellant and he registered the crime on the basis of this report.The witness has deposed that the F.I.R., Exh. 86, was signed by the appellant in his presence.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::This witness has given evidence that he gave information about this incident to his Superior Officer by sending a report.Exh. 87 is the office copy of that report.Exh. 86 and the other record show that the crime came to be registered at 00.35 hours on that night.Thus, it can be said that prior to that time, the accused had approached police.This document contains the narration of entire incident of homicide.It also contains the narration of the incident of shifting of the dead body from the place of offence to other place, where the dead body was found.If the provision of section 25 of Evidence Act, which creates bar for using confessional statement, is kept in mind and if the provision of section 27 of Evidence Act is used, following information which can be found in Exh. 86, F.I.R., can be separated and considered :-::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::Appeal No. 513/12 9(i) that, there was blood in front of cycle shop of Kaka Shelke situated at Ganesh Chowk, Civil HUDCO, Nagar, and(ii) the dead body of Raju Dinde was lying in the heap of garbage near a bridge situated in the vicinity of the shop of Kaka Shelke.Sham Ghuge (PW 18), Deputy Superintendent of Police, who made investigation, has given evidence that he received the information from police station at about 1.00 a.m. His evidence in cross examination shows that he reached the police station within 10 minutes of receiving of the information.In the cross examination, he has given one admission that after reaching the police station, he first went to the spot for making observation and then he returned to police station.In the cross examination, it is brought on record that he called the witnesses in the morning to witness spot panchanama.Though this admission is there, not much can be made out of this admission.In view of the provision of section 27 of Evidence Act, what is relevant is the giving of information by the accused and the discovery of the things on the basis of such disclosure.In such a case, it becomes necessary to ascertain as to whether police had received information first time from the accused or whether the information was already received from other sources by police.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::Appeal No. 513/12 10 The record and the evidence of aforesaid two Police Officers (PW 17 and 18) show that police received information first time from the appellant, on the basis of that information crime was registered, Ghuge took over the investigation immediately after 1.00 p.m., and on the basis of this information he visited the spot, mentioned in the spot panchanama.Ghuge (PW 18) has given evidence that during investigation, he prepared panchanama at Exh. 90 under which he took over the clothes of deceased and blade of knife which was found in the dead body.The inquest panchanama was prepared by P.S.I. - Mantonde under the instructions of Ghuge.Ghuge has given evidence that he prepared spot panchanama at Exh. 90 in the presence of panch witnesses and he took over eight articles from the spot.All these articles are identified by Ghuge in his evidence.Ghuge (PW 18) has given evidence that on 5.4.2011 appellant gave statement to him of which memorandum was prepared.In the statement, accused disclosed that cover of knife was kept by him on the temple and he had burnt his shirt on the backside of this temple.These articles came to be recovered and seized under ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that no blood was found on these two articles and there is no need to discuss this evidence more.Ghuge's evidence shows that he made investigation in respect of the T-shirt which accused was wearing at the time of his arrest.That evidence needs no discussion as the so called friend of appellant has not given evidence on this incident.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::In the cross examination of Ghuge (PW 18), it is brought on the record that the investigation revealed that due to the abuses given by the accused, the incident started and in that incident the offence of homicide took place.In the cross examination, it is suggested to Ghuge that some persons of Muslim community, who became angry after the match had probably committed the murder of Raju.This suggestion is denied by Ghuge.It is suggested to Ghuge that the signatures of the accused, appearing on the F.I.R. and other documents, were obtained by using force.These suggestions are also denied.In view of the aforesaid evidence, it can be said that there is little bit discrepancy about the time of starting of spot panchanama.However, as the panchanama was concluded at 12.00 hours of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 513/12 12 31.3.2011 and as there are other circumstances, this discrepancy has not created reasonable doubt about the evidence given by Ghuge.The spot panchanama shows that the appellant showed the spot of offence and the spot where the dead body was lying, to police.It is already observed that what is material is information, which was given by the appellant in F.I.R. The spot of offence is situated in front of cycle shop of Kaka Shelke and this shop is situated in front of temple of Lord Ganesha, where many youngsters had gathered on that night.The spot panchanama shows that this shop was opened for preparing the panchanama.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::At north corner of the shop, outside of the shed, blood stains were found on the ground.One stone having blood stains was found in front of the shop and two stones, having bloods stains, were found on the road, which is at some distance from this shop.The north-south road is known as Civil-HUDCO coloney - Makasare Health Club Road.A tiffin of steel of four boxes was found in front of the shop.A black plastic chappal was found there.A razor (blade, generally used by barbers), having blood stains, was found in front of shop.A bridge is situated at the distance of 48 fts.from this shop.The dead body of Raju was lying near this bridge.In the spot panchanama, in ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 513/12 13 hand sketch map, approximate location, of the aforesaid things are shown.From this map, it can be said that the bridge and the dead body were on the western side of the cycle shop and the Civil HUDCO - Health Club road.All aforesaid articles and also earth samples mixed with blood were taken over under this panchanama.The articles seized under this panchanama and other panchanamas, which are already mentioned, were sent to C.A. Office by Ghuge (PW 18).::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::The evidence on record does not show that police already knew aforesaid two spots.It was mid night.In the spot panchanama, there is mention that accused was present on the spot when panchanama was being prepared.86 and 92 and the substantive ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 513/12 14 evidence of aforesaid two Police Officers, is sufficient to prove that the conditions laid down in section 27 of Evidence Act are satisfied.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::It is true that panch witnesses on Exh. 92 has turned hostile.The panch witnesses have admitted that they have signed on these documents.There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence also.These articles were also sent to C.A. Office.As the conditions laid down in section 27 of the Evidence Act are not satisfied, this Court is not discussing in detail the disclosures made by appellant, which can be found in Exhs.The panchanamas prepared on the basis of these disclosures also need not be considered.Similarly the evidence at ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 513/12 15 Exh. 111 also need not be discussed as there is no evidence of Ravindra in support of that document.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::Police Constable Anand (PW 19) is examined to prove that that he carried the aforesaid articles to C.A. Office.The office copy of covering letter sent to C.A. office, Exh. 112, is proved in the evidence of Ghuge.The C.A. report at Exh. 74 shows that human blood was detected on shoe pair of the accused and on the jeans pant of the accused.Human blood was found on the blade of knife recovered from the dead body, on the stones seized under the spot panchanama, in the earth sample taken over from the spot of offence and also on razor taken over from the spot of offence.Only because the blood group of the deceased and the blood group which was detected on the aforesaid articles could not be detected, aforesaid circumstances, circumstantial evidence, cannot be discarded.The presence of human blood on the aforesaid things is certainly incriminating circumstance and it can be used against the accused.It is not the case of the appellant that he had sustained any injury and that can also be seen from the arrest panchanama.The discussion made above shows that immediately after 11.00 p.m. of 30.3.2011 the incident in question took place.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::Appeal No. 513/12 16 There was human blood on his pant and shoe pair.He had come to police station to give report about the incident.This is the evidence on the conduct of the accused and it shows the nexus of the accused with the crime.Such conduct is definitely relevant under section 8 of Evidence Act.Defence witness Dnyandeo is father of accused/appellant.He has given evidence that appellant/accused was watching cricket match on T.V. set in the house on that night.He has deposed that police picked up the appellant from the residential place on that night.This defence of alibi is not at all convincing and it cannot be believed.This defence was first time taken after starting of the trial.There is record of police station and there are many circumstances, which are against the accused.There is circumstantial check to the evidence on presence of the accused on the spot at the relevant time.The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case reported as AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 119 [Aghnoo Nagesia Vs.State of Bihar].The sum and substance of the discussion of relevant provisions of Evidence Act can be found at paragraph Nos. 18 and 20 of this case.They are as under :-::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement.(19) ........The learned APP placed reliance on the case reported as AIR 1960 SUPREME COURT 1125 (1) [State of U.P. Vs. ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 513/12 18 Deoman Upadhyaya].::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::The Apex Court has discussed the provision of section 162 of Cr.P.C. in relation of section 27 of Evidence Act. The discussion made by the Apex Court was in the mind of this Court, when this Court appreciated the aforesaid evidence.From the evidence which is discussed by this Court, the only inference possible is that the appellant was involved in the attack made on Raju with dangerous weapon like knife.Only due to the case of prosecution that the deceased had started quarrel and incident started due to the fault of deceased, the Trial Court has held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 304 (1) of I.P.C. The State has not challenged that decision.In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that there is no reason to interfere the judgment and order of Trial Court.The evidence discussed shows that the dead body was shifted by the appellant from the place of offence to make the evidence disappear.Thus, there is evidence for proof of offence punishable under section 201 of I.P.C. also.There is no reason to interfere on the point of quantum of sentence in view of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 513/12 19 the evidence of doctor.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.[ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/ ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:20:43 ::: | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,106,059 | The application accordingly is disposed of as infructuous.Chitra Sonawane 1::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 21:01:30 :::Chitra Sonawane 2::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 21:01:30 :::6-1781-2019.doc Chitra Sonawane 3::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 21:01:30 :::Chitra Sonawane 3::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 21:01:30 ::: | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,106,471 | (Judgment of the Court was delivered byS.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 in S.C.No.84 of2006, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.Including these appellants, altogether, there were 12 accused in the case.The first accused had a doubt that it happened at the instigationof one Mr.Selvam.This developed into an enmity between the two groups, oneheaded by the first accused and the other headed by Selvam.In the present case, the deceased was one Mr.Sippai @ Vellaisamy.The sister of the deceased Sippai @ Vellaisamy was given in marriage to thefirst accused.But, the first accused developed illicit intimacy with manyother women.Apart from that, on one occasion, the first accused attempted tosexually exploit one Valli, the yet another sister of the deceased Sippai @Vellaisamy.On account of the said incident, the husband of Mrs.Valli died.Because of these events, there arose very strong enmity between the accusedand the deceased.While so, it is alleged that on 12.10.2001, at midnight, at thepolitical office of the first accused, the accused 1 to 4 gathered andhatched a conspiracy to commit murder of Sippai @ Vellaisamy and to throw the blame on their enemy Mr.Since the election was nearing, in order toprevent the brother of Selvam and the others from working in the electionagainst the first accused, they had chosen to commit the murder of thedeceased and throw the blame on Selvam and others.In pursuance of the said conspiracy, it is alleged that on14.10.2001, at about 12.30 a.m., all the twelve accused formed into anunlawful assembly and gathered in front of the house of one Mr.Baskaran.Theaccused No.4-Raja @ Arakkattai Raja @ Rajaram (the third appellant herein)was armed with a knife.There was enough light from the sodium-vapor lampfrom the street light post.At that time, the deceased came there.P.20 is the post-mortem certificate.Accordingto P.W.8-Dr.Alavudeen, the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the cumulative effect of all the injuries.Thus, the investigation was taken in adirection by Mr.Pugalenthi, the then Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethipolice station, as if the named persons in the First Information Report werethe culprits, who were responsible for the death of the deceased.Dharmarajan of CBCID.He also focussed as though the persons named in the First Information Report were the culprits.The trial Court framed as many as eight charges against the accused.Thefirst accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 120(b), 147, 342,114, 302 read with Sections 149 and 201 I.P.C; the second accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 120(b), 147, 342, 302 read withSections 149 and 201 I.P.C; the fourth accused stood charged for the offencesunder Sections 120(b), 148, 342 and 302 I.P.C; the fifth accused stoodcharged for the offences under Sections 147, 342, 302 read with Sections 149,201 and 182 I.P.C and the accused Nos.6 to 11 stood charged for the offencesunder Sections 147, 342, 302 read with Sections 149 and 201 I.P.C and thecharges abated as against the accused Nos.3 & 12/deceased.By Judgment dated 07.12.2010, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.6 to 11, but convicted theaccused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, as detailed below:-Accused Conviction under SectionSentence imposed A1 Section 147 IPC To undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-,in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 monthsSection 342 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-,in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 monthsSection 201 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine ofRs.200/-, in default, to undergo further period of six monthsSections 120(B) & 302 read with 149 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, indefault, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each.A2 Section 147 IPC To undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-,in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 monthsSection 342 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-,in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 monthsSection 201 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine ofRs.200/-, in default, to undergo further period of six monthsSections 120(B) & 302 read with 149 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, indefault, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each.A4 Section 148 IPC To undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-,in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 monthsSection 342 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-,in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 monthsSection 201 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine ofRs.200/-, in default, to undergo further period of six monthsSections 120(B) & 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, indefault, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years eachA5 Section 147 IPC To undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-,in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 monthsSection 342 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-,in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 monthsSection 201 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine ofRs.200/-, in default, to undergo further period of six monthsSection 182 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one monthSections 302 r/w 149 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default,to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 yearsChallenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused Nos.1,2, 4 and 5 are before this Court with this appeal.Theaccused Nos.1, 2 & 4 to 11 surrounded the deceased.Then, the first accuseddirected the accused Nos.2 and 3 to catch hold the deceased.Accordingly,they did.Then, the first accused directed the fourth accused to stab thedeceased.Immediately, the fourth accused stabbed the deceased on the rightside of the chest.The deceased fell down.One Puli Ganesan, the brother ofthe deceased, came there and on seeing the deceased with injury, he lost hiscool and fainted.The accused Nos.1 and 2 put him aside and took the deceased in the car and proceeded towards South.While so going, they shouted as ifthe deceased were stabbed by Mr.Selvam and his companions.He was taken to the Government Rajaji Medical College Hospital.On examining the deceased, the Doctor declared him dead.P.1 is the complaint.P.W.7-Ponnambalam was the then Sub- Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi police station.On receipt of the saidcomplaint, under Ex.P.17, P.W.7 registered a case in Crime No.166 of 2001under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.18 is the FirstInformation Report.He forwarded Exs.P.17 and P.18 to the Court and handedover the case diary to the Inspector of Police, one Mr.Pugalendhi.As per Exs.P.17 and P.18, one Selvam, Prabhakar, Dhanabalan, Muthu, Karthikeyan, Sethupillai, Kesavan and Duraisamy were shown as the accused.According to the allegations, all the eight accused formed into anunlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and caused injuries on A.2 herein as well as the deceased.It is alleged that the deceased was stabbedby Mr.Prabhakar with a long size knife on the chest.When Mr.Prabhakarattempted to stab him again, the deceased warded off with his right hand andas a result, the blow fell on the right thumb of the deceased.The said case, thereafter, was taken up for investigation by theInspector of Police one Mr.Pugalenthi.Mr.Pugalenthi, during the course ofinvestigation, held inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded thedead body for post-mortem.One Dr.[Since Dr.Meialagahan was indisposed and unable to speak, Dr.Alavudeen-P.W.8 gave evidence before the Court].While so, five persons by name Angusamy Servai (P.W.1),Muthuraja (P.W.2), Jaya, Veeramuthu and Murugan filed Crl.O.P.No.25843 of 2001 before the Principal Bench of this Court seeking transfer of theinvestigation of the case to some other agency.In that petition, it wasalleged that the accused persons named in the First Information Report werenot responsible for the death of the deceased and the persons responsible forthe death of the deceased were the accused herein and their companions.Itwas alleged before the Principal Bench by the petitioner therein thatMr.Pugalenthi, the Inspector of Police, procured witnesses, who were closerelatives of the deceased and recorded their statements which were contraryto the truth.It was further alleged that the villagers jointly sent severalrepresentations to the Honourable Chief Minister, His Excellency, theGovernor and the Director General of Police, complaining about the abovefalse case.When the said petition came up for hearing before a learnedSingle Judge of this Court on 26.02.2002, the learned Government Advocate, oninstructions from the police, submitted that a total number of five personswere examined as witnesses by the Inspector of Police to speak about theoccurrence.Out of the said five witnesses, two of them are brothers of thedeceased and the other three were not the residents of Sivankoil Street,where the occurrence had taken place.The learned Single Judge by order dated26.02.2002 in paragraph Nos.5 to 7 held as follows:-?5.It is no doubt true that the own sister of the deceased Vellaichamyis also mother-in-law of the second accused Prabakaran.The fact remains thatnone of the residents Sivan Koil Street was examined to speak about theoccurrence by the investigating officer namely the second respondent herein.The villagers of Tiruppachetty have sent representations to variousauthorities on various dates seeking for impartial investigation in the case.It is also alleged that political rivalry lead to the occurrence.6.Considering the circumstances of the case and in the interest ofjustice, it is better of investigation is conducted by some other agencyother than the second respondent.7.Hence, the petition is allowed and the investigation in Crime No.166of 2001 is transferred from the file of the second respondent to the file ofC.B.C.I.D and the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D Sivaganga is directed toverify the earlier investigation, continue and complete the same according tolaw as expeditiously as possible.?The said order of the learned Single Judge has been marked asEx.Based on the said order, the investigation was taken up by theInspector of Police, by name, Mr.However, the investigation was further transferred by the Department toP.W.10-Mr.Balasubramanian, the then Inspector of Police, CBCID., Chennai.During the course of investigation, he examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and few morewitnesses, who, for the first time, implicated all the 12 accused in thepresent case as the one who were responsible for the murder of Sippai @Vellaisamy.Then, these two witnesses were sent to the learned JudicialMagistrate's Court for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.2.9. P.W.4, the then Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi, recorded thestatements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and seven others.From the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the other witnesses, P.W.10 concluded that the persons named in the First Information Report were not the culprits and the accused herein,including the appellants herein, were responsible for the commission of themurder.He arrested the accused Nos.2 and 3, atThiruppachethi bus stop.He arrested the seventh accused on 08.01.2003 at02.30 p.m. The fourth accused had surrendered before the Court.While in custody, the fourth accused gave avoluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hiddenthe knife.Accordingly, he produced M.O.1, the knife and the same wasrecovered.He examined many more witnesses and finally filed charge sheetagainst these accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges, asdetailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment.When the accused werequestioned in respect of the charges, they denied the same as false.In orderto prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 10 witnesseswere examined, 35 documents and 6 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 claimed to be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence.They have vividly spoken about the overt act ofeach accused.More particularly, they have stated that the fatal injury onthe deceased was caused by the fourth accused.P.W.3 has spoken about the conspiracy hatched on 12.10.2001 between the accused to commit murder of the deceased and to throw the blame on Selvam and others.P.W.4 is the learned Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the accused under Section164 Cr.P.C. P.W.5 was examined to speak about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the recovery of bloodstained earth from the place ofoccurrence.But, he has turned hostile and he has not supported the case ofthe prosecution in any manner.P.W.6 has spoken about the disclosure statement made by the fourth accused and the consequential discovery ofM.O.1-knife.P.W.7, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi policestation has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of thefirst accused.Alavudeen has spoken about the post-mortem conducted by Mr.Maialaghan and the final opinion given by Mr.Maialaghan regarding thecause of death.Jeyaraj has stated that on 15.10.2001 at about 01.15a.m., when he was in the Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital, one Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram had brought the deceased to him for treatment.On examination, he found him already dead.He forwarded the dead body to the mortuary forpostmortem and gave intimation to the police regarding the same.P.W.10 hasspoken about the investigation done by him.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accusedunder Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same as false.However,they did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on their side.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court hasconvicted the appellants as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgmentand accordingly, punished them.That is how, the appellants are before thisCourt with this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants andthe learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.We havealso perused the records carefully.According tothe prosecution, P.W.3 had witnessed the conspiracy to commit the murder ofthe deceased and to throw the blame on Selvam and others.There is no explanation at all for the non-disclosure ofthe occurrence for more than a year.Thus, according to him, the evidences ofthese witnesses cannot be believed.He would further submit that the TrialCourt has disbelieved the evidences of these witnesses in respect of the restof the accused, though they have specifically stated about the allegedparticipation of all the accused.The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that asper the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar andanother Vs.The State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 in the absence ofcorroboration from independent sources, the evidence of these witnessescannot be acted upon.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, vehemently, opposethis Criminal Appeal.According to him, P.Ws.1 and 2 have explained thatthough they told about the occurrence that they witnessed the same,Mr.Pugalenthi, the then Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi police station,did not come forward to record the statement, instead he took theinvestigation as though the persons named in the First Information Reportwere the culprits.Similarly P.W.3 has also explained.He would further submit that the medical records also dulycorroborate the eye witness account.Therefore, according to him, there is noreason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trialCourt.We have considered the above submissions.Thus, for about 11 months P.Ws.1 and 2 did not disclose about the occurrence that these accused were responsible for the death of the deceased.Now, the question is whetherthey have any explanation to offer?.Their explanation is that Mr.Pugalenthi,the then Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi police station, who investigatedthe case, did not record the statement, though they disclosed about the same.But, Mr.Pugalenthi, the then Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi policestation, has not been examined.Assuming that this explanation of P.Ws.1 and2 can be considered, absolutely there is no explanation as to why these twowitnesses did not disclose anything about the occurrence to Mr.Dharmarajan,the Inspector of Police, CBCID, who initially took up the case forinvestigation on the orders of the Principal Bench of this Court.P.W.10 hascategorically admitted that when Mr.Dharmarajan, the Inspector of Police,CBCID, interrogated P.Ws.1 and 2, in their statements, they stated that theydid not know anything about the occurrence.PW-1 and PW-2 have been duly contradicted by that also.Thus, as of now, there is no explanation as to whyP.Ws.1 and 2 did not disclose about the occurrence involving these twoaccused at least to Mr.Dharmarajan, the Inspector of Police, CBCID.There isno explanation as to why they disclosed that they did not know anything aboutthe occurrence.He also did not say anything about the occurrence to Mr.Dharmarajan, theInspector of Police, CBCID.Thus, in our considered view, absolutely, thereis no explanation for the belated disclosure of the occurrence by P.Ws.1 toThe trial Court has disbelieved P.Ws.1 to 3 and has acquitted allthe other accused from all the charges, though it is the case that all ofthem formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the said common object, the fourth accused stabbed the deceased.The trial Court has, thus,disbelieved these three witnesses in respect of the other accused.The Statehas not made any appeal against the acquittal of the other accused.That version has not been falsifiedtill now.Absolutely, there is no evidence let in by the prosecution to showthat the persons named in the First Information Report were not the culprits.The materials collected by Mr.Pugalenthi, the then Inspector of Police,Thiruppachethi police station, have not been placed on record so that thisCourt can analyse those materials and also to find out whether the versionprojected by Mr.Pugalenthi, the then Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethipolice station, is true or the version projected by Mr.Dharmarajan, theInspector of Police, CBCID is true.Similarly, Mr.Dharmarajan, the Inspectorof Police, CBCID also did not project a version that the present accused arethe culprits.He also projected the case as though the persons mentioned inthe First Information Report were the culprits.Thus, an adverse interference needs to be drawnagainst the prosecution for suppressing this important witness.Whenthere are two versions, it is not possible for this Court legally to act uponthe story propounded by P.W.10 and to reject the story propounded byMr.Dharmarajan, the Inspector of Police, CBCID.Simply because PW-10 investigated the case on transfer and simply because PW-10 happens to be an officer of CBCID, the Premier Investigating Agency in the State, we cannotrush to the conclusion that the investigation done by him is perfect and theearlier investigation done by Mr.Pugalenthi, the then Inspector of Police,Thiruppachethi police station and Mr.Dharmarajan, the Inspector of Police,CBCID were imperfect.This isevident from the fact that though the statements recorded under Section 164Cr.P.C of 10 persons were marked, only two persons alone were examined.In other words, Ex.P.C of P.W.1 andEx.P.C from one Jeya,Pugalendran, Ramalingam, Raman, Ganesan, Chellam @ Chellappa, Sankaranpillai and Sonaimuthu Servai.But none of the deponents was examined in the Court.The trial Court has treated Exs.P.4 to P.11 as substantive evidence.P.Cbeing a former statement shall not be used as a substantive evidence and thesame could be used to contradict the maker of the statement provided he wasexamined in Court.But, the trial Court has treated these statements assubstantive evidences and acted upon the same.The prosecution has not examined the witnesses, who were examined by Mr.Pugalenthi, the then Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi police station and Mr.Dharmarajan, theInspector of Police, CBCID for the reasons best known.Thus, the prosecutionhas not at all come forward with the clean hands.In our considered view, theinvestigation was not done thoroughly.The persons responsible for the deathof the deceased could not be punished ultimately.Thus, with pain, we statethat miscarriage of Justice has occurred in this case.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellants/accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 is set aside andthey are acquitted.Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall berefunded to them.Bail bond executed by the appellants and the sureties shallstand terminated.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruchirappalli Police Station, Sivagangai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
51,067,150 | CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 1 of 18Case of the complainant is that he is a highly qualified ex- banker having an experience of seventeen years.He was earlier posted at Senior Executive level in a Nationalized Bank.The petitioner and his wife Narider Pal Kaur Sahni engaged him to provide professional services in respect of non-delivery of 40,000 shares of M/s.Essar Gujarat Ltd. and for clearance of 11 FDRs with Kuwait International Finance Company (KIFCO).For that purpose, an agreement dated 22.07.1991 and irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 01.08.1991 were executed.Supplementary agreement dated 09.10.1992 was also executed.The FDRs were pledged with Kuwait Investment Finance Company (KIFCO) against some loan.There were some dispute between him and KIFCO.To protect his interest, he secured the services of the complainant and agreement dated 22.07.1991 was executed whereby the complainant was to get 5% as professional fee on the amount realized in India.The respondent filed suit in 1993 after an inordinate delay.Since the respondent was unable to protect his interest, he was forced to cancel GPA executed in his favour.Thereafter, the litigation started between the parties.On 01.02.2013, the petitioner opted to address arguments without the assistance of his lawyer.The respondent also opted to address arguments himself.He did not forge any document.He had no intention to defame him any time.He had reposed confidence in him and had availed his professional services to get clear his FDRs and to get back 40,000 shares.The respondent/ complainant urged that the petitioner is a big fraud and a habitual offender.He further argued that petitioner deliberately omitted/ deleted 24 important words from the orders of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 01.07.2000 and added two words of its own which were not in the order.No cash payment was ever received by him in Kuwait on 05.07.1997 and no receipt of said cash was executed.The petitioner did not file any such receipt in the Court.Contrary to that, he had given written instructions to Babli, his brother-in-law to issue two cheques from his account.These two cheques were found forged.Charge-sheet have CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 5 of 18 been filed against the petitioner.He posed himself as Jogender at the April, 2004 meetings.In the present petitions, the petitioner has claimed that he is Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni and not Mohinder Singh Sahni.He is having two passports one in the name of Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni and another in the name of Mohinder Singh Sahni.He further argued that FIR was registered by Crime Branch Mumbai on the complaint of Bank of Bahrein at Kuwait vide FIR/MCR 2/2001 under Sections 467/420/468/471/120B IPC.He further argued that in Crl.CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 4 of 18CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 5 of 18CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 6 of 18The respondent /complainant filed supplementary written submissions to state that after the judgments/ orders were reserved, Insp.CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 9 of 18While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law.One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant.Be that as it may.The petitions filed by the petitioner are being considered in the light of above facts and law.The petitioner thereafter, filed Crl.Revision No.582/1999 (New No.124/1999).In para (f) at page 8, he CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 10 of 18 falsely alleged that he (the petitioner) was not the signatory of the cheques and the respondent was fully aware of it.He falsely alleged that the cheques were forged by Harnam Singh (respondent) as he was in possession of his papers and various documents as attorney.The cheque book came in his possession and he misused it.These allegations were deliberately made by the petitioner for the first time with an intention to tarnish his image and to lower his reputation in the eyes of his friends, neighbours and relatives.By the impugned order dated 02.05.2003, the petitioner was summoned under Section 500 IPC.CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 10 of 18The petitioner has also preferred Crl.M.C.No.54/2008 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 29.09.2005 in complaint case No.583/2001 of 2004, Harnam Singh vs. M.P.Singh by which he was summoned for committing offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.The complainant alleged in the complaint that suit (Suit No.49/1998, New No.148/2004), Mohinder Pal Singh and anr.Harnam Singh was listed for evidence on 24.03.2004 in the Court of Sh.V.K.Jain, the then learned ADJ.Despite knowing that the charge-sheet had already been filed against him by the police regarding forgery of cheques No.221803 & 221804, in his cross-examination, the petitioner leveled defamatory and false imputations against him as : CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 11 of 18CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 11 of 18"...... I did not write any letter to Harnam Singh that he was blackmailing me.No notice was sent to defendant in this regard.No FIR was lodged by me against Harnam Singh.It is wrong to suggest that I had made a false and defamatory allegation against Harnam Singh in the plaint.......,"The petitioner was aware that the aforesaid statement/ averments were false and defamatory and would harm the reputation and respect of the complainant.The averments were made with an intention to defame him by all means.It reveals that Civil Suit No.49/1998 for Mandatory Injunction and Damages was filed by Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni and Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni against the respondent Harnam Singh before this Court.The petitioner falsely alleged payment of ` 8.75 lacs to the respondent for incurring expenses and other charges.The petitioner had given letter dated 06.07.1997 addressed to his brother- in-law Mr.Babli @ Mahinder Pal Singh Anand directing him to issue two cheques for a total sum of ` 3.25 lacs.These two cheques were found forged.A criminal case was registered for issuing the forged cheques at Police Station Tilak Marg.Contrary to that, the petitioner wrote a letter in his presence directing his brother-in-law Babli to pay ` 3.75 lacs to him by issuing two cheques.Those cheques were issued by Mr.Babli, when the cheques were presented in the bank, they were dishonoured.1. M.P.Singh Sahni (hereinafter referred as the petitioner or accused) has preferred various petitions CRL.M.C.Nos.3772/2003, 2444- 45/2005, 54/2008, 2790/2000, 3773/2003, 3779/2003, 3781/2003, CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 1 of 18 3782/2003, 3784/2003, 3193/2005 and 3783/2003 for quashing of the various criminal proceedings initiated against him by Harnam Singh (hereinafter referred as complainant or respondent).Again, an agreement/ memorandum of understanding dated 07.03.1995 and subsequent agreement dated 14.03.1995 were executed along with irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 18.05.1995 in his favour.He filed complaint with the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission; Civil Suit bearing No.2436/1996 against M/s.Essar Gujarat Ltd. and incurred expenses from his pocket.Vide notice dated 22.10.1997, the petitioner through his counsel Mr.CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 2 of 18Common arguments in all the petitions were addressed by both.The petitioner gave false/ contrary statement of non issuance of cheque of ` 3.25 lacs which is a disputed fact.The petitioner cheated him by issuing forged cheques for ` 3.25 lacs and also misrepresenting him by various means that he had settled the dispute with KIFCO for 3 lacs Kuwait Dinar.He obtained various undertakings by deceitful means to cause wrongful loss to him.He further argued that General Power of Attorney dated 01.08.1991 was irrevocable and was for valuable consideration.By cancelling the same, the petitioner committed breach of trust.From the judgments passed by District Courts, New York, USA, it reveals that the petitioner committed fraud of approximate 8.60 millions US Dollars i.e. approximately ` 50 crores by forgery, cheating etc. He is a part of an international shipping frauds syndicate that runs of shadow operation across the globe, employs numerous shifting identities and dummy corporations and assaults official witnesses, bribes and defrauds Government officials.It was specifically observed that Mohinder (sic petitioner) had not conducted himself in a trustworthy manner.The petitioner falsely claimed that he was not the CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 6 of 18 same Mohinder Singh Sahni named in the original complaint.He attempted to fool Judge Casey as to his identity.Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution.For the accused it is a serious matter.The petitioner has preferred the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.C.3779/2003 for quashing of summoning order dated 02.05.2003 under Section 500 IPC.The petitioner filed evidence by way of affidavit dated 23.03.2004 and reiterated the assertions.Aggrieved by the allegations, the respondent thereafter filed complaint case on 08.09.2004 under Section 500 IPC alleging that the allegations in para No.9 of the plaint of Suit No.49/1998 were scandalous and defamatory.The charge-sheets have been filed in the said cases.The respondent examined himself as CW-4 besides producing CW- 1 (Narinder Kumar), CW-2 and CW-3 (Harish Kumar) in support of his complaint.Vide impugned order dated 29.09.2005, the petitioner was summoned under Section 500 IPC.CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 12 of 18There was no defamatory imputation against the respondent.The cheques in question were forged with the connivance of the petitioner as it did not contain his signatures.The petitioner did not lodge any complaint against Babli for forging or fabricating his cheque book.CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 13 of 18There are numerous litigations between the parties.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 30, 2013/tr CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 18 of 18CRL.M.C.Nos.3779/2003 & 54/2008 Page 18 of 18 | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
510,794 | Edwin H. Stalker in his article "Misconception about Javelin Delinquency" published in Journal of criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1956 Volume 46) has made reference to two quotations which succinctly sum up the continuing nature of the problem.Certain statistical data throw considerable light on the grim situation.There is a purpose for which we are referring to the decade old figures.The sudden change was due to enactment of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 which defined a "Juvenile" as "male below 16 years and female bellows 18 years", prior to which age was same both for males and females i.e. 21 years.As Gagan and Sanjay were below 16 years of age, they were sent to Juvenile C court to face trial.This reason has been given in the publication "Crimes of India".Crimes by Juveniles and teenagers are increasing at an alarming pace which is certainly a cause for concern.Appellants, hereinafter described as accused by their respective names, faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 302/307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC).Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:-Prem Lal @ Billu, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, is stated to have paid the price for his good Samaritan's act.Sushil Kumar @ Kaku is stated to have incurred wrath of accused Surinder Kumar @ Happy, Sanjeev and one Gagan.The trouble started at 4:15 pm on 5th January, 1989 over a very trifle matter of the aforesaid Kaku refusing to give lift to some of the accused on his two wheeler scooter.When he raised a cry for help, the deceased came there and tried to pacify the ruffled feelings but his efforts did not yield any result and they continued assaulting Sushil.The deceased gave slaps to Surinder and this enraged the accused Surinder and his friends who went away.They decided to teach him a lesson.Around 5:15 p.m. the two appellants, one Sanjay and Gagan came there.Sanjay was shouting to teach a lesson to the deceased.Acting on such call, Sanjiv and Gagan caught hold of deceased and the accused gave a dagger blow to the left side of chest of the deceased.Promod Kumar, (PW1) and Bihari Lal (PW2) tried to help the deceased but they were not successful.On the contrary, Promod Kumar, (PW1), received some injuries on account of assaults by accused Happy.After giving a dagger blow, the accused persons ran away.Deceased was taken to hospital by Satish Kumar, (PW4), but he was declared dead.Information was lodged with police, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof chargesheet was placed.Accused persons pleaded to be innocent.In order to further its case, 17 witnesses were examined by prosecution.Placing reliance on evidence of witnesses, Promod Kumar, (PW1) and Bihari Lal (PW2), learned trial Judge found accused persons guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 thereof.Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
51,083,464 | The appellant No.4 has expired during the pendency of this appeal, therefore his name was deleted from the array of the appellants, because his appeal was abated.The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 20.10.1995 the complainant Ram Kumar came to his house situated at Village Dungariya (Police Station Deori District 2 Criminal Appeal No.2410/1997 Sagar).At about 7:30 PM the appellants went to his house and called him to assault.The appellants were angry with the complainant because due to his information some liquor of the appellants was seized by the police.When the appellants went to assault the complainant, he went inside the house and closed the door.Thereafter the appellant Surat Singh told to others to set the house on fire.Due to fear, the complainant rushed to the Police Station Deori and lodged an FIR in the Police Station.There was no transportation arrangement, and therefore he could not come back to village Dungariya in the night itself, but he came back on 21.10.1995 in the noon.When he reached to his house, he found that his house was burnt.His mother Rewa Bai told him that on 20.10.1995 at about 8:30 PM in the night the appellants set the house of the complainant on fire and ran away.The complainant again went to the Police Station Deori and lodged an FIR Ex.P-1 about the incident.(Delivered on the 7th day of September, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 22/10/1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST No.72/1997, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 436 or 436/34 of IPC and sentenced for two years' rigorous imprisonment.He had also mentioned that the witnesses Maharaj Singh (PW-5), Veer Singh (PW-3) and Shri Singh (PW-8) prohibited the appellants not to make any arson, but the appellants completed their crime.The police came to the spot and assessed the damage caused to the complainant.The statements of various witnesses were recorded.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Deori, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, 3 Criminal Appeal No.2410/1997 Sagar.The appellants-accused abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea but they have stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter.In this connection, an affidavit of one Shri Singh (PW-8) was also filed which was in favour of the appellants that they did not make any arson in the house of the complainant.However, except filing of that affidavit Ex.D-2, no defence evidence was adduced.The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the appellants No.2 and 3 for commission of offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC, whereas remaining appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 436/34 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the complainant Raj Kumar was not the eye- witness, whereas there is a lot of contradictions in the evidence of various eye-witnesses.There are contradictions between their statements in the Court and their case diary statements.The FIR was lodged with a delay of at least one day.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the name of the culprit was not known to the complainant, and therefore on the basis of suspicion, he had lodged an FIR in delayed manner.In the alternate, it is submitted that 4 Criminal Appeal No.2410/1997 the appellants have faced the trial and appeal for last 15 years, and therefore they would not be sent to the jail again.State of MP", [2003(5) MPLJ 239].On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued in support of the impugned judgment on the ground that conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct, hence no interference is warranted by this Court.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is to be considered that whether the appellants can be convicted for the offence under Section 436 of IPC? And whether the sentence directed against the appellants can be reduced?Raj Kumar (PW-2) was the complainant in the case, who had lodged the FIR Ex.P-1 on the third day of the incident.In that FIR he had stated that a small quarrel took place at 7:30 PM on the same day and the appellants were bent upon to assault the complainant, therefore he ran away from the spot and the incident of arson took place at 8:30 PM in the night.The names of the appellants were mentioned in the FIR, because they took a quarrel with the complainant soon before the incident.Under such circumstances, it is to be seen as to whether the appellants 5 Criminal Appeal No.2410/1997 set the house on fire in continuation of the previous quarrel or not.Raj Kumar (PW-2) has stated that when the appellants ran behind him to assault him, then he went inside the house and closed the door.At that time one of the appellants was provoking others to set the house on fire.Simultaneously, the complainant also admitted that he rushed to the Police Station Deori and thereafter his house was set on fire.If the appellants were present before the house of the complainant, then the complainant could not leave his house and the appellants would have assaulted him.But it is clear that he safely went to the Police Station Deori, it means that between the two incidents, there was a gap.The appellants went back and thereafter when there was nobody in front of the house of complainant Raj Kumar, the complainant went to the Police Station Deori.Under such circumstances, both the incident did not take place in continuation.Witness Maharaj Singh (PW-5) has stated that he saw the complainant Raj Kumar, who was running towards the Police Station Deori, but none of the appellants went behind him.The statement given by the witness Maharaj Singh (PW-5) appears to be unnatural.If the appellants were gathered to assault the complainant Raj Kumar, then certainly after looking him they should have chased him to 6 Criminal Appeal No.2410/1997 assault.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that when the complainant Raj Kumar went to the Police Station Deori, there was nobody including the appellants before his house.He has stated that he remained in the Police Station in the night, because his report could not be written, whereas in his case diary statement as well as in the FIR Ex.P-1 he had mentioned that he could not return to his village in the night due to non-availability of any transport arrangement.Under such circumstances, it is highly doubtful that Raj Kumar went to the Police Station Deori to lodge an FIR on that day.If he had lodged the FIR against the appellants, then there was no problem to the complainant to annex the FIR with the present case.Under such circumstances, it is possible that the complainant Raj Kumar has cooked the story of the previous quarrel to make the grave case against the appellants, whereas no witness has proved that the appellants came to the house of the complainant and tried to assault him.The witnesses Veer Singh, Hari Charan, Maharaj Singh, Ram Narayan and Shri Singh have stated that a quarrel took place between the appellants and the victim Raj Kumar and thereafter the appellants set the house on fire.But it would be apparent that the witnesses 7 Criminal Appeal No.2410/1997 Hari Charan, Maharaj Singh and Ram Narayan had enmity with the appellants.It is also apparent that the alleged incident of quarrel and the incident of arson took place with a gap of one hour and in that gap the appellants were not present at the spot.Therefore, it would be clear that the witnesses Hari Charan, Maharaj Singh and Ram Narayan are telling a falsehood that the appellants set the house of the complainant Raj Kumar on fire soon after the quarrel.Actually they reached to the spot when the house was already burning.Hari Charan, Maharaj Singh and Ram Narayan have stated that the arson was committed by the appellants Dayali and Komal Singh, but the witness Shri Singh (PW-8) has stated that it was the appellant Komal Singh who burnt the bundle of grass with the help of a match box and thereafter that bundle of grass was thrown on the house of the victim Raj Kumar.He did not mention the name of appellant Dayali.If the eye-witnesses were present at the time of arson, then how the witness Shri Singh could not see that the appellant Dayali helping the appellant Komal Singh in making that arson.Such a contradiction indicates that they reached to the spot after flames were visible to them.They did not see anyone who set the house on fire.8 Criminal Appeal No.2410/1997Ram Narayan (PW-6), father of the complainant Raj Kumar had also suffered due to that arson, and therefore for this second crime either he could go to the Police Station to lodge an FIR or could send his another son to the Police Station to lodge an FIR about the arson, but nobody lodged the FIR either by witness Ram Narayan or his sons soon after the incident.But it is apparent that nobody was sent to the Police Station on the next day of the incident.Admittedly, the complainant Raj Kumar (PW-2) came to the village on 21.10.1995 at about 12 to 1:00 PM, then he could go back to the Police Station Deori to lodge an FIR against the appellants, but the FIR was lodged on 22.10.1995 at about 1:20 PM, and therefore it was lodged with a delay of at least 40 hours.The delay in lodging the FIR clearly indicates that a story of incident of assault was created to implicate the appellants in that crime.Actually nobody could see that who set the house of the complainant on fire.In this context, the witness Shri Singh (PW-8) has admitted in para 7 of his cross examination that when he reached to the house of complainant Raj Kumar, there was nobody present in the house from the family of Raj Kumar including the Raj Kumar himself.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that no family member of Raj Kumar was present 9 Criminal Appeal No.2410/1997 at the spot at that time when the fire was initiated in the house.Similarly, Shri Singh (PW-8) was the first person to reach the spot, who could not see any of the appellants at the spot, therefore the witnesses who came after the witness Shri Singh (PW-8) could not see the appellants at the spot and they are telling a falsehood.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that nobody could see the actual culprit who set the house of the complainant Raj Kumar on fire and after making deliberations and consultations with so many persons, a story was cooked and the FIR was lodged with a delay of 40 hours.Under such circumstances, the delay caused in lodging the FIR is fatal, and therefore looking to the contradictory evidence of the witnesses, the entire prosecution story goes away.It is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that any incident of quarrel took place between the complainant and the appellants.It is not proved beyond doubt that the appellants set the house of the complainant on fire.Under such circumstances, the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 436 or for any inferior offence of the similar nature either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.The trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offence.appellants by the trial Court is not maintainable, therefore there is no need to discuss about the sentence.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the appellants deserves to be allowed.Consequently, it is allowed.The conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 22.10.1997 in ST No.72/1997 are hereby set aside.The appellants are acquitted from all the charges appended against them.At present the appellants are on bail. | ['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,415,285 | Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 08.6.2018 registered as case crime no.418 of 2018 under sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, police station Shahganj, District Agra.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that two cases have been shown in the gang chart against the petitioner i.e. Case Crime No. 318 of 2015 under section 420,406, 413, 418, 504, 506 IPC PS Shahganj, District Agra and Case Crime No.395 of 2015 under section 406.420 IPC, P.S. New Agra, District Agra in which charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and proceedings of both the cases have been stayed by this Court vide order dated 24.2.2016 passed in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.5614 of 2016 (Jitendra Agarwal and another vs. State of U.P. and another) and order 16.3.2016 passed in Application U/S Cr.P.C. No.8291 of 2016 (Jitendra Agrawal and another vs. State of U.P. and another) respectively.He further states that there is a dispute of business transaction.S.S.P. Agra shall file a personal affidavit stating as to under what circumstances after two years the present FIR has been lodged against the petitioner on the basis of the said two cases. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,418,873 | The case is listed today for admission.Heard on the bail application.As per prosecution case, it is alleged that since last two years the applicant was stalking the prosecutrix and forcing her to marry with him.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.He has not committed any offence.Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that charge-sheet has been filed and charges have been framed.The applicant is in custody since 27.04.2015 and trial is likely to take time.In such premises, applicant prayed for bail.The application is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be 2 (Abhijeet Jain Vs.C.No.4465/2015 released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Committal 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;A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(Sushil Kumar Gupta) V.Judge bj/- | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,420,692 | The petitioner, by means of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks to quash the entire proceedings arising out of Belur P.S. Case No.135 of 2014 dated 06.05.2014 under Sections 387/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.An FIR was lodged by Somdeb Bandyopadhyay, Inspector of Police, Detective Department, Howrah City Police against two accused, accused No.1 being the petitioner herein on 06.05.2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 387/120B of the Indian Penal Code.As per the F.I.R. a petition from an anonymous person regarding extortion of huge amount of money from businessmen of Howrah area who were engaged in purchase of railway scrap iron was received and in course of enquiry it was revealed that the present petitioner and the co-accused have been regularly extorting money from businessmen dealing in iron scrap purchases from Indian Railways by putting them in fear of their life over telephone engaging some local people and a few businessman as their accomplice.Such activity has been going on since the year 2007 after the murder of one iron trader Kishan Moni Jain in Howrah (ref: Bally P.S. Case No.18/07 dated 23.01.2007 under Sections 302/120B IPC and 25/27 Arms Act).That case ended in acquittal for lack of witnesses against the criminals.It was further revealed that a part of the money collected by extortion is used in running fake currency business.It was further learnt that five other cases on the charge of murder and attempt to murder are pending against the present petitioner.On the basis of such materials the said Inspector lodged a suo moto complaint and the aforesaid case was registered.Thereafter, in course of investigation sufficient evidence could be collected against the FIR named accused namely the present petitioner and thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted a prayer before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah for issuance of a production warrant for producing the petitioner/accused who is now lodged in Sitamarhi District Correctional Home in connection with Dumra P.S. Case No.182 of 2005 under Section 25(i)(d) of the Arms Act. On 18.06.2014 on the basis of such prayer and on perusal of the materials on record the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah issued the production warrant fixing 02.07.2014 for production of the petitioner/accused.Feeling aggrieved against the same the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner.Roy further contended that the Learned Magistrate ought to have satisfied himself that the FIR and the prayer discloses any offence for which the accused must be summoned to answer the charges but in the instant case nothing sort of this has been disclosed.He contended yet further that the complaint was lodged by police on the basis of some information and it is solely on the basis of surmise and conjecture.No order as to costs. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,426,651 | Shri D.K. Paroha, Learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State.Heard arguments.It is also submitted by him that applicant Shyamkali has delivered a baby in the jail a few days ago.It is further submitted by him that as per the injury report of Ram Jivan he sustained simple acid injury.Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the bail application.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge ac/- | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,427,132 | , in short, just for the adjudication of the case are that one written complaint was lodged by the petitioner at police station on 25/7/2007 at around 11-30 in night to the effect that when he was at his agricultural field alongwith his wife, brother Bhogiram, son Deepak etc. at that moment, accused-respondents after forming unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons came over there.Thereafter, accused asked the complainant for compromise in one criminal case lodged by his brother Bhogiram.On refusal, the complainant and his brother Bhogiram both were mercilessly beaten by the accused by using lathis and luhangis.The complainant party was also intentionally insulted with intent to humiliate in a place within public view.On the report of the complainant, an FIR was lodged and after investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the respondents No.1 to 6/accused for the alleged offences.On committal in trial, the charges for offence under sections 147, 148, of I.P.C., section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act as well sections 323/149 (two counts), 329 in alternative 329/149 and 506 part-II of I.P.C. were framed.After recording the evidence, the learned trial court acquitted the accused/respondents No. 1 to 6 of 3 Crr.312/10 Kamta Prasad Jatav Vs.Rajendra Singh & others the offence under Sections 148, 329 or in alternative 329/149 and 506 part-II of I.P.C. as well as section 3(1)The evidence led by the prosecution has not been properly considered.Hence, the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/respondents No. 1 to 6 is against the evidence and law.Therefore, it is prayed that the revision deserves to be rejected.4 Crr.312/10 Kamta Prasad Jatav Vs.Rajendra Singh & others Having regard to the submissions raised by the counsel for the parties, the entire record has been perused.In this case the important witnesses are complainant Kamta (PW-1), his wife Ramjanaki (PW-2) and Bhogiram (PW-3), who are injured persons.Bhogiram (PW-3) has not supported the prosecution case.He denied that at the time of incident, witnesses Mulayam and Deepak were present on the spot.In this way, Bhogiram was declared hostile.Mulayam (PW-4) also did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.Therefore, the only evidence remains is that of the complainant and his wife.The complainant in his cross-examination admitted that the incident occurred due to old enmity with his brother Bhogiram and he was a witness in that case.He stated that all the accused persons reached the spot and started assaulting the complainant party.Ramjanaki (PW-2), wife of the complainant in her evidence though supported the evidence of the complainant but she was not confident to say as to which of the accused caused which injury.Her evidence further did not find support from the medical evidence.Kalyan Singh (PW-6) also did not support the case of the prosecution and was 5 Crr.312/10 Kamta Prasad Jatav Vs.Rajendra Singh & others declared hostile.Hence, the learned trial court in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, held that the prosecution has failed to prove the other charges against the accused.It was further not found proved by the evidence that the complainant-party was abused with the name of caste by the accused in order to humiliate in a place within public view. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
464,284 | The prosecution case was briefly as follows : Besai Sheikh, and Adalat Sheikh 'alias' Adai Sheikh who were brothers residing in Kagram, police station Bharatpur, went on 10-12-1951 to purchase a cow from village Natungram situate about 3 or 3 1/2 miles to the east of Kagram village.They were unable to purchase the cow that day and they were returning after evening to their village and were passing through an open field between Natungram and Kagram villages at about 9 o'clock at night.The night was a moonlit night.When they were passing through the open field, 15 or 16 persons came up and started an altercation with Basal Sheik, and the appellant Sader Sheik struck Besai Sheik with a 'Pattangi' or a small axe and the appellant Jamat Molla struck Besai Sheik on the leg with a spear.JUDGMENT Sen, J.Thereafter Sadar Sheik struck Besai Sheik on the neck repeatedly with a 'Pattangi'' or axe and the other appellants also struck Besai Sheik with lathis.A 'Shabal' or pickaxe was placed against the throat of Besai Sheik.As a result of such assault, Besai Sheik died on the spot.Adalat Sheik brother of Besai Sheik protested.He was also attacked by some of the assailants, the accused Hakai Sheik striking him with a 'Pattangi' and accused Rajabali Sheik and Satkari striking him on the hand with lathis.Adalat Sheik fell down injured.Hearing the shouts of the injured men, some villagers of Kagram came up including Habal Sheik, Khelai Molla, Abdul Bari, Suku Molla, Siddat Sheik and Jobed Sheik.Some of them were also injured by the assailants as the latter ran away.The villagers found that Besai Sheik had died and that Adalat Sheik was lying severely injured.Ashai Sheik, brother of Besai Sheik and Adalat Sheik also arrived at the spot after the assailants had gone away.He fetched a doctor, Dr. Najibur Rahman, who rendered first-aid to Adalat Sheik.Ashai Sheik had a statement written out by one Asharat Sheik and he made over this written statement as his first information report to a Police Officer whom he happened to meet on the way to the thana.This written information was made over to the Police Officer at 4-45 A.M. on 11-12-1951 according to the prosecution case.The Police Officer started an investigation and submitted a charge sheet against ten accused, namely, the seven appellants and also against accused Satkori Sheik, Kani Kora Sheik and Wahed Molla, who have been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the verdict of the jury.The accused pleaded not guilty and alleged that they had been falsely implicated out or enmity.There was a charge under Section 302, Penal Code against Sader Sheik for committing murder of Besai Sheik and there was a charge under Section 302/149, I. P, C. against all the ten accused.There was a charge under Section 326/34, I, P. C. against three of the accused, viz., Hakai Sheikh, Satkori Sheik and Rajabali Sheik for causing grievous hurt to Adalat Sheikh.There was a charge under Section 147, I. P. C. against all the accused.But there were as many as seven eye-witnesses and also two other witnesses who deposed to having seen part of the occurrence. | ['Section 149 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', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,429,903 | This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 09.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.153 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additionalhttp://www.judis.nic.in1/6 Crl.A.No.725 of 2019 Sessions Judge, Puducherry cum Spacial Judge under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and consequently to enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime No. 52 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent Police.2 The brief facts of the prosecution case are hereunder: The defacto complainant viz., Themizhpriyan is an Advocate by profession and his sister, was given in marriage to one Nagaraj and that they have got two children.Since the said Nagaraj belonged to the Dalit community, there was enmity between him and one Logu, who belonged to the upper caste community.On 23.04.2019, the said Logu had quarrelled with the deceased Nagaraj and on 24.04.2019 when the said Nagarj was returning from the house of the defacto complainant, the named accused and others who belonged to the upper caste community have waylaid him and committed the murder of him by indiscriminately, cutting him with Aruval and knives all over the body.Based on the complaint given by the said Tamizhpriyan, a case in Cr.No.52 of 2019 was registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 of IPC read with 149 of IPC.Since the deceased belonged to the scheduled caste community, the case was altered to one under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention Atrocities Act, 2015 read with 149 of IPC.The appellant/A6 was arrested on 09.05.2019 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day.He has along with the other accused filed bailhttp://www.judis.nic.in2/6 Crl.A.No.725 of 2019 application in Crl.M.P.No.153 of 2019 before the Special Court and the Special Court by order dated 09.09.2019, had dismissed the bail applications, against which the present appeal is filed.3 This Court heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.4 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the appellant has been arrayed as A6 in this case.He would submit that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case since he happens to be a relative of the main accused and that he also belongs to their community.He would further submit that he is in custody from 09.05.2019 and the investigation in this case is over, final report has been filed and the case is pending for framing of charges.He would further submit that some of the co-accused in this case have been enlarged on bail and thereby would seek for allowing this bail petition and for granting bail.5 Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in respect of the co-accused, who have been granted bail, the allegation against them is that they watched the movements of the deceased and informed to the other accused.As far as the appellant/A6 is concerned, his name finds place in the FIR and the overt act attributed against the appellant is that he attacked the deceased with an Aruval, inflicting injury inhttp://www.judis.nic.in3/6 Crl.A.No.725 of 2019 the neck.Thereby, he has caused fatal injury.6 This Court had directed the appellant to take private notice on the respondent/defacto complainant.Private notice has been served and affidavit of service has also been filed and the name of the second respondent/defacto complainant has been printed in the cause list, but there is no appearance for the second respondent.7 Taking into consideration the facts of the case and that the investigation is over in this case and the case is pending for framing of charges and that the appellant is in custody from 09.05.2019, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal may be allowed, which is filed against the order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Pducherry cum Special Judge, dated 09.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.153 of 2019 in Cr.No.52 of 2019, wherein, bail sought for by the petitioners has been rejected.8 In view of the above reasonings, the appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:a) The appellant/A6 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in4/6 Crl.A.No.725 of 2019 satisfaction of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.b) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all working days at 10.30 a.m., and appear before the Orleanpet Police Station every day at 06.30 p.m. until further orders.c) The appellant/A6 shall not tamper with evidence or witness during trial.d) The appellant/A6 shall not enter the juridicational limits of Ariyakuppam Police Station.e) The appellant/A6 shall not abscond during or trial.f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant/A6 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant/A6 released on bail by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].g) If the appellant/A6 thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.05.11.2019 Index:Yes/No Web: Yes/No dua Note:Issue order copy on 06.11.20191.The Superintendent of Police (South), Ariyankuppam Police Station, Through Special Public Prosecutor,http://www.judis.nic.in5/6 Crl.A.No.725 of 2019 Puducherry,.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.J, dua Crl.A.No.725 of 2019 05.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in6/6 | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,430,233 | As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally.The applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T.No.273/2012, whereby the charge of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC was framed against the applicant.The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 5.4.2012, at about 10.30 a.m. in the morning, due to a sudden quarrel, the applicant assaulted the deceased Bahadur Khan by a kick on his chest.After 35 minutes, the deceased Bahadur Khan expired.In the post-mortem report, it was found that the deceased died due to chronic heart disease and his heart was preserved and provided to the Investigation officer.It was sent to Gandhi Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal.The expert of that institute gave a report that if there is no sign of cause of death then, the deceased died due to heart failure.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the CRR No.2294/2012 facts and circumstances of the case, it was for the prosecution to establish that due to a kick given on the chest of the deceased, his heart was blocked or heart attack was caused due to that impact but, neither in post-mortem report, nor in the report of Gandhi Medico Legal Institute, it is mentioned that heart attack caused to the deceased was due to that impact of kick.Under such circumstances, prima facie it cannot be said that the deceased died due to assault caused by the applicant.It appears that after the assault, the victim sustained a cardiac arrest and expired.Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant caused the death of the deceased Bahadur Khan.By giving a kick, no visible injury was found to the victim and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was intended to kill the victim Bahadur Khan.Similarly, by that kick the deceased Bahadur Khan neither suffered any fatal nor any grave injury and therefore, there is no ingredient visible of section 300 of IPC.Consequently, no offence punishable under section 302 or 304 of IPC is constituted against the applicant.At the most, offence punishable under section 323 of IPC may be constituted.CRR No.2294/2012 The learned Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in framing charge for offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and therefore, it is a fit case, in which the revision filed by the applicant may be accepted and an interference can be done in the impugned order.Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby allowed.The impugned order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby set aside.A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,430,804 | Heard Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ganga Bhushan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Pratap Kanchan Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of summoning order dated 29.03.2019 passed in Criminal Complaint No. 2320 of 2018 (Tika Ram Vs.Krashna Kant and others), by learned CJM, Jhansi, under section 147, 148, 302, 352 IPC, P.S. Lahchura, District Jhansi as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case including the order dated 21.07.2018, passed by learned CJM, Jhansi, whereby the learned Magistrate after rejecting the final report submitted in the case crime No. 0056 of 2018, under section, 147, 148, 302, 352 IPC, P.S. Lahchura, District Jhansi, treated the Protest Petition of the opposite party no. 2 as a complaint.According to the FIR, the alleged incident took place on 9/10.04.2018 at about 1 a.m. in the night and opposite party no. 2 lodged FIR which was registered as crime no. 0056 of 2018, under sections 147, 148, 302, 352 IPC.In the FIR it was alleged that opposite party no. 2 and his wife with his son Lal Singh were present at their agricultural field for crop harvesting in the night, thereafter, Lal Singh proceeded to his house and when he arrived near his house at about 1 a.m., suddenly the named accused persons who were armed with Lathi and country made pistol, made an assault upon him.Upon hearing his voice, younger son Ram Kumar and his wife and wife of Lal Singh came out side the door and saw that the accused persons were armed with lathi and country made pistol and after challenging the accused persons, they escaped from the spot, after committing scuffle with his son.Thereafter, his son Ram Kumar picked up Lal Singh and informed him.The police was called and thereafter he came to police station with injured son on Maruti van.The police took his injured son to hospital at Mauranipur from where he was referred to District Hospital, Jhansi.On the way his son expired in the vicinity of the village Sakrak.It was further alleged in the FIR that there was old enmity going on with the accused and that is why his son was murdered by them.Aggrieved by the final report opposite party no. 2 filed protest petition on 14.05.2018 on which the court passed an order on 21.07.2018, rejecting the final report and directing to register the protest petition of informant as complaint and complainant was directed to produce the witnesses.Thereafter the statement under section 200 Cr.PC of the informant and the statement of the witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the court and passed the impugned summoning order.Aggrieved by the summoning order, this application has been filed, submitting that the impugned order was passed ignoring the police papers on record and only relying on the witnesses examined in support of the complaint.It is clear that the injuries found on the body of the deceased was on one side of his body.The impugned order has been passed on the ocular account of C.W.-1 and C.W.-3, but they have not stated that they have seen the accused persons committing scuffle.The applicants has been summoned without assigning the reason and no specific role has been assigned to any of the applicants and only on the general allegations, the impugned order was passed.It has been further alleged that the Investigating Officer had indicated that the death of the deceased occurred as he fell from the roof and the injury report of the deceased also indicated same thing The fact alleged and discovered during investigation, creates serious doubt about the occurrence.What happened to that claim is not known to the applicants even if efforts were made to know about it.It has been further alleged that the deceased was drunken and he fell down from the roof in a drunken condition and serious laceration, abrasion and contusion resulted, because of that his death occurred.On this basis the applicants have requested for the quashing of the impugned order and the entire case.On being asked whether any criminal revision has been filed against the impugned summoning order or not, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that no such criminal revision was filed.It is pertinent to mention that against summoning order, the remedy for criminal revision is provided under Criminal Procedure Code, where equally efficacious remedy is available.It appears strange that this Court has been approached for extra ordinary remedy under section 482 Cr.P.C.It appears from the record that when the final report was filed, protest application was given from the side of informant.When the informant filed the protest application, the legal way of handling the protest petition has no where been flouted by the learned court and when the protest petition was filed, the same was registered as complaint directing the complainant to adduce evidence in his favour.Following the direction of the court, the complainant examined himself and five other witnesses including the Doctor who conducted the postmortem. | ['Section 302 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. |
46,433,317 | Heard on the question of grant of bail.Notice of this application was served on the State counsel.This is the seventh regular bail application.The earlier bail applications being M.Cr.C. No.4446/2017, 10315/2016, 6094/2015 have been dismissed on merit vide order dated 28/4/2017, 5/12/2016 and 8/1/2016 respectively.Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 opposing the prayer for bail.2 M.Cr.Having regard to the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for State and the detailed reasons which have been assigned in the order dated 28/4/2017, 5/12/2016 and 8/1/2016 passed M.Cr.The M.Cr.3 M.Cr. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
464,363 | The facts of the case are not particularly complicated in as much as they concern the murder of Kumud Khaitan.Some cash of a little over Rs. 2 lakhs which was given to her by her brother the previous evening was missing.The case brought out by the prosecution is that Kumud Khaitan and her father Durga Das Khaitan were living at C-140, defense Colony in a flat on the first floor.The second floor was occupied by the landlord of the premises while the ground floor and basement were vacant.Kumud Khaitan had a brother, Jagrit Khaitan, who was living across the road in C-160, defense Colony.She also had a relative called Deepak Narain who was at that time living in Noida.Jagrit Khaitan and his father were carrying on some business for which, occasionally, Jagrit had to go out of Delhi.If the need arose on such occasions, he would deliver some cash received from the business for safe keeping with Kumud Khaitan.On 20th August, 1998, Jagrit Khaitan left Delhi for Bombay and he sent a sum of Rs. 2,03,390/- with his driver Suresh Chand for being delivered to Kumud Khaitan.There is no dispute that Suresh Chand handed over the amount to Kumud Khaitan.According to the prosecution the cash was handed over in the presence of both the domestic servants present in the house, that is, the Appellant and Kishan Ram (although this is denied by the Appellant).Kumud Khaitan then put the cash in her almirah.The arrangement between the two servants was that one of them would stay in the premises on alternate days.In keeping with this, on 20th August, 1998, Kishan Ram left the house after finishing his duties and the Appellant was required to stay back and remain in the servants quarter.Some time at night (between 10.00 pm and 11.00 pm) the Appellant is said to have taken the key of the back door of the property and had gone out on his scooter.He came back a little later but left the back door unlocked, but bolted from inside.This was noticed by the security guard Rajiv Jha.Thereafter, the Appellant sat with the security guard and they talked for quite some time, till late at night.It appears that Kumud Khaitan had the habit of going out for a walk in the middle of the night.On the night of 20th August, 1998 / early morning of 21st August, 1998, she came downstairs and took a walk at about 1.00 am and after about half an hour she went back to her flat and locked the door.Although it is not very clear, but it appears from the testimony of Rajiv Jha that the Appellant was with him at that time.According to the prosecution, Sanjeet and the Appellant managed to gain entry to the flat and hid therein to steal the cash.It seems that they were discovered by Kumud Khaitan and, therefore, they attacked her with a knife and caused some injuries as a result of which she died.They then took the cash from the almirah and left.Sanjeet is said to have gone back to his house in Zamrud Pur and the Appellant went back to his servants quarter.The next morning when the other domestic servant - Kishan Ram - came at about 6.00 am, he rang the door bell of the flat but there was no response.After some time, he informed the chowkidar Rajiv Jha and the Appellant and sought their assistance to enter the house.The three of them kept ringing the bell, knocking and banging on the door, but to no effect.Thereafter, the Appellant went across to the house of Jagrit Khaitan and rang up Kumud Khaitan's relative Deepak Narain and informed him that no one was opening the door of the flat.Deepak Narain said that he would reach the flat as soon as possible.By the time he reached the flat, it was around 8.00 am and Durga Das Khaitan, the father of Kumud Khaitan had already opened the door.The Appellant and others went into the flat and discovered the dead body of Kumud Khaitan.The family doctor was called and he indicated that Kumud Khaitan had died an unnatural death.Jagrit Khaitan was informed of the developments in Bombay and he took a flight back to Delhi immediately arriving around lunch time.The circumstances are as follows:Cash of Rs. 2,03,390/- was given to Kumud Khaitan on the fateful night and accused Ashok Kumar was aware of giving the cash.Kumud Khaitan had two domestic servants, one Kishan Ram and other accused Ashok Kumar.On the night when murder had taken place Kishan Ram had gone to his house and only Ashok Kumar was left behind.Accused Ashok Kumar took the key of the back door from the guard and left the back door open that night.Kumud Khaitan was seen alive on that night up to 1.15 a.m.Dead body of Kumud Khaitan was discovered near the bathroom of the guest room of the flat around 8.00 a.m. next day.Nobody was opening the door of the flat from 6.00 a.m. onwards.Accused Ashok Kumar made a confession of his guilt in the presence of witnesses, when all the servants were being interrogated.JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.Before the Trial Court, there were two accused persons - Ashok Kumar and Sanjeet.In so far as Ashok Kumar is concerned, he was convicted of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) while Sanjeet was acquitted.By an order dated 18th May, 2002, Ashok Kumar was convicted to undergo a sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine.Under the circumstances, this appeal has been preferred only by Ashok Kumar.The prosecution further says that during the course of investigations and interrogation, the Appellant confessed to the crime the same day and disclosed that the knife used to kill Kumud Khaitan was lying in the kitchen and at his instance the blood stained knife was recovered.He also produced the blood stained clothes that he was wearing at the time of committing the crime.He also led the police and Jagrit Khaitan to the house of Sanjeet where the entire cash was recovered.On these broad facts, a challan was filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the CrPC).On 22nd March, 1999, the following three charges were framed against the Appellant and Sanjeet -That on the night of 20 & 21.8.1998 in H. No. C-140, First Floor, defense Colony within the jurisdiction of P.S. defense Colony you both in furtherance of your common intention robbed Smt. Kumud Khaitan of Rs. 203390/- and thereby you both committed an offence punishable Under Section 392/34 IPC and within my cognizance.Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place you both in furtherance of your common intention inflicted injuries to Kumud Khaitan, due to which she died and thereby you both committed an offence punishable Under Section 302/34 IPC and within my cognizance.Thirdly, on 21.8.98 both of you got recovered a sum of Rs. 203390/-, which you have dishonestly retained knowing the same to be the robbed property and thereby you both committed an offence punishable Under Section 411/34 IPC and within my cognizance.Both the Appellant and Sanjeet pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Quite clearly, there was no eye witness to the crime and so the case is based on circumstantial evidence.After recording the testimony of all the witnesses and hearing Learned Counsel, the learned Trial Judge noted the following 11 circumstances, which, in his opinion, form a complete chain of events which point unerringly to the guilt of the Appellant.Accused Ashok led to recovery of blood stained clothes which he was wearing at the time of crime.Accused Ashok led to the recovery of blood stained knife which was used at the time of commission of offence.9. Accused Ashok led the police to his house at Zamrud Pur and to the recovery of the amount of Rs. 2,03,390/-.Report of CFSL and Serological Analysis show that the blood on the clothes of accused, which accused Ashok got recovered, was of the same blood group as that of the deceased.The post-mortem report shows that injury No. 5 present at the throat/neck of deceased was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that broadly the circumstances mentioned by the learned Judge are correct but in respect of circumstances No. 3, 5 and 11 there was considerable doubt and they cannot be held to be conclusive so as to find the Appellant guilty of the offences for which he was charged.It is submitted with regard to circumstance No. 3, and we think quite rightly, that even if the Appellant had taken the key of the back door from the guard and left it open when he went out on the night of 20th August, 1998 on his scooter, the testimony of the guard shows that the back door of the property, though not locked, had been bolted from inside.That being so, in the normal course it would not have been possible for anyone to enter through that door after the Appellant returned.Moreover, if the door was unlocked, and it was noticed as such, there was no reason for the security guard Rajiv Jha not to have locked it, unless he too was involved in the crime which is not the case of the prosecution.Therefore, from the testimony of the security guard, it can be assumed, at best, that Sanjeet came to the property Along with the Appellant.However, there is nothing on record to suggest that Sanjeet came along with the Appellant when he had gone out between 10.00 pm and 11.00 pm and if he did where was he hiding after his arrival in the premises.We also find that according to the security guard Rajiv Jha the Appellant returned through the back door, but in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC the Appellant stated that he did not re-enter the premises through the back door but entered from the front door.This is what the Appellant had to say -It is in evidence against you that when Rajeev Kr.Jha came on duty on 20th July '98, you went somewhere on your two wheeler scooter and came back after 20-25 minutes from back gate.What you have to say?It is correct that I had gone on my two wheeler scooter.I had gone to mkt.for bringing curd for houselady.I had come back after 20-25 minutes from the front door and not from back door.This aspect of the case has not been adverted to, let alone considered by the learned Trial Judge. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,441,890 | Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent /StateThe case of the prosecution in short is that on the date of incident 16.01.2006 in village Bucchu Khan P.S. Amala in house of accused/appellant Premchand preparatory activities for "Makar Sankranti" festival were going on.Mid- night at about 01:00 a.m. Subratibai, wife of appellant came to residence of prosecutrix and asked her mother Phoolabai to come along to help "Pudi" preparation for festival.Phoolabai and prosecutrix went to the house of appellant.Prosecutrix, Subratibai and Suklu were prepared "Pudi" upto 02:00 a.m. then prosecutrix alone left for her house.As soon she reached near the house of Ojha, appellant came there and caught her and dragged towards hut situated in his fields.She tried to cry for help, but, appellant gagged her mouth and forcibly committed rape on her twice.Appellant also threatened, if she will narrate this incident to her parents or anybody in the village then he will cut and throw her.Prosecutrix came to house, narrated incident to mother Phoolabai and Bhabhi Budhiyabai brother's wife.Judgment reserved on : 20.06.2013 Judgment delivered on : 06.08.2013 (J U D G M E N T) By means of filing the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant Premchand has assailed the order of conviction dated 12.02.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Tahsil Multai, District Betul is Sessions Trial No.47 /2006 (State of M.P. through P.S. Amala Vs.Premchand).By the judgment under challenge, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced appellant Premchand as follows:-S.N. Conviction Sentence 1 U/s 376 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000 / - in default of payment of fine, further to suffer six months additional R.I.2 U/s 506- B of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500 /, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months' additional R.I.2 Cr.A. No.664/20072 Cr.A. No.664/2007On dated 21.01.2006 matter was reported at Police Station Amala, which set criminal law in motion.Investigating Officer recorded statements of the prosecutrix and managed to sent her to hospital where lady Doctor examined her.For age verification, she was referred to the Radiological examination.3 Cr.A. No.664/2007The learned trial Court framed the charges against appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(1) and 506- B of IPC.Appellant pleaded not guilty therefore, he was put to trial.During statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all prosecution witnesses put forth against him and pleaded his innocence on the ground that he is falsely implicated in money matter.Bate (DW /1) is examined as defence witness.On conclusion of trial, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted the appellant for the offence and imposed the sentence as referred to hereinabove, hence, this appeal.Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court committed grave error, because it completely failed to appreciate the evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix and as per available evidence ignored this fact that the prosecutrix is major lady and was consenting party.He has further submitted that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, First Information Report was delayed after long 5 days and no sufficient explanation is given by the prosecution.Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the appeal vehemently contending that the appellant has 4 Cr.A. No.664/2007 rightly been convicted believing the testimony of the prosecutrix.4 Cr.A. No.664/2007I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and available record.In the First Information Report Ex.P-1 prosecutrix had stated that she was raped twice.If this specifically mentioned fact is not supported by prosecutrix herself, then definitively it will itself created doubt about truthfulness of prosecutrix.It is pertinent to mention here that prosecutrix did not uttered a single word regarding this important fact during her Court evidence.In examination- in- chief prosecutrix categorically stated when she reached at house in the night first of all she narrated the incident to her Bhabhi Budhiabai then to her mother.Budiyabai (PW/5) also admitted that from the date of incident to date of her deposition 22.06.2006 both are living in the same house, having same kitchen but, prosecutrix never narrated her regarding this incident.This contradiction is fatal.5 Cr.A. No.664/2007Prosecutrix narrated that with parents she went to village Kotwar and explained him regarding the incident, Phoolabai (PW/2) fully supported this version of prosecutrix.Prosecutrix further stated as mentioned in foregoing para 11 that first of all she narrated the incident to the Kotwar in the night itself at 3:00 a.m. because, he resides in front of her house and Kotwar narrated this incident to all other persons.But, Kotwar Bhoju (PW/6) denied all above facts, therefore, he was declared hostile.During leading questions, he further stated that prosecutrix never told him that appellant raped her.He categorically denied this fact that he had never given any such statement during his police statement Ex.Kotwar Bhoju (PW/6) narrated new fact in these words that prosecutrix told him that appellant badly beaten her, but, this statement is not supported by medical evidence or any oral evidence produced by the prosecution.Prosecutrix claims that Kotwar was also with Kishori and her mother, who accompanied her upto police station for reporting the matter.She further claims that Kotwar narrated all the facts to the police.These claims regarding Kotwar Bhoju is against the version of prosecution story though, Kotwar Bhoju (PW/ 6) did not support the case of prosecution.It is specifically mentioned in the First Information Report Ex.P-1 that apart from mother Phoolabai, Kishori, Nanhi and Chhoti was also accompanied to prosecutrix while reported the matter at Police Station, Amala.Out of these four, Nanhi did not examined by the prosecution.6 Cr.A. No.664/2007When village Patel Kishori Korku (PW/7) stated that prosecutrix did not inform anything regarding the incident to him resultantly, this third witness in a row also declared hostile.Kishori Korku (PW/7) stated that when he accompanied the prosecutrix upto police station she did not narrate anything that rape was committed by the appellant with her, but, prosecutrix authoritatively claims that she narrated Kishori that rape is committed with her.Kishori Korku (PW/7) repeatedly explained that prosecutrix only narrated that appellant misbehaved with her.It is pertinent to mention here that Kishori Korku (PW/7) stated that after 4-5 days "Sankranti" festival Phoolabai (PW/2) informed him about the incident.He further admits that in the village there was no rumour about the rape.In this sequence, he also stated that at the time of report prosecutrix was in the police station and with other persons he was waiting outside the police station so, he is not able to say what matter was reported by the prosecutrix? Inspector Shri Pradeep Mishra (PW/10) denied the suggestion that he written the First Information Report Ex.P-1 on his own.Chhotibai (PW/4) stated that prosecutrix narrated her only that she went to the house of appellant for preparing "Pudi" and nothing else.During leading questions this fourth hostile witness also not support the prosecution story.Prosecutrix admitted that due to festival in house of appellant ladies and gents were drinking liquor and performing dance also, but, she denied that she performed dance there.It is not 7 Cr.A. No.664/2007 mentioned in FIR that appellant was drunk, but during her court evidence, first time she narrated that appellant was drunk, but Chhotibai (PW/4) also denied this fact.7 Cr.A. No.664/2007During cross examination prosecutrix admitted that when she left the house of appellant his wife Subratibai and Suklu were present and when she proceeded only 20 steps appellant caught hold and gagged her mouth.In this sequence prosecutrix admitted unbelievable fatal fact that Subratibai twice requested appellant leave her but, he did not and nobody came for her rescue.This fact is not part of the First Information Report Ex.P-1 nor any other witness including Phoolabai (PW/2) supported this fact.This fact is at all not acceptable that when husband caught hold another lady mid- night in presence of his wife and wife will not try to rescue that lady?Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Nisha Badhave (PW/8) who did not find any injury mark on the person or private part of the prosecutrix vide her MLC report (Ex.P-9).She reported that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape on the prosecutrix.Therefore, it is clear that the medical evidence is also not supporting the version of the prosecutrix.Whether on the date of incident prosecutrix was minor? To demonstrate that prosecutrix was below 16 years, burden is on prosecution only.To shift the burden, the prosecution has mainly 8 Cr.A. No.664/2007 relied on the evidence of Dr.Nisha Badhave (PW/8) and Dr. O.P. Yadav (PW/3) to prove that on the date of incident prosecutrix was below 16 years of age.8 Cr.A. No.664/2007It was Dr. Nisha Badhave (PW/8) who referred the prosecutrix for determination of her age to Radiologist.Dr. O.P. Yadav (PW/3) on basis of X-ray plate Ex.P-2 vide his report Ex.P-3 has given the opinion that the age of prosecutrix was about 15 years.But, he also admitted this fact that there may be variation of two years (+) (-) in age of prosecutrix.This way the prosecution fails to discharge his duty by strength of medical evidence beyond doubt that on the date of incident prosecutrix was below the age of 16 years.In this sequence, apart from the Radiological report, oral evidence of prosecution witnesses is also available to determine the age of the prosecutrix as major.When prosecutrix appeared before the learned trial Court for evidence she stated her age is 14 years though, learned trial Judge recorded her apparent age 15- 16 years.During cross examination she admitted that at police station Kotwar narrated her age.She further stated that when police asked about her age she did not narrate her age of 18 years.She also admitted that police tutored her to say that her age is 14 years so she narrated this age to the police.Phoolabai (PW/2) stated that at the time of birth of prosecutrix, this fact was informed to the Kotwar.She is unable to explain year and season of birth of prosecutrix but, repeatedly stated that year must be written by the Kotwar.Kotwar Bhoju (PW/6) stated that the diary related with noting of birth of 9 Cr.A. No.664/2007 prosecutrix deposited by him in the police station long back which he did not receive same.He denied the suggestion that to save the appellant he did not bring the diary.On the other hand, oral evidence of prosecution witness going to established that age of prosecutrix on the date of incident was above 18 years.It is no doubt true, that conviction can be based solely on testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the Court convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances which caste a shadow of doubt over her veracity.If the evidence of prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony.Medical evidence is also not supportive to evidence of prosecutrix.Phoolabai (PW/2) supported the version of the prosecutrix but, hostility of most important witness Budhiyabai (PW/5) who shares the same house in which prosecutrix and her mother Phoolabai (PW/2) resides, creating serious doubtful situation.This doubt goes to deep to deepen when other three important prosecution witnesses, Chhotibai (PW/4), Kotwar Bhoju (PW/6) and Patel Kishori Korku 10 Cr.A. No.664/2007 (PW/7) were also declared hostile because they did not support the prosecution story.10 Cr.A. No.664/2007Shri Mishra (PW/10) admitted this fact that when prosecutrix came to lodge First Information Report Ex.P-1, after 5 days she only narrated the reason that appellant threatened her.Shri Mishra (PW/10) also admitted that apart from this reason, prosecutrix did not narrate any other reason for delay.Prosecutrix denied this suggestion that after thought to involve the appellant she lodged report after 4 days.Therefore, it is proved that First Information Report Ex.P-1 was reported after lapse of 5 days and no sufficient explanation is given by prosecution for delay is fatal for the prosecution and on this count alone appellant will get the benefit of doubt.Dr. B.P. Chouriya (PW/9) after medical examination of the appellant seized his clothes packed and sealed.The packet was sent to the police station which was seized as per seizure memo Ex.P-14 by Shri Raghuwanshi (PW/11) in presence of witnesses.If the entire factual scenario, is tested on the anvil of the evidence of the prosecution and after considering the evidence in a proper perspective manner, it would reveal that no offence is made out against the appellant.Above 18 years aged prosecutrix not appearing to be witness of sterling quality on whose sole testimony conviction of appellant can be based.Important witnesses Chhotibai (PW/3), Budhiyabai (PW/4), Kotwar Bhoju (PW/5) and Patel 11 Cr.A. No.664/2007 Kishori Korku (PW/7) were hostile.11 Cr.A. No.664/2007Therefore, the conviction under Section 376 (1) of IPC cannot be sustained.The appeal is therefore, allowed.Conviction of the appellant and sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside and the appellant Premchand is acquitted from the charges under Section 376 (1) of Indian Penal Code leveled against him. | ['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. |
46,444,103 | The case of the prosecution is that on 19/06/2018, at about 11p.m., the applicant and others formed an unlawful assembly.Theywere armed with deadly weapons and they criminally trespassed intothe house of first informant Tukaram Khule with common object ofassaulting his son Akash.This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 ofCriminal Procedure Code, filed by the aforesaid applicant,apprehending his arrest in C.R.No.360/2018 registered with FaujdarChawdi Police Station, District Solapur for offences punishable undersections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 427, 452, 504, 506 of the IndianPenal Code.2. Heard Mr. Priyal Sarda, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.S.H. Yadav, learned APP for the State.I have perused the records andconsidered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for therespective parties.1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:40:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:40:57 :::P.H. Jayani 906 ABA1797.18.docIt is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused abused the first informant and his family members, destroyedhis household articles and assaulted him by kicks, blows and sticks.It is pertinent to note that on the same date, prior to theregistration of present crime, the brother of the applicant herein hadlodged a first information report alleging that Omkar Pule, the son ofthe first informant and two others had inflicted injuries on him bymeans of a Koita.Pursuant to the said first information report,C.R.No.359/2018 has been registered against the said Omkar Pule foroffence punishable under section 307 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The above facts prima facie indicate that both groups wereinvolved in the incident of assault.Hence, in my considered view, thisis a fit case for grant of interim bail till the next date of hearing.Hence, the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:40:57 :::shall be released on bail till the next date of hearing, on furnishing bailbonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one or twosolvent sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of theInvestigation Officer.(b) The applicant shall remain present before the InvestigationOfficer from 10/09/2018 for a period of four days and further as andwhen required by the Investigation Officer for the purpose ofinterrogation/investigation.(c) The applicant shall furnish his permanent and temporary address,if any, and his contact details to the Investigation Officer.(d) The applicant shall not change his residential address withoutprior intimation to the Investigation Officer.(e) The applicants shall not interfere with the first informant andother witnesses in any manner.::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:40:57 ::: | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,445,265 | /307/302/448/480/354/504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.And In the matter of : Sk.Aataul Haque ... ... petitioner Mr. Kunal Ganguly ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Mr. Manoranjan Mahata ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Dubrajpur P.S. Case No. 25 of 2010 dated 28.02.2010 under Sections 147/148/149/326/307/302/448/480/354/504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.Pursuant to the order dated August 31, 2018 the petitioner has met the investigating officer and the investigating officer has also filed a report.It appears from the report that the petitioner's statement has been recorded under Section 161 of the Code.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 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,452,355 | Indian Penal Code.The prosecution case against the respondents is to the effect that on 29th May, 1977 at about 5:15 P.M. the respondents assaulted the complainant by rod, fists and blows and as a result the complainant sustained bleeding injury all over his body.The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In course of trial, five witnesses were examined and the defence of the respondents was one of innocence and false implication.In conclusion of trial, the trial court by the judgement and order dated 20th March, 1985 acquitted the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Saryati Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the State, submitted that the evidence of PW4, the victim, was corroborated by the medical evidence of PW3 and accordingly, the order of acquittal ought to be reversed.I have considered the materials on record.PW4 claimed in the petition of complaint that he had been assaulted in front of the gate of de-facto complainant.However, in deposition he altered the place of occurrence and stated that he was assaulted inside the gate of the factory.He also deposed that there was a crowd at the place of occurrence.If the alleged assault had taken place inside the factory it is highly unlikely that there would be a large crowd and therefore, presence of other witnesses namely, PW1, PW2 and PW5 is improbabilised.Not only had the place of occurrence being altered in the instant case but the ocular versions to the manner and course of assault is inconsistent with the medical evidence.While witnesses deposed that PW4 was assaulted by rod, lathi, fists and blows it has been stated to the Doctor that he had been assaulted only with fists and blows.It is an admitted position that there is enmity between the appellant and the respondents over labour unrest.In view of such entrenched enmity and bearing in mind the fact that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not consistent with regard to the place of occurrence as well as the manner and course of commission of alleged offence, I am of the opinion that it would not be prudent to alter the order of acquittal.The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,462,513 | pk CRM No. 7368 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11.08.15 in connection with Khargram P.S. Case No. 238/15 dated 1.6.15 under Sections 448/325/308/313/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Nefaj Sk. & Anr. | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
464,685 | This is an application for transfer of the case under S. 407 of the Criminal P.C. Sushil Kumar was being tried by the Court of Mr. S. M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge on a charge under section 302, I.P.C. The learned Judge recorded the entire evidence in this case.He heard the arguments of counsel for the prosecution.He heard the arguments of counsel for the accused in part.The case was at that stage when the learned Sessions Judge on 26th August, 1982 passed an order transferring this case from the Court of Mr. S. M. Aggarwal to the Court of Mr. J. D. Kapur, Additional Sessions Judge.The following is the order made by him :"In pursuance of Delhi High Court letter No. 11680/Ga/VI E. 2(a) 82 dated 20-7-82 the following Sessions cases pending in the Court of Shri S. M. Aggarwal, Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi are hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Shri J. D. Kapur, Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi for disposal according to law.I am directed to say that the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of this Court have been pleased to order that all cases pertaining to dowry death presently pending in various Courts at Tis Hazari be assigned to the Court of Shri J. D. Kapur, Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Delhi.The fresh cases pertaining to dowry deaths shall also be assigned to the Court of Shri J. D. Kapur."The impugned order offends this cardinal principle. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
465,237 | The informant (Respondent No.2) isthe brother's wife of the first appellant by name Rishi Anandpresently living in Fairfax, USA and she is the daughter-in-law of thesecond appellant by name Raj Kumar Anand.The other two accusednamed in the FIR are the husband and mother-in-law of thecomplainant.The husband is also living in Fairfax, USA.Even before that, it appearsthe relations between the respondent and the husband & his familymembers became strained.Unfortunately, the marital life came to anend within 1-1/2 years after the marriage.P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.Leave granted and appeal heard.By the impugned order, the High Court of Delhi rejected theapplication of the petitioners/appellants for quashing F.I.R. No. 467 of1998 registered by the Greater Kailash Police Station in respect of theoffence under Section 406 IPC.Although in the firstinformation report, various other offences viz. under Sections 498 A,323 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are mentioned, theFIR was registered for an offence under Section 406 of Indian PenalCode.After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.Cognizancewas taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Greater Kailash andprocess for appearance was issued.Non-bailable warrant has alsobeen issued against the first appellant as he failed to appear before theCourt on the specified date.At that stage, petitions were filed underSection 482 Cr.P.C. by the appellants herein for quashing the FIRagainst them.By a brief order dated 7.12.2000 which is assailed inthe present appeal, the High Court observed that certain disputedquestions regarding return of the articles of the complainant have tobe examined at the trial and there is no ground to quash the FIR at thisstage. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
465,294 | JUDGMENT U.C. Maheshwari, J.Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 25-9-1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No. 125/89 convicting him under Section 304 Part 2 of IPC with a sentence to undergo for five years Rigorous Imprisonment.As per case of the prosecution, on dated 31-7-1989 at about 11.30 in the morning when Heeradas and Kashiram were looking after the work as mate in Sangam Nursery situated in the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Lodhikhera Tehsil Sausar.As per direction of the aforesaid mate various labourers of different villages like Kabarpipla, Kundam etc. were working in such nursery.At the same time, appellant Namdeo resident of Village Kundam who was also working near the place of the incident came there and picked up a (FAVADA) Spade as it was laid there and gave the blow on the head of Yuvraj.He sustained injury from its sharp side.Thereafter the appellant ran away from the spot.The deceased Yuvraj resident of Village Kabarpipla was also working there alongwith his brother Dhanraj and some other persons of his village.The aforesaid Kashiram and Heeradas were allotting the work with some discrimination in between the different labourers of different villages as alleged some more work was being allotted to the labourers resident of Kabarpipla while the less work was allotted to labourers of Village Kundam.On account of it some altercation took place in between the said deceased Yuvraj and mate Kashiram.Yuvraj was taken to Police Station, Lodhikhera.On registration of the offence he was sent to the Hospital Sausar.So, initially the offence was registered under Section 307 of IPC.During investigation on his death Section 302 of IPC was invoked.After holding the investigation the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 302 of the IPC.The case was committed to the Sessions Court where charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the appellant.On denying the same the trial was held.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as well as 15 witnesses while one witness Kashiram was examined by the appellant in his defence.At the stage of appreciation of the evidence, the appellant was acquitted from the offence under Section 302 of IPC but held guilty for the offence under Section 304, Part II of IPC and sentenced as said above hence this appeal.The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case as he was not working at the place of the incident he further said that in his village one other Namdeo son of Mahadev was the resident who was working in such Nursery on the date of the incident and has been absconded after the incident but on account of wrong pretext the appellant was implicated in the case.In support of his contention he also referred the document Ex. D-4 certified copy of the Electoral roll of the year 1988 showing the name of Namdeo son of Mahadev a resident of Village Kundam.The appellant is altogether different person.Besides the aforesaid he said that there was no motive with the appellant to cause any injury to the deceased.If any altercation was happened in between mate and deceased then it was not the matter for the appellant for intervention.It was also submitted that the appellant was involved in the case saying that he was working as labourer in such nursery and incident took place on account of discrimination in allotment of the work then prosecution was duty bound to prove that appellant was working at such place as labourer the same could have been proved by producing the muster roll of the nursery in which the names of all the labourers including appellant and deceased might have been written, in the absence of such muster roll no inference could have been drawn against the appellant that he was working as labourer in the nursery.As per his further submission the presence of the alleged prosecution witnesses on the place of occurrence have also not been proved by producing the aforesaid muster roll so this possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellant was not working in such nursery on that day.In addition, it was also argued that the name of the present appellant was not mentioned in the FIR while the appellant, deceased and other witnesses were not known to each other prior to the date of the incident.In support of his contention he referred some depositions of the prosecution witnesses.While, other hand, the learned Counsel for the State while supporting the judgment of the Trial Court has submitted that the appellant was rightly convicted by the Trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence and as per his further submission the impugned judgment does not require any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.Having heard the learned Counsels I have gone through the record of the Trial Court as per First Information Report, Ex. P-1, lodged by Dhanraj brother of the deceased just after one hour of the incident, the entire description was mentioned in it.Even the name of the appellant and the manner in which he caused injury to the deceased Yuvraj was specifically mentioned in it.Besides this, the names of the eye-witnesses namely Rama Lodhi, Chokharam Lodhi and Shanti Bai and presence of other persons are specifically mentioned.The appellant was taken in custody on 2-8-1989 within two days from the date of incident.Hence the submission put forth on behalf of the appellant that the offence was committed by some other Namdeo of his Village Kundam does not appear to be reliable.Dhanraj (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased was working at the same place in the said nursery on some visible distance from the deceased.He also saw the altercation in between the mate and deceased.He specifically says about act of the appellant causing injury to Yuvraj on his head by means of spade and such version has not been destroyed even in his cross-examination.He also deposed the manner and circumstance in which the deceased was taken to the Police Station and to hospital.Although there is some discrepancies in between his case diary statement and the Court deposition but the same are not material to draw any inference against the prosecution.The other witness Shanti Bai (P.W. 2) stated in her deposition that on account of discrimination in allotment of the work some altercation had taken place in between the mate Kashiram, Heeradas and the labourer the deceased Yuvraj at the same time appellant Namdeo resident of Kundam came there and picking up the spade and given its blow on the head of the deceased.Although in Para 6 of her deposition she stated that she could not identify such Namdeo who gave such blow.But she stated the entire incident.According to her, the other eye-witnesses Dhanraj, Rama and Chaitram were also present alongwith other witnesses she could not identify the accused then on appreciation of the deposition of the other eye-witnesses her statement could be considered for corroboration to the case of the prosecution.Rama (P.W. 3) has categorically supported to prosecution as said and stated by Dhanraj (P.W. 1).He deposed that on aforesaid alleged altercation in between mate and deceased Yuvraj the present appellant came there and after picking up the spade gave a blow on the head of Yuvraj.In Para 12 of his deposition he categorically said that he known to appellant while working in the said nursery.This story is further supported by Chaitram (P.W. 5) who was also working nearby in such nursery.Even on examining the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses I have not found any adverse circumstance on which they could be discarded or disbelieved.Hence in view of the aforesaid it is held that the Trial Court has not committed any error in holding guilt to the appellant for causing injury to deceased.As per deposition of Dr. Sukhdev Sedo (P.W. 9) who examined the Yuvraj he was brought to the Hospital Sausar.He found only one incised injury on his head measuring 15 cm x 1 cm x bone deep the bone of such part of the head was fractured and the bleeding was also present.But, on referring the injured to District Hospital, Chhindwara his X-ray was taken and according to its report Exs.P-16/A and P-16/B the fracture of left parietal bone was found as deposed by Dr. S.K. Dubey (P.W. 15).During treatment he succumbed to injury then the autopsy was carried out by Dr. Raghvendra Sthapak (P.W. 7).As per his deposition and post mortem report Ex. P-9 he has opined that the said head injury and its consequences were the cause of death.Therefore, the appellant was held guilty for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and also on account of attributing the knowledge he was held guilty under Part 2 of Section 304 of IPC.So far motive is concerned, it is apparent on the record that Kashiram and Heeradas were allotting more work to the labourers belonging to village of deceased Yuvraj while the labourers of Village Kundam including the appellant were being allotted some less work and this discrimination was the cause of altercation in between mate and the deceased.Meanwhile, appellant intervened and caused alleged injury to the deceased in order to protect mate as appellant and his villagers were being benefited by mate so motive is apparent.In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I have not found any perversity or illegality in the findings of the Trial Court hence it is held that appellant was rightly convicted by the Trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence resultantly the judgment of the Trial Court is hereby affirmed and in pursuance of it, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case as the incident took place long back on dated 21-7-1989 and thereafter appellant has already suffered the mental agony regarding pendency of the case for years together up to the stage of this appeal.On depositing such fine amount the same be given to the legal representative of deceased Yuvraj by calling them through summons.In view of the aforesaid the appellant is directed to surrender himself in the Trial Court within 30 days from today for facing the remaining jail sentence failing which the Trial Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate order for execution of the remaining jail sentence against the appellant.Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification in punishment as indicated above. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,531,729 | For Appellants : Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja in both the appeals Additional Public Prosecutor- - - - -C O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu, J.) The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.290 of 2012 on the file of the learned Mahila Judge, Salem.The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Santhi.P.W.4 is her husband.The deceased was running a fancy store near Kailasanathar Temple at Tharamangalam.On few occasions, the first accused extended sexual overtures towards the deceased.But the deceased bluntly refused and reprimanded him.Six months prior to 22.09.2008, the deceased closed down her business and stayed away at her home.On one occasion, when the deceased was alone at her house, the first accused scaled down the compound wall of the house, trespassed into the house of the deceased and invited her for having sex with him.The deceased refused.Therefore, the first accused challenged that one day or the other, he would have sex with her or else, both her body and soul would not survive.This is stated to be the motive for the first accused.The second accused, almost during the same time, was doing Flowers, fruits and camphor business in front of the same temple.She was doing business just by the side of the fancy store run by the deceased.In such a way, the second accused also had acquaintance with the deceased.The second accused had illicit relationship with one Selvamani of Tharamangalam.Selvamani used to give money to the second accused to meet her expenses.The second accused used to take Mr.Selvamani to her house and to have sex with him.In due course, Mr.Selvamani started speaking to the deceased when she was in the fancy store.As days passed, Mr.Selvamani stopped visiting the second accused and also paying money to her.The second accused had the feeling that because Mr.Selvamani had started his relationship with the deceased, he had stopped his relationship with the second accused.The first accused and the second accused had thus become the common enemy of the deceased.It is further alleged that on 22.09.2008, both the accused, trespassed into the house of the deceased by around 01.30 p.m. The deceased was alone in her house.At that time, the first accused, closed the mouth and nose of the deceased and pushed her down.Then, the second accused held her and the first accused sat on the chest of the deceased and with a hacksaw blade cut the neck of the deceased and the deceased died due to excessive bleeding.Abandoning the dead body inside the house, it is alleged that both the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.2.4. P.W.1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased.He was running a barber shop at Tharamangalam.On 22.09.2008, he had gone to the shop on account of his work.At around 2.30 p.m., his brother and husband of the deceased P.W.2 informed him over phone that the deceased was lying dead and there was a hacksaw blade lying by her side with bloodstains.Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to his house and found the deceased dead.After getting relieved of the shock to some extent, P.W.1 went to Tharamangalam Police Station at 04.00 p.m. and made a complaint.P.W.17, the then Sub Inspector of Police.P7 is the confession.On such production, P.W.18 arrested the accused in the presence of the same witnesses.In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took the police and witnesses to the place of hideout and produced the said material objects.P.W.18 recovered the same under a mahazar.On the same day at 12.30 p.m. he arrested the second accused.On such arrest, in the presence of the same witnesses, the second accused also gave a voluntary confession, in which, she disclosed the place where she had hidden the bloodstained polyester saree.Then, P.W.6 went to the temple again.When he returned from the temple, he found the deceased lying with injuries inside her house.P.W.7 is a resident of Sannathi street near Kailasanathar temple.She has stated that she saw the dead body of the deceased.The trial Court framed as many as four charges against the accused 1 and 2 as follows:Serial Number of charge Charge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section1A1 & A2120-B of IPC2A1 & A2449 of IPC3A1302 of IPC4A2302 r/w 34 of IPCBy judgment dated 20.01.2014, the trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused for various offences as detailed below :Rank of the AccusedPenal provision(s) under which convicted SentenceA1Section 302 of IPCImprisonment for life years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Section 449 of IPCImprisonment for lifeSection 120-B of I.P.C.Rigorous Imprisonment for two yearsA2Section 302 r/w 34 of IPCImprisonment for life years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Section 449 of IPCImprisonment for lifeSection 120-B of I.P.C.Rigorous Imprisonment for two yearsChallenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals.The first accused was a neighbour of the deceased.He was running a cycle stand near Kailasanathar Temple.In such a way, the first accused had acquaintance with the deceased.In due course, the first accused developed a desire to have sexual intercourse with the deceased.Thus, the second accused also had a grudge against the deceased.on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.498 of 2008 under Section 302 I.P.C. Since the assailant was not known, it was so mentioned in the F.I.R. Ex.P.W.18 took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and sent the body for postmortem.P.W.15, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 23.09.2008 at 10.10 a.m. He found the following injuries:Injuries: (1) Dark red abrasions seen over (i) left knee 5 x 3 cms (ii) left cheek 1x0.5 cms (iii) left nostril 2 x 1 cms (2) An oblique cut injury seen on the front of neck above the level of thyroid cartilage 6 cms below right mastoid process, 8 cms above suprasternal notch, 7 cms below left mastoid process measuring 10x4x3 cms.All great vessels of neck and nerves cut.Strap muscles of neck found thro and thro out.Hyoid bone intact.(3) A cut injury of right ear lobe 4 x 0.2x0.2 cms cartilage exposed (4) Contusion on midchin 6 x 5 cms (dark red) (5) Dark red contusion on right shoulder 6x5 cms, left breast 7 x 5 cms (dark red) (6) Teeth bite mark seen on lower lip (self bite marks) (7) Dark red contusion over occipital region of scalp 4x2x0.5 cms, right temporal region 8x5x0.5 cms, left temporal region 7x6x0.5 cms with both temporals muscle contused (8) Intra cerebral hemorrhage both cerebral hemispheres (ante mortem injuries) Other findings:- (1) o/d head: vide injury column; skull- intact; brain c/s pale.(2) o/d neck: vide injury column; (3) o/d Thorax : heart normal in size; cavities empty, chambers and valves normal, coronaries and great vessels patent; lungs c/s pale.(4) Abdomen: stomach 250 gms of partly digested cooked rice food with no specific smell.Mucosa pale; liver, spleen and both kidneys c/s pale, bladder empty, genitalia no fresh injuries made out, uterus normal in size, cavity empty, pelvis intact.(5) o/d spinal column - intact.Ex.P6 is the postmortem certificate.He gave opinion that the deceased had died due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries on the body of the deceased.He further opined that the injury found on the neck could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.2 hacksaw blade.When the investigation was in progress, on 07.10.2008, the first accused, on his own, appeared before P.W.16 the then V.A.O. of Tharamangalam at 09.00 a.m. On such appearance, he wanted to voluntarily confess about the death of the deceased in this case.Having ascertained that he was voluntarily giving confession, P.W.16 allowed him to confess before him, which P.W.16 reduced into writing.Then, he prepared a special report regarding the same.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witness to the place of hideout and produced the said bloodstained polyester saree (M.O.13).P.W.18 recovered the same under a mahazar.When he returned to the police station, he forwarded both the accused to the Court for judicial remand and also handed over the material objects to the Court.On his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination, which revealed that there was human blood on all the material objects including the material objects recovered viz., the dress materials recovered from the respective accused on their confession.Based on the above materials the trial Court framed appropriate charges against the accused.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution as many as 18 witnesses were examined, 19 documents and 13 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, is the brother-in-law of the deceased and he has stated that on information from his brother P.W.2, he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased.P.W.2 has also stated about the same facts.He was doing decoration work and he was also not in the house.When he came to the house from Salem at 03.30 p.m. he found the dead body of the deceased.2.10. P.W.3 is the son of P.W.2 and the deceased.According to him, between 02.45 to 03.00 p.m. on 22.09.2008, he received a phone call and was informed about the occurrence.Immediately, he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased.P.W.4 is the Village Administrative Officer.He has stated about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch and also the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.5 is the police photographer and he has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence.He has stated that during the relevant period, he was doing 8th standard and he was hardly aged 14 years at that time.According to him, on 22.09.2008, his brother P.W.3 had gone for the college.P.W.2 had gone to Salem.According to him, by about 12.00 p.m. he went to Kailasanathar temple.When he came out of the temple, the second accused called him and enquired as to where he was going and P.W.6 stated that he was going to his house.The second accused wanted him to come and inform her as to what his mother was doing.P.W.6 went to his house and after giving prasadam to his mother, he came out of his house and at that time, he found the accused 1 and 2 engaged in conservation near the temple.P.W.6 told the second accused that his mother was cooking.P.W.8 has spoken only about the hearsay information.P.W.9 has stated that P.W.6, on seeing the dead body of the deceased, cried for help and when he went to the house of the deceased, he found the deceased lying dead.P.W.10 was running a driving school near Kailasanathar temple.He has stated that on 22.09.2008, the first accused came to his driving school and wanted his help to obtain the driving licence.He has further stated that on the day of occurrence, he found the accused 1 and 2 engaged in a chat near the shop of the second accused.He has not stated anything incriminating against the accused.P.W.11 has stated that the deceased and P.W.2 had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from him.He has further stated that six months prior to the occurrence, the deceased told him that the first accused trespassed into her house and invited her for sex.P.W.12 has stated that at the relevant time, he was working in a lift company.He has stated that on account of his work, he had hack-saw blade and other instruments.He has not identified the hacksaw blade recovered from the place of occurrence.P.Ws.13 and 14 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.15 has stated about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.16 is an important witness for the prosecution.According to him, on 07.10.2008, at 09.00 a.m. the first accused appeared before him and made a voluntary confession.Before P.W.18, while in custody, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, out of which, bloodstained clothes were recovered.Similarly, on the arrest of the second accused, in pursuance of her disclosure statement, bloodstained clothes were recovered.P.W.18 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted both the accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment and that is how, they are before this Court with these appeals.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records, carefully.P.W.6, the son of the deceased has stated that on the day of occurrence, at around 12.00 noon, he found his mother at his house cooking.Then, he went to the temple.By about 02.30 p.m., when he returned from the temple, he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with a injury on her neck and an Hack-saw blade (M.O.2) was found near the dead body with bloodstains.On hearing the alarm raised by him, the others came to the spot.The evidence of P.W.15, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has stated that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries.According to him, the injury to the neck of the deceased could have been caused by M.O.2 (hacksaw blade).The hacksaw blade was found stained with human blood and it was lying by the side of the dead body.Now the question is who caused the death of the deceased.In order to prove this fact, the prosecution relies mainly on the extra judicial confession said to have been given by the first accused to P.W.16 on 07.10.2008 at 09.00 a.m. In the said extra judicial confession, he has stated about the motive and also about the fact that he killed the deceased with the assistance of the second accused.The learned counsel would contend that after such a long gap of time, there would have been neither necessity nor occasion for the first accused to choose P.W.16 to confess.He would further submit that the first accused had no acquaintance with P.W.16 and therefore he would not have chosen P.W.16 to confess.Though attractive these arguments are, we find no force at all in these arguments.In the confession itself, the first accused had given reasons as to why he had chosen P.W.16 to confess.Above all, P.W.16 is a very responsible Village Administrative Officer, who has no axe to grind against the first accused.So far as the delay on the part of the first accused to confess, we are of the view that it would have taken such a long time for the first accused to realise that he was being chased by the police and therefore, he had gone to the V.A.O. to safely surrender and to confess.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the first accused was arrested within 10 days after the occurrence, whereas, according to P.W.16, he confessed after 15 days.In this regard, we should say that we cannot attach much importance to this answer elicited from P.W.10 because he has not referred to the date and time at which he saw the first accused being arrested by the police.In a very vague manner, he has stated that one week after the occurrence, the first accused was taken into custody by the police.This has been spoken by P.W.10, an independent witness, to whom the deceased had told about the attempt made by the first accused.Further, there is a confession of this fact made by the first accused in the extra judicial confession.Therefore, the extra judicial confession cannot be used against the second accused as a substantive evidence so as to sustain the conviction.Thus, in our considered view, the second accused is entitled for acquittal.In the result,(i) The Criminal Appeal No.278 of 2014 fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused Mr. | ['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. |
46,532,107 | of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Tanu Singha.Appellant was arrested in the course of investigation and medical examination was conducted on the victim girl and rape was confirmed.From the evidence on record, it appears that the appellant was identified not only by the victim girl P.W. 2 but also by her mother Protima Roy P.W. 1 who tried to resist the appellant but was assaulted by the accused Tanu Singha by bricks.Apart from the evidences of P.W. 1 & P.W. 2, P.W. 4 Dr. Partha Sarathi Chakraborty found not only abrasions and bruises in the victim's hymen but also found the hymen freshly raptured.The doctor also stated about multiple abrasion and bruises over the right side of the forehead and upper part of the face of the victim showing forcible rape committed by the accused upon the victim.In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, the conviction and sentence of the appellant do not call for interference.The appeal is, thus, dismissed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,533,477 | Through: Mr. Varun Goswami, APP with Inspector Ajab Singh P.S. Ambedkar Nagar.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA R.K.GAUBA, J. (ORAL):The two appellants, Mohd. Rashid (appellant no. 1) and Mohd. Yamin (appellant no. 2) stood trial in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.03/1997 arising out of the report filed under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on conclusion of investigation in FIR No.500/1996 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) of Police Station Ambedkar Nagar on the charge that on the night intervening 17th and 18th June 1996, in furtherance of their common intention, they committed the murder of Sohan Lal @ Pappu (aged about 24 years, resident of House No.F-243, J. J. Camp, Tigri, New Delhi) with the use of knife (Ex.P-1) by CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 1 of 13 appellant no.1 (A-1).It was further alleged in the case that during the course of investigation another knife (chhuri) was recovered from the possession of appellant no.2 (A-2).CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 1 of 13It needs to be noted here that the deceased was one of the six sons of Ganga Devi (PW3).She is the first informant of the case on whose statement (Ex.PW3/A), followed by endorsement Ex. PW22/A in the hand of SI Suresh Chand (PW22), the first information report (FIR) CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 2 of 13 (Ex.CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 3 of 13According to the evidence led, the deceased, having left his house at about 06:00 PM and having gone first to the house of his brother Yaad Ram (PW7), did not return.His mother searched for him all around but to no avail.She waited till morning but with no clue coming her way as to the whereabouts of Sohan Lal @ Pappu.The prosecution evidence proved that a dead body was sighted sometime before 07:00 AM on 18.06.1996 in rocky area (Pahari) behind Batra hospital, a place within the jurisdiction of police station Ambedkar Nagar.The information was relayed through PCR to the police station where the intimation was logged at 07:05 AM on 18.06.1996 vide DD No. 24A (Ex.PW18/A).It was passed on to SI Suresh Chand (PW22) who set out for the place with Ct.Chander Bir (PW12).The news about dead body soon spread to the nearby localities including in the area where Ganga Devi (PW3) was living.It is PW3s version that upon this information reaching her, she and her sons Mewa Ram (PW6) and Yaad Ram (PW7) had rushed to the place where the dead body had been found.They were joined there by Jamuna Devi (PW9), wife of Mewa Ram (PW6).Upon arrival at the place where the dead body had been found, Ganga Devi (PW3) identified it to be that of her son Sohan Lal @ Pappu who had been missing since the previous night.It is the case of the prosecution that after the FIR had been registered, during the investigation, Mewa Ram (PW6) and Jamuna Devi (PW9) shared the information about they having seen the appellants in the company of the deceased in the market place in the area of Tigri Camp around 08:00/09:00 PM on the previous night.It is alleged that when searches were made for the two appellants at their respective houses, they could not be immediately located.11. A-1 came to be arrested on 30.06.1996, as per personal search memo (Ex.PW22/B) while A-2 was arrested on 15.07.1996, as per personal search memo (Ex.PW13/E.) It is claimed that, upon interrogation, A-1 had made a disclosure which was reduced into writing vide memo Ex.PW13/A. It is also claimed that pursuant to the said disclosure of A-1, inter alia, knife (Ex.P-1) and his blood-stained clothes including shirt (Ex.P-3) and trousers (Ex.P-4) were recovered from the place of their concealment i.e. beneath a stone close to the wall in Jaffna Jungle behind Block-19, Dakshinpuri, vide seizure memo (Ex.PW13/B).It is also stated that, after his arrest, A-2 led the IO to a place near Ganda Nala (drain) close to Gali No.31, DDA Flats, Madangir and got recovered a knife (Ex.P-2) vide memo (Ex.PW13/J).S.K.Gupta (now as PW25) was brought in again to prove the document, he being acquainted with the writing and signature of the author of MLC.The examining Medical Officer (PW8) also opined that both the injuries were about 12/13 days old.Similarly, when A-2 was examined on 15.07.1996, he was found having scars of the size 3 cm x 1 cm present on palmer aspect of proximal phalanges of right hand.The examining Medical Officer (Dr.Ajit Jose) also observed that said injuries were about CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 6 of 13 one month old and the scar type suggested the same to have possibly been caused by sharp edged weapon though he was not in position to give definite opinion on this aspect.CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 6 of 13The exhibits collected during investigation, including the two knives and clothes (shirt and trousers) allegedly recovered at the instance of A-1, were sent to Forensic Scientific Laboratory (FSL), Govt. of NCT of Delhi in due course.There are gaps and puzzling deviations.Though Mewa Ram (PW6) and Jamuna Devi (PW9) claimed that they had come across the deceased in the company of both appellants in Subzi Mandi, Tigri Camp at about 08:00/09:00 PM on 17.06.1996, the way evidence has been presented, gives rise to doubts about its authenticity.By judgment dated 17.01.2000, the trial court held both the appellants guilty and convicted them for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, for the murder of Sohan Lal @ Pappu.The charge under Section 27, Arms Act, 1959 against A-1 about use of the knife (Ex.P-1) in committing murder was also held proved.Additionally, A-2 was held guilty for possession of knife (Ex.P-2) and, thus, convicted under Section 25 Arms Act. By order dated 10.02.2000, the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC.Besides this, A-1 was awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 Arms Act while A-2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 25 Arms Act.The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as submitted, leading to the sessions trial had indicated that no direct evidence could be mustered and conscripted.Besides the deceased, the sons of Ganga Devi (PW3) would include Puran Chand (PW2), Mewa Ram (PW6) and Yaad Ram (PW7).It has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that another son Madan Lal and the deceased lived with Ganga Devi (PW3) in the same house while her other sons (who were married) were separately settled in different houses, though seemingly living in the same locality.It has also come as undisputed in the course of the trial that A-1 was resident of a house just opposite to that of Ganga Devi (PW3).CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 2 of 13Nevertheless, during the trial, Ganga Devi (PW3) herself conceded that they were petty squabbles arising over insignificant issues such as collection of water.The evidence of Ganga Devi (PW3) indicates that the deceased had gone from his house at about 06:00 PM on 17.06.1996 to the house of his elder brother Yaad Ram (PW7) i.e. A-29, J.J. Camp, Tigri, about 500 yards away, for using toilet (for defecation).This is confirmed by Yaad Ram (PW7) also though, according to him, after use of the washroom, the deceased had left his house in about ten minutes.Thereupon, SI Suresh Chand (PW22) recorded her statement (Ex.PW3/A) which, besides narrating the sequence of events of the previous night, mentioned the suspicion of Ganga Devi (PW3) that her son Sohan Lal@ Pappu had been killed by "someone" on account of enmity.Noticeably in the FIR, thus registered at 09:30 AM on 18.06.1996, there was no reference made to the possible involvement by name of either of the two appellants.CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 4 of 13The evidence includes the oral testimonies about the discovery of the dead body, it being identified, followed by the seizure of various exhibits from the place in question, the inquest papers.The post-mortem examination report (Ex.PW5/A) issued by Dr. O.P.Murti (PW7) leaves no room for doubt that Sohan Lal @ Pappu had been inflicted, intentionally, as many as 38 injuries including sixteen incised stab wounds, two avulsed CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 5 of 13 incised wounds, ten incised wounds, one abrasion, two incised cut throat wounds, two abraded wounds, four multiple small scattered abrasions and one multiple grazed abrasion.This evidence unmistakably shows that assailant(s) intended to inflict these injuries with the objective of bringing about the death of Sohan Lal @ Pappu.CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 5 of 13The prosecution claims that, upon their arrests on 30.06.1996 and 15.07.1996, A-1 and A-2 were found having injuries on their respective persons.Both were taken to AIIMS where they were medically examined on the request of the IO.The Medical Legal Report (MLC) of A-1 has been proved by Dr.S.K.Gupta (PW8) as document Ex.PW8/A while the MLC of A-2 has been proved against by Dr.S.K. Gupta (PW25) as Ex. PW25/A. It may be mentioned here that the MLC of A-2 was actually recorded by Dr. Ajit Jose who having left the services of the hospital, his presence could not be immediately procured.Thus, Dr.The MLC (Ex.PW8/A) of A-1 reflects that he had one lacerated wound with slough and pus measuring 3 cm x 2 cm bone deep and incised wound of 2 cm muscle deep showing healing.The MLC is not very legible as to the part of the body where the said injuries were noticed.Both the injuries were found to be simple in nature, injury no. 1 having been caused by blunt weapon and the other by sharp-edged weapon.The report issued by FSL (Ex.PX) was tendered during the course of trial.It indicates that the blood group of the deceased was found to be "A" (this was on the basis of blood stains on his clothes which were taken off the body and the blood sample preserved during the autopsy).The FSL also found blood of human origin on knife (Ex.P-1), statedly recovered at the instance of A-1, though its group could not be established.Pertinently, the report also stated that the trousers of A-1 bore blood stains of "AB" group.Clearly, these blood stains were not of the deceased.We have carefully gone through the evidence in the nature of "last seen" but we find it difficult to place implicit trust in it or accept it as intractably inculpatory.If both these witnesses had indeed seen the deceased and the appellants together and if they suspected the involvement of (against) A-1 and A-2 on account of past incidents of quarrel, they would have immediately brought up the fact to the knowledge of their mother Ganga Devi (PW3) and the then Investigating Officer, SI Suresh Chand (PW22).At least by CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 7 of 13 09:30 PM.of 18.06.1996, they had not spoken about the last sighting to any person.Ganga Devi (PW3) professes that she had searched till late at night looking for the deceased.Importantly, Ganga Devi (PW3) asserts that she had seen A-1, early morning, in his house in front of the house of Yaad Ram (PW7).Strangely, she (PW3) claimed in the Court that Mewa Ram (PW6) and his wife (PW9) had told her the said facts.Noticeably, Mewa Ram (PW6) negates this theory.He denied being the source of any such information to his mother.CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 7 of 13Noticeably, Mewa Ram (PW6) does not claim to have engaged the deceased in any conversation at the time of their chance meeting in the market area.His wife Jamuna Devi (PW9), however, claimed that she had questioned the deceased from across the street.She added that she had been told by the deceased that he was going for some work with the appellants.This is a material improvement over the testimony of Mewa CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 8 of 13 Ram (PW6) who being with her could not have missed out on this exchange.CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 8 of 13The evidence of Jamuna Devi (PW9) shows that the place where the deceased lived and the place where dead body had been found are at substantial distance from each other.She explained that if one were to reach the rocky area behind Batra Hospital, after covering 1 to 2 km on foot, a bus journey had to be undertaken up to Batra Hospital from where the rocky area is further 2 or 2 kms away.During the hearing, we were informed that the market (Subzi Mandi) where the chance meeting with the deceased is stated to have happened is on the other side of highway and, thus, would necessitate another long distance to be covered.The evidence clearly shows that the localities involved are densely populated.People well known to the deceased lived and roamed in the said area.At best, it would indicate presence of the accused at the time and place so proved.[State of U.P. vs. Shyam Behari and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 548, Bodhraj @ Bodha and Ors.vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45, State of U.P. v. Satish, ( 2005 ) 3 SCC 114, Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy vs. State of A.P, ( 2006 ) 10 SCC 172, Venkatesan vs. State of Tamilnadu, (2008) 8 SCC 456].CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 9 of 13In the present factual matrix, conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together.The conduct of the accused and other circumstances, particularly about motive, also need to be looked into.The Knife, (Ex.P-2), allegedly recovered from the possession of A- 2, has not been connected with the crime.The FSL report drew a blank in its regard.The other knife (Ex.P-1) allegedly recovered at the instance of A-1 also did not give any definite conclusion as the blood group would not match, the serologist simply stating no reaction.The prosecution heavily relied upon the injuries noticed on the persons of A-1 and A-2 as documented vide their respective MLCs prepared after their respective arrests.CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 10 of 13Thirdly, the appellants are manual workers and could have otherwise suffered the injuries.The injury in the case A-2 was old and healed.He lived in Madangir, separated by a distance of several kilometres.CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 11 of 13The aforesaid incriminating factors, when taken and read together, do not form a complete and unequivocal chain against the two appellants.The prosecution has failed to prove its case about the motive.It fails to convince us as to the "last seen" theory.The recoveries of knives and blood-stained clothes do not impress us.But this clue did not lead the police anywhere.It certainly throws up possibility of involvement of other person(s).In the above facts and circumstances, in our judgment, the prosecution has miserably failed on all fronts.For foregoing reasons, we find it difficult to uphold the judgment rendered by the trial court returning findings of guilty against the appellants.CRL.A. No. 120/2000 Page 12 of 13In the result, the appeal is allowed.Both the appellants are acquitted.The impugned judgment and order on sentence are vacated. | ['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. |
46,536,181 | This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.32 of 2018 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Section 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2018 for the offences under Section 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.K.A.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the Crime is of the year 2018, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.32 of 2018 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No. 8470 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.drl receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.12.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order drl ToThe Inspector of Police, Paratharami Police Station, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No.8470 of 2018 and Crl.MP.No.4394 of 2018http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,538,339 | Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.Heard Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Archna Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.By means of this petition, the petitioners has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 16.06.2020 registered as Case Crime No.0094 of 2020 under sections 323, 452, 504, 506, IPC, P.S. Lodha, District Aligarh and also not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid case.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners by the private respondent just to counter blast to the FIR No.0093 of 2020 registered under Section 325 and 308 IPC, Police Station Lodha, District Alighrh, in which the private respondent has beaten the petitioner no.1 and he has received injuries.So far as the present case is concerned there are two injured persons who received simple injuries.The present FIR has been lodged as a pressure tactics to compromise the matter.The allegations levelled against the petitioners are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR lodged against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses cognizable offence.(Ajit Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 24.8.2020 VKG | ['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
90,142,354 | By this application under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seekquashment of the F.I.R., being number I-236 of 2018registered with Mukundwadi Police Station,Aurangabad, for the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C.", for short) andSections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, andconsequential charge-sheet, being proceedings inRegular Criminal Case (R.C.C.) No.1846 of 2018pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,First Class, at Aurangabad.3. Heard Mr.Rajebhosale, learned Counsel forthe applicants, learned APP for respondent no.1 andMr.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:52:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:52:08 :::Within six months ofmarriage, respondent no.2 left the matrimonial homefor her parental home.In July, 2016, she filed firstcomplaint before Womens Grievance Cell, Aurangabad.Two and half years thereafter, she lodged anothercomplaint with the very cell.Applicant no.1, inJuly, 2018, filed petition for dissolution ofmarriage.According tolearned Counsel, there are glaring inconsistenciesbetween the complaint filed with the Womens GrievanceCell and the F.I.R. The allegations therein aremutually exclusive.Even the married sisters-in-law,the persons who had acted as a go between for thesettlement of marriage, have not been spared.According to learned Counsel, allowing the criminalprosecution to continue against the applicants wouldamount to abuse of precess of law.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:52:08 :::Learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1 - Stateand learned Counsel for respondent no.2 submit thatthe allegations in the F.I.R. undoubtedly make out acase for trial against the applicants for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Codeand Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.However, power should ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:52:08 ::: 6 cri.appln.3496-18 be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:52:08 :::inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."On marriage, respondent no.2 appears tohave resided at her matrimonial home.In January,2016, respondent no.2 lodged one complaint with theWomens Grievance Cell.It has been alleged therein ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:52:08 ::: 7 cri.appln.3496-18that after five months of her marriage, she came backto her parental home at Aurangabad.On close readingof the allegations therein, it is crystal clear thatrespondent no.2 had grievance against her husband,parents-in-law, brother-in-law - Jagjeetsingh andco-sister - Reema.Said complaint was made in Hindi.About two and half years thereafter, respondentlodged another complaint with the Police Inspector,Womens Grievance Cell, Aurangabad.Thereafter, inJuly, 2018, the F.I.R. in question has been lodgedagainst all the applicants herein.In the F.I.R., ithas been alleged that respondent no.2 was asked tofetch Rs.25,00,000/- from her parents.As she couldnot meet the demand, she was driven out of hermatrimonial home.It has also been alleged in theF.I.R. that respondent no.2 was ill-treated since herfather did not pay Rs.70,000/- spent by theapplicants for booze enjoyed in celebrating themarriage.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:52:08 :::Applicant nos.1 to 4 had been staying with ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:52:08 ::: 8 cri.appln.3496-18respondent no.2 in her matrimonial home.Allegationsin the F.I.R., prima facie, make out a case againstthese applicants.They are alsosaid to be distant relatives.Applicant nos.5 to 10have all been residing at Pune.It appears that theallegations made against them are general in nature.It further appears that the F.I.R. has been filedafter-thought and on intervention of a legal expert.Admittedly, applicant no.1 has filed petition fordissolution of marriage.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:52:08 :::In the aforesaid factual back-drop, theF.I.R. lodged against applicant nos.5 to 10 and theprosecution instituted pursuant thereto, if allowedto continue, would amount to abuse of process ofCourt.We are, therefore, inclined to quash theproceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.1846 of 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:52:08 ::: 9 cri.appln.3496-18so far as regards applicant nos.5 to 10 areconcerned.In the result, the application partlysucceeds.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:52:08 :::Hence, we pass following order :-i) The application as regards applicant nos.1 to 4, stands rejected.ii) The application as regards applicant nos.5 to 10, stands allowed.iii) The proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.1846 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is quashed as regards applicant nos.5 to 10 only.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:52:08 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
90,143,898 | Allowed md.CRM No. 1403 of 2017 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.2.2017 in connection with Farakka Police Station Case No. 336 of 2016 dated 28.08.2016 under Sections 147/148/149/325/326/307/186/353/332/333/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 3 /4 E.S. Act, 25/27 Arms Act and 8 BNH Act and 3 PDPP Act and 9 MPO Act ;And In the matter of:-Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.(Patherya,J.) (Debi Prosad Dey,J.) 2 | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
90,149,000 | The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the marriage of the de- ceased Jamuna Bai was solemnized with the appellant no.1 Manoj on 24/04/1993 and she died due to burn injury on 05/08/1997 in the suspi- cious circumstances.After the incident she was shifted to M.Y. Hospital, Indore where treating Dr. Surendra Dubey (PW-11) also recorded dying declaration Ex.P-16 in which the deceased disclosed that she herself set ablaze on her body on account of demand of dowry and cruel behaviour of the appellants.Thereafter Executive Magistrate Sm.At that time the deceased complained before us as usu- al and added to that she said that she is being assaulted by the accused nowadays.She further complained before us that the accused is taking away the child from her, and that her mother-in-law has come and some conspiracy is going against her (the deceased).She further told that 'mate au banchei debenahin'."(02.08.2018) This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21/05/1999 passed by XIVth Additional Session Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.395/1997 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 304-B and 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.2000/- and to R.I. for 6 months, respectively, with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.Meena Pal (PW-13) also recorded dying declaration of the deceased Ex.P-17 in which she stated that the appellants set ablaze her.During the investigation, statement of the parents of the deceased namely Raghunath (PW-5) 2 Cri.A.No.707/1999 and Kalawati Bai (PW-6) were recorded by the police and after comple- tion of the investigation of crime No.473/1997 registered at police sta- tion M.I.G Colony, Indore, the charge sheet was filed against the appel- lants and the appellants were tried for commission of the offence under sections 302, 304B, and 498A read with section 34 of IPC.The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.The defence fo the appellants are that they are innocent.2 Cri.After completion of the trial, learned trial court acquitted the ap- pellants of the charge under section 302 of IPC.However convicted the appellants under sections 304B and 498A of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned earlier.The findings of the learned trial court are mainly based on dying declaration Ex.P-16 recorded by Dr. Surendra Dubey (PW-11) and state- ment of the parents of the deceased Raghunath (PW-5) and Kalawati Bai (PW-6).The aforesaid findings have been assailed on the ground that the deceased has given two dying declarations and dying declara- tion Ex.The statements of the parents of the de- ceased are also not reliable.There is no specific averment about the de- mand of dowry and harassment by the appellants and before the date of incident appellant no.2 and appellant no.3 were residing separately as admited by Raghunath (PW-5).There is no corroboration of the statements of parents.Apart from it, there is no material on record to indicate that soon before the death the deceased was subjected to cru- elty.Without proving the necessary ingredient of offence punishable under section 304B of IPC, the appellants can't be convicted for com- mission of the offence.Further submitted that when the offence pun- ishable under section 304B is not established, the evidence in the form of dying declaration can't be considered to prove the offence punish- able under section 498A of IPC as than the evidence of dying declara- tion would be considered hearsay evidence and cannot be used under 3 Cri.A.No.707/1999 section 32 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, appellants can also not be punished under section 498A of IPC.Hence the appeal be allowed and appellants be acquitted.Hence the appellants be acquitted.3 Cri.Learned Government Advocate opposed the aforesaid con- tention and supported the finding of the learned trial court and prays to dismiss the appeal.Having heard contention of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in this case it is not disputed here that the mar- riage of appellant no.1 Manoj with the deceased was taken place on 24/04/1993 and the deceased was died on 05/08/1997 on account of burn injury in her matrimonial house.Appellant no.2 Kallu is fa- ther-in-law and appellant no.3 is mother-in-law of the deceased.Initially she was treated by Dr. Surendra Dubey (PW-11) and after that autopsy was conducted by Dr. M.N. Unda (PW-3), who prepared postmortem re- port Ex.P-3 and opined that the deceased died on account of burn injury sustained to her.Hence, the aforesaid evidence is unimpeachable and establishes the fact that the death of the deceased taken place within 7 years of her marriage on account of her burning in her matrimonial house.Now the question is that whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry by the appellants.The learned trial court has relied on the statement of Dr. Surendra Dubey (PW-11) who recorded the dying declaration Ex.P-16 and also partly relied on dying declaration Ex.P-17 recorded by Executive Magistrate Smt. Meena Pal (PW-13) and also placed reliance on the statements of Raghunath (PW-5) and Kalawati Bai (PW-6).But on care- ful scanning of the aforesaid statements of prosecution witnesses and dying declarations Ex.P-16 and Ex.A.No.707/1999 material to indicate that soon before her death the deceased was sub- jected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry.There is general averment with regard to demand of dowry after two years of the mar- riage and general averment with regard to harassment without disclos- ing the date or period where such harassment was taken place and that why the learned trial court has not given any finding on the aforesaid point but the learned trial court has ignored the aforesaid infirmity with- out considering it as a essential ingredient of the offence.In such cir- cumstance, presumption under section 113B of Evidence Act does not attract, when the prosecution has not proved necessary ingredient of the presumption.In the aforesaid circumstance, there is no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary ingre- dient of the offence of dowry death.Accordingly, the finding of trial court with regard to conviction of the appellants under 304B of IPC can't be upheld.4 Cri.So far as the appellants' conviction under section 498A of IPC is concerned, it is also not sustainable.Raghunath (PW-5) father of the de- ceased has categorically admitted that the appellant no.2 and 3 were re- siding separately from before 1 months of the incident and there is no specific allegation against them with regard to demand of dowry and harassment.Apart from it, in this regard there is no direct evidence, there is hearsay evidence of Raghunath (PW-5) and Kalawati Bai (PW-6) and dying declarations Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17, which is not admissible un- der section 32 of the Evidence Act purely to prove the ingredient of the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC as when the question of death of the deceased ceased, the evidence in the nature of dying dec- laration can't be considered under section 32 of the Evidence Act for rest of the offence.In other words, when appellants accused are acquitted un- der section 304-B of the I.P.C. then the evidence which come in the 5 Cri.A.No.707/1999 purview of dying declaration under section 32 of the Evidence Act can- not be read with regard to evidence under section 498-A of the I.P.C. as in the offence under section 498-A of I.P.C. question of death of de- ceased does not come in the purview of consideration.Therefore, the statements which are admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act as relevant to the death of deceased is not admissible with regard to of- fence under section 498-A of the I.P.C., as it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Gananath Pattnaik Vs.State of Orissa, (2002)2 SCC5 Cri.The relevant para 10 is reproduced hereinbelow :-Another circumstance of cruelty is with respect to tak- ing away of the child from the deceased.To arrive at such a conclusion, the trial court has referred to the statement of PW 5, who is the sister of the deceased.In her deposition recorded in the court on 4-5-1990 PW 5 had stated:"Whenever I had gone to my sister, all the times she was complaining that she is not well treated by her husband and in-laws for non-fulfilment of balance dowry amount of a scooter and a two-in-one."and added:"On 3-6-1987 for the last time I had been to the house of the deceased i.e. to her separate residence.Sworna, Snigdha, Sima Apa, Baby Apa accompanied me to her house on that day.(J.P.Gupta) JUDGE tarun signed by Digitally TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Date: 2018.08.03 17:28:40 +05'30' | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
9,014,954 | The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Kallu was resident of village Digpura, Police Station Maharajpur, District Chhatarpur.Complainant Heeralal is the younger brother of Kallu (since deceased).On 11.10.2005 at about 8:30 p.m. Kallu informed Heeralal that the appellant had beaten him by shoes after drinking liquor.Kallu wanted to inform the said incident to father of the appellant.Hence, he was going towards the appellant's house, his brothers Heeralal, Ramcharan and Hari Singh were also going with him.When they all reached in front of Rajaram's house, they saw that the appellant was standing there armed with his rifle.Appellant was abusing them, then he fired on Kallu.Kallu fell down on the earth.His bothers tried to rescue him but the appellant again fired and went towards his house.Brother of the deceased found that Kallu had died.They tried to take the body of Kallu with them but they saw that the appellant was standing near the spot and he threatened brothers of Kallu, not to touch the body of deceased Kallu.The appellant again fired from his rifle to frighten them.4 Cr. A. No.1379/2008In the FIR, above witnesses are named as eye-witnesses.The incident took place at night.It is not disputed that all the brothers including the deceased Kallu were residing together.They also stated that before the incident at about 8-8:30 p.m., Kallu informed them the appellant had beaten him.He was demanding money from Kallu.Therefore, Kallu and his brothers were going to the appellant's house to make a complaint against him to his father.Therefore, all the brothers of deceased were more concerned to surround and save Kallu.Hence, their presence on the spot is trustworthy and reliable.They saw that appellant fired for four times from his rifle.Firstly, he fired on Kallu, second he fired on his brothers to threaten them.Again, he fired on Kallu at his chest thereafter fourthly fired to frighten the witnesses, which went towards the wall of Rajaram and Karora Kachhi.All the witnesses also saw that the appellant took the body of deceased by dragging it towards his house.V.S. Chouhan (PW-13) registered FIR on the same day.In the compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C., he sent the copy of that FIR to the concerned Magistrate, which is Ex.P-1/C. Then he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared a memo of dead body (Ex.P/4).Thereafter, he sent the dead body of deceased for postmortem.Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW-10) conducted autopsy of the deceased.He found that the deceased wore a light green shirt and white sando vest, which were blood stained.(18.05.2018) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J.This appeal has been filed by the accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.05.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur in S.T. No.278/2005, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:-2 Cr. A. No.1379/2008Therefore, all the brothers ran away towards their home then, the appellant followed them upto Karora's house and fired again.Thereafter, the appellant took the body of deceased by dragging it towards his house.FIR was lodged by Heeralal in the Police Station, Maharajpur, District Chhatarpur.Offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC were registered against the appellant.After investigation, charge sheet was filed against him before the concerned Court.Learned trial Court framed the charges under Section 302, 307 of the IPC and Sections 25(1) and 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.Learned trial Court after relying upon the 3 Cr. A. No.1379/2008 testimony of eyewitnesses along with the medical evidence and ballistic report, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.3 Cr. A. No.1379/2008Against the aforesaid findings, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on the grounds that he was falsely implicated in the offences.All the evidence are contradictory in nature.Even though, most of the eye-witnesses are related witnesseses.Independent eye-witness Tulsiram has not supported the prosecution story.Learned trial Court has wrongly convicted and sentenced him.Therefore, he has prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.In the present case, FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged on the same day i.e. on 11.10.2005 within two hours from the incident against the appellant by his name.In support of the prosecution story, all the eye-witnesses namely Heeralal (PW-1), Ramcharan (PW-2) and Hari Singh (PW-3) have stated against the appellant.Their testimony corroborates each others.Some holes were present on it.Similarly, other clothes were also blood stained.He found many holes about diameter of 0.04-0.06 cm., which were caused by pellets.All the wounds are entry 5 Cr.A. No.1379/2008 wounds and ante-mortem in nature.5 Cr. A. No.1379/2008Dr. A.K. Sharma has found following injuries on the body of deceased:-1. 21 entry wounds on right side of chest.One entry wound in between left shoulder and chest.One entry wound at right shoulder and neck.One entry wound below the right eye.One entry wound below eye lashes of right eye.Two entry wounds on the head; first on vertex and another on right skull.He also found some abrasions on the body of the deceased, which were caused by hard and blunt object.He also found abrasion on his left shoulder, head, left knee at front side and at outer side about 1 cm x 0.5 cm.Dr. Sharma opined that above abrasions were caused by dragging the body of deceased at coarse surface.He also found blood stains on both legs, right sole of leg, both hands and swelling was also present there.Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW-10) also examined internal body parts of the deceased.He found that trachea and cordiac were congested with blood clots.Eight entry wounds on right lung about diameter of 0.8 cm., one entry wound on left lung diameter of 0.7 cm.All the blood vessels were full of blood and left chamber of heart was empty, whereas right chamber of heart was full of blood.One pellet was also found on the vertex of head.Dr. Sharma clearly opined that the deceased died due to fire injuries on his vital organs.Death was caused within 12-48 hours of the postmortem.Death was homicidal in nature.In our considered opinion, all the injuries were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature.We do not find 6 Cr. A. No.1379/2008 any reason to disbelieve the opinion of Dr. Sharma that the deceased died immediately due to injuries of firearm.6 Cr. A. No.1379/2008Investigating Officer D.S. Chouhan (PW-13) has stated that on the next date of incident i.e. on 12.10.2005, he prepared spot map (Ex.P/6) and recorded the statements of Hiralal, Ramcharan, Hari Singh and Lochan Yadav as narrated by them.Therefore, we find that the statements of said witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have promptly been recorded by the investigating officer, which also prevented the possibility to manipulate the prosecution story against the appellant.Further that no material, contradiction or omission has been found in their statements.On 23.10.2005, the appellant gave statement about his rifle and two cartridges.Aforesaid arms were seized from the well situated at village Dhigpura, which were hidden under the bricks by the appellant.Investigating Officer D.S. Chouhan (PW-13) prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/9).Maiyadeen (PW-7) and Matadeen (PW-9) admitted their signatures on the memorandum and seizure memos (Exs.P/8 and P/9).They were declared hostile by the prosecution.In general tendency, they did not support the prosecution version but with regard to the seizure of arms/weapons, we do not disbelieve the testimony of Investigating Officer D.S. Chouhan (PW-13) because we find that he conducted investigation impartially.He had no enmity or reason to falsely implicate the appellant.Aforesaid articles were sent for FSL examination.FSL report Ex.P/17 also corroborated the testimony of Investigating Officer.Expert found the impression of firing, which were similar with the gun shot.Seized rifle was in working condition.In FSL report, expert opined that two cartridges were also in working condition and other pallets were fired from the aforesaid rifle which are recovered from the possession of the appellant.From the corroboration of FSL report (Exs.P/17 & P/18), the prosecution evidence is found reliable.8 Cr. A. No.1379/2008 | ['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. |
901,541 | It is with regard to the particular Truck No. MHV 6088 seized from one Lakhvindar Singh by P.S. Sirhind District Patiala that certain offences were investigated both by P.S. Shajehanabad, Bhopal (M.P.) and by P.S. Sirhind, District Patiala (State of Punjab).One Bahadursingh, claiming himself to be owner of the truck in question, had lodged the report with the police regarding the theft of the vehicle committed during the intervening night of 11th and 12th January.Later, when the said truck was seized by P.S. Sirhind from one Lakhvinder Singh driving the same in suspicious circumstances without the necessary papers of ownership etc. Sirhind police registered the offence as Crime No. 30 of 83 (FIR Number) against Lakhvinder Singh under Sections 379 and 411 of the IPC.Bahadur-Singh on the one hand and so also one Sohansingh and Lakhvinder Singh on the other laid their respective claims before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bassi Pathanan, District patiala for return of the truck.The said Court is found to have furnished the copies of the charge-sheet and other relevant police papers to the accused and to have fixed the case for the next date, for consideration of the documents and for framing of the charge.On the strength of affidavit of the Station Officer of P.S. Shajehanabad. | ['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
901,595 | J U D G M E N TLokeshwar Singh Panta, J.Brief facts, which led to the trial of the appellant, are as follows:In the year 1991, the prosecutrix (PW-2), her mother Jayanthi (PW-3) and father Raju (PW-13) were working in Athoor Coffee Estate.They were living in the labour colony of the estate.B. C. Deva @ Dyava - accused herein, was also working as Mistry in the same Coffee Estate.On 28.03.1991, the prosecutrix and her mother had gone to the Coffee Estate for picking up coffee seeds whereas the father joined his routine duty of driving the tractor.During lunch time, the prosecutrix had gone to her house for taking mid-day meal.When after lunch break, the prosecutrix was returning to the Coffee Estate carrying lunch box for her mother, the accused suddenly came behind her, held and dragged her to a distance of about 10 feet inside the coffee garden.The accused shut the mouth of the prosecutrix with his left hand and laid her on the ground underneath the coffee plants.According to the prosecution version, the accused committed forcible sexual assault on the prosecutrix and then ran away from the spot of occurrence.The prosecutrix immediately informed her mother (PW-3) about the incident.The prosecutrix decided to commit suicide as she was unable to bear the dishonour and disgrace caused to her reputation by the act of the accused and she felt that after this incident no suitable boy will offer to marry her.The prosecutrix eventually jumped into nearby water tank located in the Coffee Estate.Shashappa (PW-4), Yashodhara (PW-5), one Babu and Vishwanath, who were doing repair work on the pump house near the water tank, heard the sound from the water tank side.They rushed to the water tank and found the prosecutrix struggling in the water.She was eventually pulled out of the water tank by PW-4 with the help of his associates.On being questioned, the prosecutrix disclosed to PW-4 that she wanted to commit suicide as she was sexually assaulted by the accused.PW-5 went and informed PW-3, the mother of the prosecutrix, about the incident.Both PW-3-the mother and PW-13-the father of the prosecutrix took the prosecutrix to Peryase (PW-6)-Estate Writer of the Coffee Estate and informed him about the incident.PW-6 advised them to lodge police report in the Police Station.Dr. Nagendramurthy (PW-15), a Deputy Surgeon in the District Hospital, examined the prosecutrix at about 9.15 p.m. and referred her to a Gynaecologist for further examination and opinion.On the same day, Dr. Sachidananda, Gynaecologist, examined the prosecutrix and furnished his opinion.On 29.03.1991, PW-14, the Investigating Officer, went to the place of incident and held the necessary spot mahazer (Ex. P-4) in the presence of PWs-2 and 8 Changappa.Accordingly, the prosecutrix along with her parents went to Police Station, Suntikoppa and lodged a complaint (Ex.P-2) to Naga (PW-14), PSI of the Police Station.On the basis of the said complaint, PW-14 registered a case Crime No.35/91 and submitted First Information Report (Ex.P-6) to the Ilakka Magistrate.PW-14 sent the victim to Madikeri Government Hospital for medical examination.Head Constable Revanna (PW-9) arrested the accused at Suntikoppa market and produced him before PW-14, who seized the underwear of the accused vide mahazer (Ex.P-5) prepared in the presence of panch witnesses.The accused was sent for medical examination.Dr. Shivaram Naik (PW-16) examined the accused and furnished Certificate (Ex. P-10).Further investigation of this case was taken over by Dy.S.P. Sathyanarayana Rao (PW-17).After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before CJM, Madikeri against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 376, IPC.The learned CJM committed the case to the Sessions Court.The learned Sessions Judge, having found prima facie case against the accused, framed the charge under Section 376, IPC.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case.In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C., the accused denied his involvement in the crime.He pleaded that a false case has been lodged against him and he claimed to be innocent.However, no witness in defence has been examined by the accused.The Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, recorded conviction and imposed sentence as aforesaid upon the accused.The High Court, on reappraisal and re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, confirmed the conviction and sentence.Hence by special leave, this appeal has been preferred by the accused.Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, challenged the judgment of the High Court inter alia contending that the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as per the medical opinion of the Doctors, no physical injury was found on any part of the person of the prosecutrix, which fact would clearly belie the version of the prosecutrix in regard to the sexual assault upon her by the accused.He submitted that on the facts appearing on record the Trial Court as well as the High Court have seriously erred in relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix whose evidence cannot be found to be believable and reliable without independent corroboration.He lastly contended that both the courts below have held the accused guilty simply on surmises and conjecture, therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted.The evidence has also been analysed in great detail by the High Court and, therefore, no question of any interference is called for with the conviction recorded in the impugned judgment of the High Court.We have independently analysed the entire oral and documentary evidence appearing on record in order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.The prosecutrix in her deposition clearly and unequivocally stated that on the morning of 28.03.1991 she along with her mother (PW-3) went to the Coffee Estate of Athoor Village for attending to their routine work of picking of coffee seeds and at about 2.00 p.m., she had gone home to take mid-day meals.After taking meals, she returned to the work-site taking meals for her mother in a tiffin box, when on the way the accused, who is known to her, suddenly came behind her, held her body with force and then dragged her to some distance in the Coffee Estate in spite of her resistance and request to the accused to release her.The accused snatched the tiffin box from her hand and put his one hand on her mouth and thereafter laid her on the ground.He lifted her saree and petticoat, opened the zip of his trouser and removed his underwear and then committed forcible sexual assault upon her.After committing the crime, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.She stated that she picked up the tiffin box and proceeded to the place where her mother was working.She was weeping and narrated the entire incident to her mother.She told her mother that she felt ashamed of the incident and if other workers working in the Coffee Estate would come to know about the incident, she would feel disgraced and a girl of bad reputation in their estimation as the accused had spoiled her honour and now she will not get a respectable boy to marry her.The prosecutrix decided to commit suicide and suddenly jumped into a nearby water tank.She was rescued from drowning by PW-4 -Shashappa, PW-5-Yashodhara and two other witnesses, namely, Babu and Vishwanath, who were working at pump house near the water tank.She also informed PW-6, the Manager of the Coffee Estate, about the incident and on his advice, she went to Suntikoppa Police Station at about 7.00 p.m. and lodged a complaint to the police official.She was medically examined on the same day.On the following day, she produced her petticoat which was seized under mahazer (Ex. P-3) drawn by the Police.She has been put to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but her testimony has not been shattered on material aspect.She stated in the cross-examination that after the accused laid her on the ground, she on two or three occasions pushed him aside but she could not succeed to release her from his clutches.The suggestion of the accused that a false case has been lodged against him because of enmity between his family members and the prosecutrix's family has been categorically denied by her.The prosecutrix took the extreme step of ending her life by jumping in a water tank.Further, the incident was disclosed to PW Shashappa, PW Yashodhara, Babu and Vishwanath, who eventually pulled out the prosecutrix out of the water tank and rescued her life.The incident was also disclosed to PW-6 Estate Writer, who advised the prosecutrix and her parents to lodge a report in the Police Station, which step was promptly taken by the prosecutrix on the same night.Having carefully gone through the evidence of the prosecutrix, we find no plausible and justifiable reasons whatsoever to disbelieve and discard her testimony.The prosecutrix is a trust-worthy witness and her evidence cannot be brushed aside on the above-noted flimsy plea raised by the accused.The evidence of the prosecutrix finds full support and corroboration from the testimony of PW-3, the mother of the prosecutrix.It is the evidence of PW-3 that on the day of the incident after lunch break, the prosecutrix came weeping to her and narrated the entire incident to her and also disclosed that the prosecutrix had no intention to live further in this world as no good and prudent boy will extend an offer of marrying her on hearing about the unfortunate incident.It is also the evidence of this witness that the prosecutrix rushed towards a nearby water tank with clear intention of commiting suicide by jumping into the water tank and eventually she was rescued from drowning by PW-4 Shashappa, PW-5 Yashodhara, Babu and Vishwanath.It is the evidence of PW-4 that in the afternoon of the day of incident when he was working in the pump house near the water tank, he heard slight sound of somebody falling into the tank.He along with Babu, Vishwanath and PW-5 Yashodhara immediately rushed to the water tank and noticed the prosecutrix drowning in the water.He stated that the prosecutrix was pulled out of the water tank by them and when he asked her about the cause of her committing suicide, the prosecutrix disclosed that she was forcibly raped by the accused in the afternoon on the day of occurrence.This witness was cross-examined at length, but nothing could be elicited from his evidence to establish that the witness has given evidence to implicate the accused in a false case or the witness is, in any way, related to the prosecutrix and therefore, tried to help her.Yashodara (PW-5) has testified and corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix and PW-4 in its entirety.The proseuctrix has given graphic narration of the occurrence in complaint Ex. P-2 lodged against the accused at 7.00 p.m. in the Police Station.The name of the accused, who was also working as a Mistry in the same Coffee Estate where the prosecutrix and her parents (PWs-2 and 13), besides PWs-4, 5 and other persons were working has been categorically mentioned as an offender of the crime.Thus, the entire incident narrated in the complaint (Ex.P-2) stands corroborated by the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, her mother (PW-3), her father (PW-13) and independent witnesses (PWs-4 and 5).Though, the report of the Gynaecologist pertaining to the medical examination of the prosecutrix does not disclose any evidence of sexual intercourse, yet even in the absence of any corroboration of medical evidence, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, which is found to be cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy has to be accepted.Though, the FSL Report marked as Ex.C-1 pertaining to the undergarments of the accused and the victim did not contain any seminal stains, yet the said report cannot be given any importance because the underwear of the accused was taken into possession by the police on the next day of the incident when he was arrested.There is no evidence brought on record to show that the accused handed over the same under wear to the police, which he was wearing on the day of incident or he had handed over some other underwear which was seized under mahazer (Ex.P-5) by the police.The possibility of absence of seminal stains on petticoat of the prosecutrix which she was wearing at the time of the incident, could not be ruled out due to the fact that the petticoat got drenched in the water and the seminal stains might have been washed away.The Trial Court as well as the High Court have recorded the finding of guilt of the accused based upon proper appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution in this case.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any justified and justifiable ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.The accused is on bail. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
90,182,069 | as (Partly allowed) C.R.M. 1647 of 2019 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.02.2019 in connection with Baduria P.S. Case No.472 of 2018 dated 07.11.2018 under Sections 448/325/326/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Anar Molla & Ors.... Petitioners......for the State.Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 is rejected.However, keeping in mind the extent of complicity of the petitioner nos.2, 5 and 6 in the alleged crime, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner Nos.2, 5 and 6 viz., Sariful Molla, Golum Molla and 2 Kasem @ Kachem Molla shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioner Nos.2, 5 and 6 shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders..The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
170,362,343 | The case diary is available.The age of the prosecutrix was 25 years when the alleged incident took place with her.As per the statement of the prosecutrix when she was on the roof of her house at 7O'Clock on 9.9.2015, the applicant/accused came there and committed the rape with her.The said story is not believable as the father- in-law of the prosecutrix was also present in the house.If the prosecutrix had not been consenting party in this matter, she would have cried for help easily.Apart from this, she was quite a young lady who could have very well opposed the act of the rape committed by the applicant/accused.On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the applicant/accused prays for bail.Learned P.P. opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.Heard the arguments and perused the case diary.Hence, allowing this application, it is ordered that applicant/accused be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court regularly on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
170,387,858 | 2. Krishnaveni3. Malliga4. Pitchandi6. Dharmadasan ...Petitioners/Respondents Vs.O.P.(MD)No.16825 of 2017 is filedfor quashing the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.146 of 2016 on the file of thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi.5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police andthe learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.The petitioners in Crl.The petitioners in Crl.The petitioners inCrl.O.P.(MD)No.11686 of 2017 are the respondents in D.V.O.P. No.6 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, TirunelveliDistrict.Similarly, on the basis of the complaint lodged by thesecond respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16825 of 2017, a case was registered as against the petitioners in Crime No.99 of 2015 for the alleged offences underSections 294(b), 324, 323 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C.After registration of the complaints, the cases were taken on filein C.C.No.266 of 2015, C.C.No.147 of 2016, C.C.No.146 of 2016 and D.V.O.P.No.6 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.It appears that the parties, namely, the petitioners and the secondrespondent in all the cases have settled their dispute amicably out of Court,at the intervention of the elders and relatives in the families.It is statedthat the parties also have entered into a compromise pursuant tonegotiations.Today the parties, namely, the petitioners and the secondrespondent in all the cases except the ninth petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19602 of 2016 appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocalterms that they have signed the Joint Compromise Memos on their own free willand volition.The identity of the parties are verified with reference to theauthenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court.Theidentity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor through the respondent police.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.The Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi.CRL.O.P.(MD)No.11686 of 20172. Minor.Sri Niga (Represented through her natural guardian and her mother, namely, the first respondent) ...Respondents/Petitioners PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of CriminalProcedure Code, to call for the complaint preferred by the first respondentbearing Number D.V.O.P.No.6 of 2017 on the file of the learned JudicialMagistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District and to quash the same asillegal and devoid of merits.PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of CriminalProcedure Code, to call for the entire records in C.C.No.146 of 2016 on thefile of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi and to quash thesame.Criminal Original petition in Crl.Criminal Original petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3 of 2017 is filed forquashing the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.147 of 2016 on the file of the learnedDistrict Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, TirunelveliDistrict, in connection with First Information Report in Crime No.100 of 2015on the file of the first respondent police, as devoid of merits forthwith.Criminal Original petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11686 of 2017 is filedfor quashing the complaint preferred by the first respondent in D.V.O.P.No.6of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram,Tirunelveli District as illegal and devoid of merits.Criminal Original petition in Crl.On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent inCrl.O.P.(MD)No.19602 of 2016, a case was registered as against thepetitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19602 of 2016 in Crime No.31 of 2015 for thealleged offences under Sections 498(A), 406, 494 of I.P.C., and Section 4 ofDowry Prohibition Act. Similarly, on the basis of the complaint lodged by thesecond respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3 of 2017, a case was registered as against the petitioners in Crl.Separate Joint Compromise Memos signed by the petitioners and the de-facto complainant in all the cases in the presence of their respectivecounsels are produced before this Court.As per the Joint Compromise memos, the defacto complainant in all the cases have agreed to withdraw the criminalcomplaints and expressed their consent to quash the criminal cases which arethe subject matters of the above Criminal Original petitions.Hence, on the basis of the Joint CompromiseMemos signed by the parties, the Criminal Original petitions are allowed andthe criminal proceedings in C.C.No.266 of 2015 on the file of the learnedDistrict Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, C.C.No.147 of 2016on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District, C.C.No.146 of 2016 on the file of thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi and D.V.O.P.No.6 of 2017 on thefile of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District,are quashed in toto.The Joint Compromise Memos signed by the parties shallform part of the order.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions areclosed.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.The Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station, Veeravanallur, Tirunelveli District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
170,389,819 | Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants in connection with Crime No.625/2018 registered by P.S. Gotegaon District Narsinghpur (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307/34 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act.T he prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20/10/2018 at about 10.00 p m, near Jhansighat Teela which comes under the jurisdiction of Police Station Gotegaon, complainant Santkresh Burman was going to see the program of Durga Visarjan.When he was passing from Jhansighat, applicants along with co-accused Sadhuram Burman armed with sword, iron rod, and wooden sticks etc. reached there and assaulted complainant Santkresh Burman and injured him seriously.Complainant Santkresh Barman has lodged the report, on that basis, Crime under the above mentioned sections have been registered against the applicants.In view of the aforesaid, prayed for bail to the applicants.On going through the case diary, it seems that Santkresh Burman has sustained six injuries, out of which one incised injury was found on his head and other injuries found on his person were seems to be sustained by hard Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 08/01/2019 02:28:43 2 MCRC-51874-2018 and blunt object.There is no medical report in the case dairy, which shows that complainant Santkresh Burman has remained hospitalized for any longer period for the treatment of injuries sustained by him.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact as pointed out by learned counsel for the applicants, role assigned to the applicants and the fact that the applicants are in judicial custody since 09/12/2018 and it will take time to decide the case, in the opinion of this Court, the applicants deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants is allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 08/01/2019 02:28:43 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,957,105 | Vide report dated 10-5-1995, it was opined that accused was deaf and dumb and his mental status was sub-normal.His fingers and toes were fused by birth.However, it was suggested that he be examined by the Specialist doctors of Neurology and ENT of the Medical College, Gwalior.He was examined by team of doctors of J.A. Hospital, Gwalior, comprising of Specialists of ENT, Neuro Surgery, Orthopaedics and Psychiatry.As per report received from J.A. Hospital, Gwalior, it was found that he had no audiometry response on audiometry and hearing assessment test.Psychiatry expert opined that on clinical examination, he was found suffering with mental retardation of IQ along with occasional episode of Psychiatric behaviour and congenital deafness and dumbness.Orthopaedician also found his fingers and toes suffering from syndactyly, I.e., fused together rendering them functionally incomplete.In brief, the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix who is a young girl of about 12 years of age, used to live with her parents in Village Patha within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Laudi of District Chhatarpur.On 7-1-94, at about 1.00 pm, when she had gone to graze her goats towards Bagiya of Shankar Lodhi alongwith another girl Ginia, the accused who is also resident of the same village, reached there.He intimidated and asked Ginia to go away from that place.Thereafter, he caught hold of the prosecutrix and assaulted her and after taking out her underwear committed rape on her.Blood came out of her private part.Her underwear also got stained with it.Hearing her cries, Lakhan Kumhar and Brajbhan Ahirwar reached there, seeing them accused ran away towards his house.Girl went to her house weeping and narrated the occurrence to his father, viz., Hakkoo.Prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to District Hospital, Chhatarpur.Lady doctor, P.W.5, Dr. Usha Khare examined her and found that her hymen was ruptured in 6 o'clock position and was bleeding.She opined that the prosecutrix had been subjected to sexual intercourse.Slide of the vaginal swab and underwear of the prosecutrix were seized and sent for Forensic Examination.Accused was arrested on 8-1-94 and was sent for medical examination to PHC, Laudi.After preliminary examination, he was referred to District Hospital, Chhatarpur.P.W. 6 Dr. Khare examined him and found him fit and capable to perform sexual intercourse.As per FSL Report, Sagar, in the slide of vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and on her underwear human blood was found.ORDER Rakesh Saxena, J.This case is a reference made by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No. 49/04 under Section 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') wherein by order dated 24-12-99, he has passed the order of conviction of the accused Boura @ Drigpal for the offence under Section 376, IPC.In this case, the accused is a deaf and dumb man, therefore, after conviction, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made this reference for passing appropriate order.However, in view of the report, he contended that it was not possible for him to cross-examine the witnesses, but his objection was turned down and the trial proceeded and ultimately 12 witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the Counsel.Again, at the stage of recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, an objection was raised that since the accused was not able to understand even the signs and gestures, the recording of such statement was a futile exercise.From the Trial Court's observations, as made in the reference report, it appears that it had tried to make the accused understand the questions by speaking loudly and by making gestures but he shook his head on every question.Trial Court also sought assistance of a teacher of Deaf & Dumb School, but even then he could not be made to understand anything.Said trainer opined that since the accused was not trained in any such school of teaching by gestures, he could not understand and respond gestures.Trial Court further sought help of brother and parents of the accused, but they said that they do not talk to him by gestures.After requisite investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of concerned Magistrate and the case was committed for trial.Learned Trial Court framed the charge against the accused under Section 376, IPC and tried him.Though, due to accused being deaf and dumb, his statement under Section 313 of the Code could not be recorded, however, the defence witness D.W. 1 Babulal was examined.The defence of the accused was that he did not commit rape on the prosecutrix and that the prosecutrix had, in fact, fallen from a tree due to which she had suffered injury on her private part by some wooden stub.During trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses.On due consideration of statements of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution, learned Trial Judge found that the offence of commission of rape against accused was well brought home and that though he was deaf and dumb, but, he was perfectly sound and was intelligent enough to understand the criminal character of the act committed by him.After careful examination of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am inclined to agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge's conclusion that the accused has committed rape on the prosecutrix.From the evidence of prosecutrix P.W. 11, it is established that she knew the accused Boura @ Drigpal from before.When she and another girl Ginia were grazing goats in the Bagia of Shankar, the accused had reached there and had made Ginia to go away.Thereafter, he had taken out her underwear and made her to sit in his lap.When she shouted, he assaulted her and committed rape on her and ran away from the spot.Prosecutrix went to her house and informed her mother about the occurrence.P.W. 9 Ginia corroborated the evidence of prosecutrix in saying that she had gone for grazing her goats with the prosecutrix and accused had caught the prosecutrix, she had shouted and ran away from the spot.She had gone to the house of the prosecutrix and had informed about the part of the incident she had seen to the father of the prosecutrix.Witness Ginia has deposed that accused had assaulted prosecutrix whereupon prosecutrix had fallen down, but she could not see thereafter as she had ran away from the spot.She also disclosed that accused is not capable of speaking.P.W. 10 Hakkoo, the father of the prosecutrix has deposed that his daughter, who presently is of about 14-15 years of age, had gone for grazing the goats alongwith Ginia.Ginia had come and informed that accused had assaulted the prosecutrix.When he went in the Bagia of Shankar, he found his daughter weeping and saw blood flowing on her leg.He deposed that Sukhia had told her that accused had committed Bura Kaam with him after removing her underwear.Her underwear was also blood stained.He had then taken the prosecutrix to Police Station from where the prosecutrix was sent for Medical Examination to Chhatarpur.This witness had deposed that the accused is hard of hearing and his speech is not clear.Another witness P.W.2 Brajbhan has deposed that on hearing cries of prosecutrix, he had gone at the place of occurrence, seeing him, accused had run away.On asking by him, the prosecutrix had told him that Boura had mounted over her.In cross-examination, he admitted that he had strained relation with the father of the accused, but he has not deposed against the accused because of the strained relation.On examining the evidence of prosecutrix and Brajbhan in juxtaposition, it is seen that the prosecutrix has not said that at the time of occurrence Brajbhan had reached at the spot and she had informed him about the occurrence.In such circumstances, the evidence of Brajbhan seems to be inadmissible being hearsay.However, the evidence of prosecutrix seems reliable.Though there is some discrepancy in the statement of prosecutrix about the manner in which rape was committed, but that is not enough to discard her evidence totally.Statement of prosecutrix was recorded before the Court after about 4 years of the occurrence.Some minor discrepancies were just natural to occur.Learned Trial Court has critically and meticulously analysed her evidence and has found that merely by minor contradictions, the substance of her evidence cannot be discarded.Evidence of prosecutrix has been amply corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 9 Ginia and the evidence of her father P.W. 10 Hakkoo.So far as the medical corroboration of the evidence of prosecutrix is concerned, P.W. 8 Dr. Usha Khare, who examined her, has categorically stated that she had examined her on 84-94 and had found her hymen ruptured in 6 o'clock position and there was bleeding from the injury.She deposed that duration of the injury was within 24 to 48 hours.She had seized the underwear of prosecutrix and sent it after sealing it to the police.As per report of FSL, Sagar, Ex. P-10, the underwear of the prosecutrix was found stained with human blood.14. P.W.1 Dr. L.S. Chourasia of PHC, Laudi, who had examined the accused on 8-1-94, observed that there had been some deficiency in the body of the accused, his penis was somewhat undeveloped, but he was unable to give any opinion about his capability of performing sexual intercourse and he referred the accused to District Hospital, Chhatarpur.P.W.6 Dr. M.K. Khare, Assistant Surgeon of District Hospital, Chhatarpur, on examination found the voice of the accused to be abnormal and not clear.His IQ was also weak.He found smegma absent on his penis.His right testical was absent but his penis was fully developed.The evidence of prosecutrix besides the evidence of Ginia and Hakkoo is amply corroborated from the medical evidence.So far as the evidence of D.W. 1 Babulal is concerned, he deposed that accused was deaf and dumb by birth.He did not understand anything but he could do some work on gestures.He admitted that accused had assaulted the prosecutrix, but said that she had suffered injury by fall from the tree.He denied that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.On due consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as by defence, it is amply established that the accused had committed the offence of rape on the prosecutrix.The Trial Court has found the accused guilty after meticulous and critical analysis of the evidence adduced on record.Even on careful examination of the evidence and re-appreciation of the same, I am inclined to agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge's conclusion that the accused had committed rape on the prosecutrix.Accordingly, I sentence the accused Boura @ Drigpal to undergo simple imprisonment of two years.Accused, who is on bail, shall surrender before the Trial Court within two months to serve but the sentence. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,711,251 | Sri S.P.Pandey, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama alongwith short counter affidavit dated 05.08.2019 on behalf of the opposite party no.2, is taken on record.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.6483 of 2016 (State Vs.Vivekanand Rai @ Vipul Rai) arising out of Case Crime No.49 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sant Kabir Nagar on the basis of compromise between the parties.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that :-(3.1) Marriage of the applicant no.1 Vivekanand Rai @ Vipul Rai was solemnized with opposite party no.2 Smt. Poonam Rai on 28.04.2015, but on account of acrimonious relation between them their marriage was not successful, as a result thereof opposite party no.2 lodged F.I.R. on 11.12.2015 against the applicant (Vivekanand Rai @ Vipul Rai), Om Prakash Rai, Poonam Devi, Chandradev Rai @ Satya Prakash & Ragini Rai, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered as Case Crime No.0049 of 2015 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sonbhadra.After investigation chargesheet No.01/2016 dated 14.05.2016 and Chargesheet No.49-2/2016 dated 21.07.2016 have been submitted against the accused persons.(3.2)The said chargesheets were challenged by the applicant alongwith other four co-accused persons in Criminal Misc.Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.2038 of 2017, in which prayer for quashing the chargesheet against the applicant was refused by order dated 20.01.2017 and he was directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail and so far as remaining co-accused persons are concerned, interim protection was granted by same order dated 20.01.2017 directing that no coercive action shall be taken against them.(3.3) It is next submitted that during pendency of aforesaid Application No.2038 of 2017 (Vivekanand Rai @ Vipul Rai and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and another) parties have entered into compromise and settlement took place between them.Pursuant to said settlement the marriage of the applicant with opposite party no.2 has been dissolved and criminal proceeding and pursuant to impugned chargesheet dated 21.07.2016 against co-accused have been set aside by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.05.2019 passed in Application u/s 482 No.2038 of 2017, appended as Annexure No.2 to the application.The order dated 21.05.2019 is reproduced here-in-below:-"1. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the case description with respect to which relief has been pressed.Heard Sri Alok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.01/2016 dated 14.05.2016 and charge sheet no.49-2/2016 dated 21.07.2016, in Criminal Case No.552/2017, as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.49/2015, under Sections-498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sant Kabir Nagar.The present criminal case had been lodged against the applicant no. 1 and his four family members but that neither there was any criminal intent on part of any party nor any criminal offence had actually occurred.The application filed by Vivekanand Rai, has been disposed of and he had been directed to obtain bail.Also, the proceeding against the applicant nos.2 to 5 has been stayed by that order.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-(i) though the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties;(ii) the FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged;(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;(v) the parties have decided to dissolve their marriage.In this regard, a joint petition for divorce has been filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sant Kabir Nagar.The present application is accordingly allowed.Subject to Vivekanand Rai, paying to opposite party no.2, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on or before the finalization of the divorce proceeding." | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,713,163 | 9.The first petitioner is the wife of the third petitioner and the second petitioner is the sister of the third petitioner herein.The second respondent is the defacto complainant, who is the father in law of the third petitioner.The third petitioner got married with the daughter of the second respondent in the year 2008, due to wedlock they have blessed one male child.The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in P.R.C.No.41 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicialhttp://www.judis.nic.in1/9 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17752 of 2018 Magistrate No.III, Dindigul and taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 352, 364(b), 506(i) IPC r/w 109 IPC.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no offence made out as against the petitioners as alleged by the prosecution, since the third petitioner is none other than the father of the alleged victim boy.The first petitioner is the wife of the third petitioner.He also submitted that the third petitioner got married the second respondent's daughter, namely, Shobana on 05.09.2008, out of their wedlock, they blessed with one male child.Thereafter, the second respondent/defacto complainant requested the third petitioner to hand over the custody of the minor boy in the name of love and affection.Only on hishttp://www.judis.nic.in2/9 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17752 of 2018 request, the minor boy was handed over to the second respondent.After that the minor boy wants to stay with his father.Hence, the third petitioner requested the second respondent to hand over the son to his custody, but the second respondent has not accepted his request.But, the minor wish to joint with his father and he demanded to take him from the defacto complainant.Therefore, the defacto complainant himself handed over the custody of the boy to the third petitioner.After lapse of two months, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint as against the petitioners alleging that the minor boy was abducted by the petitioners.4.The first respondent without even considering the above facts and circumstances, mechanically registered the case for the aforesaid offences and also completed the investigation and filed a final report and the same is pending for committal in PRC.No.41 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.5.The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that he is grand father of the minor victim, he wants his grand son from the third petitioner.All the petitioners connived with each other kidnapped the minor boy.Therefore, he opposed this petition.No.41 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.Though the victim is the son of the third petitioner, without consent of the second respondent the petitioners have kidnapped the victim and as such the ingredients of the offences are clearly attracted as against them.Therefore, there are evidence to attract the offence as against all the accused persons.Further the case is pending for committal and at this stage this petition cannot be quashed.7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent.8.There are totally three accused in this case.They have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 352, 364(b), 506(ii) IPC r/w 109http://www.judis.nic.in4/9 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17752 of 2018 IPC and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.Thereafter, she died in the year 2012 due to illness.There was a dispute between the third petitioner and the second respondent with regard to the custody of the minor boy.In such circumstances, the second respondent has filed habeas Corpus petition in H.C.P.No.797 of 2015, and the same was dismissed.Now the victim boy is in the custody of the third petitioner and has been given good studies.He has been taken care of the first petitioner herein.That apart the third petitioner also filed a guardian original petition in GWOP.No.228 of 2016 to declare him as a legal guardian and the same was allowed by the learned Principal District Court, Erode.http://www.judis.nic.in5/9 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17752 of 201811.The third respondent is a legal guardian for the victim.Therefore, the child, who has been taken by his own father, would not amount to make an offence of kidnapping offence under Section 364(b) is not made out.Insofar as the Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC are concerned no ingredients and material evidences are available to attract those offences.It is also seen from the statements of witnesses that no one has spoken about the allegations to attract those offences.12.Further more, now the victim boy is in the custody of his own father/third petitioner and has been provided with good education and good life style.13.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceeding in P.R.C.No.41 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, is quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.16.09.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No dashttp://www.judis.nic.in6/9 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17752 of 20181.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.2.The Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in7/9 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17752 of 2018http://www.judis.nic.in8/9 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17752 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.das CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17752 of 2018 and CRL.M.P(MD)No.7867 of 2018 16.09.2019http://www.judis.nic.in9/9 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,713,597 | At therelevant time deceased was posted as Dental Surgeon at Civil Hospital,Chail, district Solan; whereas the accused was posted as Medical Officer inPrimary Health Centre, Gharuan in district Ropar, State of Punjab.Prosecution has alleged that the relationship between the deceasedand the accused became estranged due to demand of dowry and excessivedrinking habit of accused.Under the influence of liquor he used to beatthe deceased.On 23.5.2000 Anil Kumar, PW 8 brother visited the deceased atChail and stayed with her.In the intervening night of 25th and 26th May,2000 the accused reached Chail where deceased was residing.He was drunkand started abusing, kicking and beating the deceased.When Anil Kumartried to intervene he was also beaten by the accused and was turned out ofthe house.On 26.5.2000 at about 3 a.m., Surender Kumar, PW 5 came out forurination when he heard the shrieks and cries of the deceased and extremeweeping of her child.The deceased was crying “Give me salty water.I donot want to die.” Surender Kumar went to the house of the deceased.It wasclosed from inside.All three of them went to thehouse of the deceased.Ved Prakash knocked the door of the house which wasbolted from inside.None opened the door for sometime, after about 5minutes door was opened by the accused.On entering the room, PWs.4, 5 and7 smelt poisonous odour in the room.The articles in the room werescattered.PC did not deny the factum of the deceased having dieddue to poison.It was stated by him that the deceased had disclosed to himthat she had consumed some drugs and had asked him to give her salty water.ARUN MISHRA, J.The State is in appeal as against the reversal of the judgment of thetrial court acquitting the respondent for commission of the offence undersection 302 IPC by committing murder of his wife by way of administeringpoison.The deceased was lying on the bed having bruises and contusionson her face.Water was splashed on the bed as well as on the floor of theroom.The clothes of the deceased were also drenched.PW 5 asked theaccused to take the deceased to the hospital immediately.However theaccused replied that there was no necessity therefor and that deceasedwould be all right very soon.Prosecution has alleged that in the meantime Dayal Singh, PW 6, AnilKumar, PW-8 and Shiv Kumar, PW-10 also arrived.They noticed the conditionof the room and also the precarious and deteriorating condition of thedeceased.When they asked the accused what had happened, he retorted thatit was his private life and they need not bother.The accused refused totake the deceased to the hospital on the pretext that nothing had happenedand he himself being a doctor could look after her.PWs.6, 8 and 10 alsosmelt poisonous odour in the room.Deceased was crying that she did notwant to die and she be saved.On being asked what had happened, she raisedher hand towards the accused.Om Prakash, PW-7 informed the police at about4.30 a.m. On that Biru Ahmad, PW-17 entered the information in the dailydiary and proceeded towards the spot.He found the deceased lying on thebed in an unconscious position.Dr. O.P. Choudhary, PW-2, examined thedeceased at about 6 a.m. and noted the patient was semi-conscious withhistory of consumption of poisonous substance.He also noted (i) contusionreddish in colour over the lateral side of the right eye brow with swellingpresent of the size of 7 cm.x 5 cm.and (ii) both lips were swollen.5. PW-2 administered the initial treatment.He carried out Gastriclavage first with saline solution and then with ordinary tap water.Thereafter he referred the deceased to I.G.M.C. Hospital, Shimla at about 7a.m. for expert opinion and further treatment.Deceased died at IGMCHospital, Shimla on the same day in the evening of 26.5.2000 which wasinformed to the police.Post mortem was conducted by Dr. Piyush Kapila, PW-3 in association with Dr. V.K. Mishra, Assistant Professor, ForensicMedicine.As to the cause of death it was opined that the deceased had dieddue to asphyxia secondary to the organo phosphorus poison.Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased :“(i) 10 cm x 6 cm bruise on the right periorbital area with swelling ofright eye lid with two contentric nail scratches abrasions, one on foreheadand other on upper eye lid.(ii) 9 cm x 4 cm big contusion, bluish in colour, on intraorbital area andcheek on left side.(iii) ½ cm x ½ cm contusion on the inner side of lower lip towards leftside mid line with respect to left lateral incisor (lower).(v) 11 cm x 5 cm multiple small abrasions over neck and right of upperchest in front 3 cm lateral to sterno calvicular joint.(vi) 10 cm x 4 cm contusion in infra-axillary area in mid axillary line.Blue in colour.(vii) 7 cm x 5 cm large purple coloured pach over dorsum of right hand withmultiple needle prick marks (latrogenic).”In addition it was found in the post mortem report that there was a deadmale foetus 40 cm.in length with head circumference of 29 cm.with bodyweight of 1300 gms.present in the uterus of the deceased and he calculatedthe age of foetus as 8 months.On 27.5.2000 Anil Kumar, PW-8 lodged a report at the Police Stationmentioning the harassment caused by the accused to the deceased for dowry.It was mentioned that he talked with in-laws and was informed that theaccused was coming to Chail in the evening.In the midnight at about 12,accused reached Chail in his Santro car.He was under the influence ofliquor and was carrying a bottle of liquor in his hand and started abusingthem and gave a kick-blow on the abdomen of the deceased who was pregnant.When he tried to stop, accused pounced upon them due to which he receivedscratches and swelling on face.Then his sister asked him to leave.Thereafter he went to the house of his friend Bablu.Later on two/threepersons came.They called Bablu and enquired about him and told that thecondition of his sister was not good.Then he rushed to the residentialquarter of his sister and found accused Rajiv who opened the door and thecondition of his sister was precarious.His sister was having a son aged 13months.He suspected that his brother-in-law Rajiv had forciblyadministered poison with intention to kill his sister.Death had occurreddue to mal-treatment by the accused and action be taken against him.The investigation revealed that 14-15 days before the occurrence theaccused had purchased organo phosphorus sold under the trade name of“NUVAN” from Sanjay Kumar, PW-13, a shopkeeper at Chail on the pretext thathe required the same to kill the flies.It was also alleged by theprosecution that on the fateful day accused forcibly administered poison tothe deceased in order to kill her.During the course of administration ofpoison deceased struggled as such sustained injuries on her face, lips andneck.Deceased was being harassed and treated with cruelty on account ofdemand of dowry by the accused and his parents.The accused abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence.The prosecutionin the course of trial examined 18 witnesses.Deceased was under convulsion due to some drug.He had given her water tovomit.He had taken the deceased firstly to Primary Health Centre at Chailand then to I.G.M.C. Hospital at Shimla.Deceased was a sensitive lady.Hisrelationship with the deceased was cordial.He examined 3 witnesses indefence.The trial court acquitted the parents, however convicted therespondent husband for commission of the offence under section 302 IPC.The trial court came to the conclusion that the circumstantialevidence brought on record contained positive proof, credible sequence ofevents, factual truth linking the accused with commission of offence bymeans of forcible administration of organo phosphorus poison to the wife.The trial court based conviction upon the following circumstances :(i) Relied upon the statements of PWs.6 and 11 regarding consistentmal-treatment, beating and thrashing by the accused to the victim.(ii)Landlord Dayal Singh has stated that while in a state of intoxicationaccused used to beat the victim and quarreled with her.On that he hadasked him to vacate the house.Then the accused had shifted to the house inquestion.(iii) Accused was maintaining his criminality consistently.Theconduct of the accused on the fateful night indicates that he came to thehouse and started beating and hitting Anil Kumar PW-8 and his deceasedsister.(iv) He kicked on the abdomen of the victim though she waspregnant.(v) On the fateful night the accused had turned out thebrother of the deceased PW-8 from the house at Chail after beating him.PW-8 suffered three injuries in the form of multiple scratches over neck,chin, face and other parts of the body.(vi) the accused was present in theroom of the deceased.(vii) The nature of injuries which was found on theperson of the deceased were ante-mortem.All injuries were on the frontportion of the body and could be caused while she was lying on the bed.Such injuries could be found in cases of smothering and strangulation andforcible administration of poison.The injuries suffered by the victim onher lips, chin, throat and neck could be caused by the accused whileadministering poison forcibly.(viii) The accused did not open the doorimmediately but opened it after considerable time of five minutes.(ix) Theaccused did not take the deceased to the hospital and stated that nothinghad happened to her and that she would be alright very soon.It was theduty of the accused being a doctor to immediately rush her to the hospital.The accused wanted the victim to breathe her last and thus delayed takingher to the hospital.It was not a case of self-poisoning considering thenature of injuries found on the deceased.(x) The domestic articles andluggage were scattered in the room.Child was crying and his small emptybottle which contained the organo phosphorus poison was found lying there.Its cap used as stopper was also lying and a pungent poisonous odour waspresent in the room.(xi) When the witnesses asked what had happened toher, the victim had raised her hand towards the accused.Thus the victimraised her accusing finger towards the culprit that is her husband.(xii)The accused had purchased the organo phosphorus from the shop of SanjayKumar, PW-13, 14-15 days before the date of the incident for a sum of Rs.50/-.There was no necessity for the accused to purchase the same to killflies.He purchased the same with design to cause end of the life of thevictim.(xiii) Considering the nature of injuries found on the body ofthe victim they could not have been caused by convulsion.The High Court has acquitted the respondent by the impugned judgmentand order on the ground that the circumstances are not of conclusivenature.Though Dr. O.P. Choudhary, PW-2 stated thatinjuries indicated positively the administration of poisonous substanceforcibly to the victim, however, he could not say whether the deceased hadconsumed the poison herself to commit suicide.Similar was the statement ofDr.His statement was also disbelieved on the groundthat he could not rule out the possibility of the victim committing suicideby herself.The first information given to the police was that the victimhad consumed some poisonous substance.Initially the offence under sections306 and 498A was registered.Dr. Chaudhary, PW-2 had noticed only twoinjuries on the person of the deceased.However, the injuries increasedfrom 2 to 6 in the post mortem report submitted by Dr. Piyush Kapila, PW-3.The possibility of the injuries could be caused by convulsions was notruled out.Possibility of injuries caused by convulsions is strengthenedfrom the fact that number of ante-mortem injuries had increased from theperiod the victim was examined initially and the post mortem was conducted.The prosecution has failed to prove that poison was in possession of theaccused.Since the trial court has not convicted the accused under section498A or section 304-B, IPC, it could not be said that the deceased wasbeing ill-treated or harassed with cruelty on account of dowry.Theevidence of shopkeeper Sanjay Kumar, PW-13 from whose shop accusedallegedly purchased poison, is not reliable.Accused is a medical doctor.He has knowledge of poison.He would not create evidence against him bypurchasing poison from Chail itself.Accused would not choose poison likeorgano phosphorous i.e., ‘NUVAN’ a pesticide which has a pungent smelllike kerosene to kill the victim.He would have purchased better poison.The accused had administered salty water in order to enable the victim tovomit.This indicates that gastric lavage was carried out by the accused tosave the deceased.He had accompanied her to Chail hospital and then tohospital at Shimla.The victim did not name the accused as responsible foradministering poison and there was no occasion for her merely lifting herhand towards the accused.The conduct of brother of the deceased namelyAnil Kumar, PW-8 is not free from doubt.The clothes of the deceased havenot been produced to show that there were stains and traces of poison.Whentwo views are possible one favourable to the accused is required to beadopted.Hence conviction has been set aside.Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.has not explained the injuries found on the person of the deceased.Chaudhary, PW-2, has stated that he could not make full examination of thebody considering the precarious condition of the deceased, thus failed tomention all ante-mortem injuries found on the person of deceased.The postmortem report which records all the ante-mortem injuries has beenunnecessarily doubted.It was not possible for the doctor to answer to thesuggestions whether the victim had consumed the poison herself, it was notfor them to state so.What was relevant as to their opinion they had statedthat the nature of injuries indicated that she was administered the poisonforcibly.The conduct of the accused also indicates that he did not takethe victim to the hospital immediately and delayed it.He being a doctorknew the consequences of organo phosphorus poisoning and in spite of thathe did not take the victim to the hospital despite requests being made byvarious witnesses.The police had taken the victim to the hospital.Onbeing enquired by the eye-witnesses what has happened, victim had raisedher hand pointedly towards the accused as she was in a precariouscondition.Thus the accused did not take her to hospital immediately andensured that she dies.The various circumstances found established by thetrial court, unflinchingly and unerringly pointed towards the guilt of theaccused.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent has submitted that two views are possible in the case.The HighCourt as such has rightly given the benefit to the accused.Injuries werecaused to the deceased while she was having convulsions.The witness OmPrakash PW-7 has stated that the deceased was trembling and her conditionwas critical.She was writhing in pain, thus possibility of deceasedsustaining the injuries while she was under convulsions could not be ruledout.Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence indicates that one of the symptoms aftertaking organo phosphorous poison can be convulsion also.The gastric lavagewas given by the accused which is supported by the evidence of PWs.4, 5 and7, they have stated that the bed on which the deceased was lying was wetand water had been splashed on the bed as well as on the floor of the room.As the accused was in the process of giving gastric lavage, he took time toopen the door.The deceased might have scratched her face and neck asitching and irritation which take place due to poisoning.No DNA test wasconducted to prove that the nail scratches on the face of the deceased werecaused by the respondent-accused.There was no motive to administer poison;that the accused was not in possession of the poison.Accused would nothave purchased the poison from a person known to him.He could haveselected a better type of poison to kill his wife.The accused hasundergone the sentence for more than four years.The son left by thedeceased is now 17 years old and is being looked after by the accused.In our opinion the judgment and order of conviction passed by thetrial court was based upon proper appreciation of evidence, thecircumstances found established by trial court in the instant case havebeen unnecessarily doubted and brushed aside lightly by the High Court.The High Court has unnecessarily doubted the post mortem report whichrecorded as many as aforesaid seven injuries.There were various contusionsof big size on periorbital area, intraorbital area, forehead, upper eyelid,cheek, 8 cm.x 7 cm.contusion over the chin, contusion over the lower lip,11 cm.x 5 cm.multiple small abrasions over neck and upper chest, 10 cm.x4 cm.contusion in infra-axillary area.The aforesaid nature of theinjuries indicates that they could not have been caused by convulsions.Theaccused was in the company of the victim in the same room is not disputed.Thus, it was for him to explain the injuries found on the person ofdeceased.Exact number of injuries had not been noted by Dr. Chaudhary PW-2as he himself had admitted that he could not examine the entire bodyphysically as the condition of the victim was precarious and he was busy ingiving her treatment then referred her to hospital at Shimla.The victimbecame unconscious at the house itself.The High Court has unnecessarilydoubted the deposition of the autopsy surgeon who has clearly opined thatthe nature of injuries indicated positively the administration of poisonforcibly to the victim.Such injuries could be caused while administeringpoison forcibly when victim was trying to save herself from that.In thecross-examination Dr. Choudhary, PW-2, has also stated that it could not bea suicidal case.However, on a suggestion being made to the PW-2 and PW-3that it could be a case of voluntary consumption of poison by the victim tocommit suicide, obviously the doctors were not able to deny the saidsuggestion as they were not eye witnesses.Moreover they were not supposedto be an arbiter on this issue whether the victim had taken the poisonherself.Their objective opinion stands writ large that considering thenature of injuries it could be a case of forcible poisoning and in theprocess accused had caused injuries while deceased had struggled.Thus theapproach of High Court cannot be said to be of objective assessment ofevidence.The accused was admittedly in the company of the deceased.It was forhim to explain so many injuries found on the person of the deceased as tohow they were caused including swelling in womb.He has totally failed toexplain them.It was not stated by him that the injuries were caused to thedeceased due to convulsions.It was not stated by him that she ever felldown during convulsions, if any.The injuries on her lips, chin, throat andneck etc. as held by the trial court, were caused while administering thepoison forcibly is a strong circumstance against the accused which cannotbe brushed aside lightly.More so, in view of the overall conduct of theaccused to be discussed hereinafter.Injuries were on the front part of thebody which indicates that the deceased was subjected to violence before shesuccumbed due to poisoning.The previous landlord of the accused namely Dayal Singhhas clearly stated that under the influence of liquor, accused used tofrequently beat the victim and quarreled with her due to that he had askedthe accused to vacate the house.Thereafter the accused had shifted in thenearby house in which the incident has taken place.The statements of PWs.6and 11 also indicate that there was consistent ill-treatment and incidentsof beating and thrashing caused to the victim by the accused.There isnothing to doubt the statement of brother of the deceased namely AnilKumar, PW-8 who was also given beating on the night of the incident.AnilKumar has stated that the accused had given kick-blows on the abdomen ofthe victim while she was carrying in her womb pregnancy of 8 months, andthe factum of pregnancy stands proved by the post mortem report that thefoetus aged 8 months was recovered from the womb of the victim.Dr. PiyushKapila PW-3 found abdominal swelling of the victim while conducting theautopsy which was obviously caused by the kick blow given by the accused.The statement of Anil Kumar PW-8 finds medical corroboration.There isnothing to doubt the statement of Anil Kumar that the accused had alsocaused injury to him in the form of multiple scratches over neck and face.R.K. Sharma, PW-1 has proved the injuries found on the person of AnilKumar and has proved the injury report.The High Court has erred inholding otherwise.Yet another circumstance which casts a grave doubt on the accused isthat though he was fully aware that the condition of the victim wasprecarious and she was struggling for life due to organo phosphorouspoisoning.In spite of that initially when the neighbours came hearing theshrieks of the victim, he did not open the door immediately and opened thedoor only after five minutes.Even if same is ignored there was absolutelyno reason for the accused tostate to the neighbours when they asked him to take victim to hospital thatnothing had happened to the victim and it was his family affair and shewould be all right very soon.He intentionally delayed taking the victim tothe hospital and it was only when the Police came that victim was taken tothe hospital and was examined by Dr. Chaudhary PW-2 at 6 a.m. In case theaccused was innocent he would have taken the victim to the hospitalimmediately and would not have declined the request of the neighbours anddelayed her taking to the hospital and ought not to have waited for arrivalof the police and thereafter when police had taken the victim to thehospital, he accompanied her to the hospital.The High Court has erred inholding that accused accompanied victim to hospital as such thatcircumstance is in his favour.Whereas after causing enormous delay andaccompanying police with victim appears to be an effort to save himself andto know what transpires and for giving wrong history to doctors.Thus theconduct of the accused of not taking the victim to the hospital points afinger of doubt upon him.Men may lie but the circumstances do not, is thecardinal principle of evaluation of evidence.The overall circumstancesunerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.Accused was well-awarethat the victim was suffering from organo phosphorous poisoning, the bottlewas also lying open.There was a bad odour of ‘nuvan’ poison in the room.Domestic articles and luggage were scattered in the room and the child wasfound crying.The room indicated tell-tale signs of violence.Severalwitnesses i.e. Dayal Singh, PW-6, Shiv Kumar, PW-10 and Gayatri Devi, PW-11have clearly stated about it.Shiv Kumar, PW-10, has clearly stated that on being asked what hadhappened, she raised her hand towards the accused, her husband.Ram Kishan, PW-9 has also stated thatthe victim raised her hand towards the accused when asked as to what hadhappened.He could observe and feel that she had been administered poisonby the accused forcibly.This last gesture of victim to raise her handtowards husband indicates that he had caused such condition.The victimwas also crying to save her militates against suicidal attempt to killherself.Apart from that the High Court has discarded the evidence of SanjayKumar, PW-13, who is an independent witness.He has stated that 14-15 daysbefore the accused had purchased Nuvan poison from his shop for aconsideration of Rs.50/- on the pretext of killing flies etc. The trialcourt held that in summers there was no necessity to purchase a deadlypoison for killing the flies.Accused intended to kill the victim andpurchased the poison to cause the end of life of victim.The High Court hasnot believed the statement of Sanjay Kumar, PW-13 on the ground that theaccused being a doctor and posted at different places could have purchaseda better poison of sophisticated nature from elsewhere, he would not havecreated the evidence against him.The High Court has brushed aside theevidence of purchase of Nuvan for no good reason.Sometime the facts arestranger than fiction.There is absolutely nothing to doubt the statementof Sanjay Kumar for purchase of abovesaid Nuvan poison and when it wasfound in the house, it was purchased either by the victim or the accused.The injuries could notbe said to be self inflicted.The accused has not stated to that effect,as such it was not necessary to go for DNA test as argued by the counselfor respondent.(i) There was a clear motivefor the accused to administer poison to the deceased, (ii) the deceaseddied of poison said to have been administered, (iii) that the accused hadpoison in his possession and (iv) that he had an opportunity to administerthe poison to the deceased. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,716,750 | are present.Respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 are not present.Notice was published in respect of respondent nos.3&5 as per the previous order.Second respondent is present pursuant to the directions given on the previous date.In these circumstances, service is complete.The prosecution alleged that in the night intervening 23/24.10.2005, the complainant PW-2, a Security Guard with the Group-4 Security of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation patrolling its tracks at the Metro Station Kirti Nagar, noticed four boys around 02:30 AM, cutting copper wire which was kept by the side of the track.Upon his questioning them for the identity, the boys claimed to be members of the Metro project staff.PW-2 asked them to produce their identity cards, which they refused.Suspecting them to be thieves, he asked them to leave the spot.He stated that after half an hour, the four boys returned; one was armed with katta, another with a knife, a third with rod and a fourth with saw, used for cutting the wire.One of them abused him saying that now we would show the identity cards and started removing the wire which was cut earlier.When he tried to stop them, the boy armed with katta fired and attempted to take away the wire.He claimed to have been hit on the head with stone by a boy.He fired in the air; the boy placed the katta on him.PW-2 stated that he fired again in defence which hit one of the boys.At this stage, other security guards, (who were joined as witnesses in the investigation and also deposed in the case), reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence.Yogender Kumar who was on duty at platform had given entirely different version which is to the effect that on 23.10.2005 at about 2.30 am four boys came to the track to cut the copper wire and were asked to leave by Sh.Mr. Shiv Charan Garg with Mr. Imran Khan, Advocates for R-6., CORAM:L.P.8/2011 Page 1In this petition, the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 26.05.2010, acquitting the respondents from the charges punishable under Sections 392/394/395/397/307/412 and 34, IPC.On receiving the shot, the boy died and the others managed to flee with the wire.After concluding the investigation, the police arrested the respondents and charged them with committing offences punishable under Sections 392/394/395/397/307/34 IPC.The police also claimed that a quantity of 310 Kgs.of Crl.L.P.8/2011 Page 2 copper wire was recovered from one of the respondents - Daya Kishan.The prosecution, during the course of the trial, examined 21 witnesses besides relying upon exhibits.By the impugned judgment, the respondents were acquitted.It is urged that the State ought to be granted leave to appeal having regard to the combined testimony of the eye witnesses i.e. PW-1, 2 and 5 and the recoveries made in this case at the instance of the accused/respondents of the copper wire as well as the katta.Counsel urged that the reasoning which persuaded the Trial Court to acquit the respondents is not tenable having regard to the overall circumstances.The refusal of identification by one of the accused at least ought to have resulted in an adverse inference as far as he was concerned.The other accused, counsel urged, were identified during the T.I.P. proceedings.Learned Amicus who was appointed to represent some of the respondents urged in reply that there is no substantial or compelling reasons which warrants the grant of leave.It was urged that the prosecutions' theory about the respondents having committed the offences improbable to show the least.L.P.8/2011 Page 3 general public.Learned counsel for respondent no.6 Daya Kishan submitted that he was falsely implicated in this case.It was submitted that this accused had, right from the inception of the investigation, after joining the proceedings, claimed to be dealer in copper wire and had even produced evidence in support of the purchase of the wire and other materials seized from him.Counsel submitted that on overall consideration of the evidence including the testimony of DW-1 who has supported his case, the Trial Court correctly deduced that he was not involved in the offence.We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties' counsel and also considered the Trial Court's records.Thereafter he alongwith Sh.Kamakhaya Narain Singh (PW2) sat with Prem Vallabh Joshi (PW5) and Basant Kumar (PW1) at the entry gate for about 10 minutes and took water there.They again took round of the station and went up.While he went upto the end of the platform, Sh.Kamakhaya Narain Singh went ahead and they saw those boys present again to commit the theft and Sh.Kamakhaya Narain Singh had fight with them.He tried to call his associate Joshi by that time.Thus, this statement also proves that PW3 Sh.Yogender Kumar was not alongwith Kamakhaya Narain Singh at that time.It is further mentioned in his statement that he heard the noise of two fires and when he reached near Kamakhaya Narain Singh (PW2) he told them that one of those boys had suffered bullet injury and others had run away.Thus, as per his version, they were four boys and out of them, one suffered bullet injury and remaining three ran away.PW1 Sh.Basant Kumar, PW2 Sh.Kamakhaya Narain Singh, PW3 Sh.Yogender Kumar and PW5 Sh.Prem Vallabh Joshi were security guards on duty at Crl.L.P.8/2011 Page 4 different points but none of them could explain as to how the four persons could reach upto the metro track without knowledge of the person on duty at entry gate and at platform and from which route they escaped and entered again on the track.The photographs of the metro track placed on record clearly show that from such a height, it was not possible to jump from the track to the road.None of the security guard had stated that the accused had used some other mode like rope to reach upto the track or get down from there.It is only the IO SI Manoj Kumar (PW13), in his statement, has mentioned that accused persons used iron patta and rope to reach the railway track.At least when the accused persons were escaping from the track, this iron patta and rope could have been noticed by the security personnels and when they had been made to run away by Kamakhaya Narain Singh at 2.30 am, if he knew that they were thieves and were likely to return again and even discussed the matter with other security guards on duty, how is that the escape route i.e through rope was not noticed by any of the security personnels so much so that following the same route/mode those persons could reach the metro track again, which is at sufficient height, without they being noticed by any of the security official.The crime team has been called at the spot by the IO and the track as well as the dead body had been photographed.When the thieves knew that one of their associate had been shot dead by security guard Kamakhaya Narain Singh, the complainant, was it possible for them to get down from that track from such a height through rope alongwith the weapons which they were carrying and copper wire.In normal circumstances, seeing the fate being meted out to one of their associate, who was shot dead, their mental condition could not have been such as to get down using the rope in presence of four security personnels namely Sh.Bansant Kumar (PW1), Sh.Kamakhaya Narain Singh (PW2), Sh.Yogender Kumar (PW3) and Sh.Prem Vallabh Joshi (PW5).It was very easy for the four security guards to overpower the three boys (one of them being already dead) and pull up the rope, if any, used by the thieves for reaching up to the track so as to apprehend them at the track itself.Even otherwise it was not possible for the remaining three thieves to get down through that rope in full view of four security guards alongwith the copper wire (as stated by PW2 Sh.Kamakhaya Narain Singh) and also take away the rope from there to enable the IO to recover the same from the jhuggi of Lal Mohd. (juvenile).It is also relevant to mention here that PW1 Sh.Basant Kumar while stating that one of the boy died with bullet injury and the three ran away, could not identify any of the accused stating that it was night time and he was at some distance.He has specifically denied the suggestion given by ld.PP that Mohd. Ali, Mohd. Sitare, Vipin Kumar, Neel Bahadur and Crl.L.P.8/2011 Page 5 Mohd. Ansar were the persons involved in this occurrence.This is again a surprising thing that four persons allegedly came to the track to commit the theft, one was shot dead and still five persons (6th accused is charged as receiver) are facing trial before this Court and juveniles are separately facing trial.Yogender Kumar has also not identified all the accused persons but identified one Mohd. Ali stating that he was leading the group first time as well as second time.Again it remains unexplained as to how he can state about this accused being leading the group first time also when he was not present alongwith PW2 Sh.Kamakhaya Narain Singh on the track at that time and was also not with him on the track when the thieves came for the second time, rather he was on duty at the platform.PW5 Sh.Prem Vallabh Joshi has also not identified the thieves/accused persons stating that it was dark and he was at a distance.So far as complainant Sh.Kamakhaya Narain Singh (PW2) is concerned, his statement is nothing but an attempt to save himself from the offence which he committed.Initially he mentioned four persons who came to the track but subsequently he changed his version to the extent that the persons cutting wire from the track were throwing down the same which was collected by some other persons which is again contrary to the version given by other security guards.It is pertinent to note that even as per the complaint, the moment four persons came to the track and noted by the complainant Kamakhaya Narain Singh and were made to flee from there after making inquiry about their identity, it was nowhere mentioned that they had already cut some wire by that time and left it on the track.So he had made further improvement and his statement that when they came second time, after quarreling with him, tried to take away the copper wire which had already been cut by them which was objected by him and one of them made fire with a katta and other hit on his head with a stone.PW2 Sh.Kamakhaya Narain Singh has not suffered any bullet injury and this version seems to have been given by him just to save himself.It has come in the statement of PW3 Sh.Yogender Kumar that he heard the noise of two fires and even as per the complainant Sh.Kamakhaya Narain Singh, he has made two fires, one in air and other that hit the boy Sikander Ali.So where is the question of fire being made on him by any of the accused persons from the katta."The Code of Criminal Procedure does not admit an appeal against an acquittal; | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,957,263 | The first blow was given on his hand and the second blow was dealt on the right elbow, as a result of which the complainant screamed and thereafter, Bora, Sukha and Desaiya came to the spot.The accused, on seeing these persons fled from the spot.ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J.This revision petition has been directed by the applicant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pawai, District Panna on 27-4-1995 in Criminal Case No. 192/90, convicting the applicant under Sections 452 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC) and sentencing him under Section 452 of the IPC to suffer for one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100 and under Section 326 of the IPC for two and half years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of fine in each offence, to suffer ten days and one month rigorous imprisonment.In brief the case of prosecution is that on 3-5-1990, the complainant Sukhlal was taking rest after having his meals, at that juncture, accused/applicant armed with an axe came and dealt certain blows to the complainant.The complainant Sukhlal lodged the report in the concerning police station and in this manner the criminal law set into motion.The investigating agency after investigating the matter filed the charge-sheet under Sections 452 and 326 of the IPC.The learned Trial Judge framed charges against the applicant punishable under Sections 452 and 326 of the IPC.The applicant abjured the guilt and pleaded his innocence and maladroit implication.In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and placed Exs. P-1 to P-5 the documents on record.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Panna who by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal in part by confirming the judgment of conviction, but, modified the sentence, as mentioned hereinabove. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,957,274 | ORDER Harries, C.J.The charge arose out of a letter which the petitioner wrote to the Editor of the Newspaper Swaraj, for the purpose of publication.To understand the allegations in the letter it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts of the case.The complainant was the owner of a certain premises No. 24, Hyat Khan Lane, Calcutta.It appears that one Amar Guha had somehow obtained possession of part of these premises, but it is common ground that later he was treated as a tenant.Amar Guha was an evacuee from East Bengal. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,732,534 | The First Information Report (FIR) No.85/2012 was registered on 12.03.2012 by Police Station Vijay Vihar on the complaint of the petitioner, she leveling allegations against her husband, the second respondent, of he having committed certain acts of commission and omission constituting offences punishable under Sections 498- A/406/34 on Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).On conclusion of the investigation report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was submitted on which cognizance was taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate.By order dated 15.01.2015, the Metropolitan Magistrate found charge made out to put Crl.M.C. No.4588/2015 Page 1 of 6 the second respondent on trial for offences under Section 498-A/406 IPC.The second respondent challenged the said order in the court of Sessions by Criminal Revision Petition No.33/2015 which was decided by order dated 14.08.2015, the revisional court setting aside the order of the Magistrate and directing the second respondent to be discharged holding, inter alia, that no prima facie case has been made out against him.The petition is resisted by the second respondent while the first respondent (State) supports the grievance raised by the complainant (the petitioner).The test to Crl.(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be Crl.M.C. No.4588/2015 Page 3 of 6 expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.M.C. No.4588/2015 Page 3 of 6(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."The petitioner had reasons to approach the police earlier with similar grievances against the second respondent and at her instance on her complaint, FIR No.258/2009 was registered by Police Station Vijay Vihar.The second respondent, however, persuaded the petitioner to resume cohabitation, the parties deciding to bury the hatchet. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,482,440 | He further stated that she committed suicide due to bad behaviour and bad character of the accused.He further alleged that one day prior also his wife received a call from his daughter that accused was demanding Rs. 30,000/- to which they told that they would arrange the same by Sunday.He further alleged that his daughter committed suicide due to illicit relations of accused and further alleged that accused had also stolen the jewellery of his daughter.His wife Shyamwati also agreed with his statement before SDM.Prosecution has not produced any material to CRL.A. 25/2012 Page 11 of 24 show as to how the deceased had formed the opinion that the Appellant was having any relationship with Janki.A. 25/2012 Page 11 of 24On the other hand the father of the deceased has stated that the deceased was short tempered and used to threaten to commit suicide.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JAppellant impugns judgment on conviction dated 13.12.2011 and order on sentence dated 15.12.2011 whereby appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/306 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence under Section 498A IPC with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.A. 25/2012 Page 1 of 24Appellant is the husband of the deceased.As per the case of the prosecution information was received at 2.40 PM on 27.02.2009 that a lady had committed suicide.When the Investigating Officer reached spot, he found the deceased hanging from the fan.The contents of the suicide note are as under: -"My name is Kavita and I am going to commit suicide today because my husband has beaten me a lot today and for getting rid of him, I am committing suicide.For this my husband, Shyam Lal and one Janki are responsible because my husband used to beat me because of them and my husband has some relations with Janki to which I had objection."In the inquest proceedings, on 28.02.2009, Shri Rajender Singh, father of the deceased in his statement recorded before SDM, alleged that he married his daughter to accused Kunwar Pal on 24.02.2007 and at the time of marriage accused raised no demand for dowry and he had given the articles from their own will in the marriage.He further alleged that accused started harassing his daughter for dowry just after the marriage and also demanded motorcycle.Despite of their efforts, he did not leave his habit of harassing his CRL.A. 25/2012 Page 2 of 24 daughter and he used to send his daughter to village because he had illicit relations with neighbouring lady.A. 25/2012 Page 2 of 24He further alleged that on 15.02.2009, he brought his daughter to Delhi and on that day the elder brother of accused Kunwar Pal, assured that thereafter accused Kunwar Pal would not say anything to his daughter.He further alleged that a day prior at 3 o'clock he got information that his daughter had committed suicide.He was informed by Yash Pal.The hand writing expert in his opinion with regard to the alleged suicide note, opined that though some similarities were observed in formation of some letters but all features/vowel signs occurring in the questioned writings could not be accounted for similarly in the standard writings and no admitted signatures were given for comparison and accordingly no opinion could be expressed on the hand writing and signatures.A. 25/2012 Page 4 of 24The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence brought forth by the trial court held that the prosecution had been unable to prove demand of dowry and harassment on account of dowry by the accused.The Trial Court further noticed that as per the post mortem report, there were two ante mortem injuries.In the description of the first injury it was noted that the left cheek was found swollen and congested and 3 contusions placed obliquely to the cheek parallel to each other appeared to be impressions caused by fingers of the palm.The second injury was ligature injury on the neck.The opinion of the doctor about cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging.A. 25/2012 Page 5 of 24Based on the post mortem report, the Trial Court held that the deceased was subjected to beating on the face prior to commission of suicide.There was no witness to support the prosecution theory of illicit relationship.The only evidence against the appellant is the alleged suicide note.For this my husband, Shyam Lal and one Janki are responsible because my husband used to beat me because of them and my husband has some relations with Janki to which I had objection."The allegations in the suicide note are (i) my husband has beaten me a lot today, (ii) my husband used to beat me because of them and (iii) my husband has some relations with Janki.The Medical evidence that has been produced by the prosecution shows that apart from the ligature mark caused by the hanging, there was one more injury mark on the deceased i.e. left cheek was found swollen and congested and 3 contusions placed obliquely to the cheek parallel to each other which appeared to be impressions caused by fingers of the palm.The injury mark was suggestive of the deceased having been slapped.The only evidence that the prosecution has produced is the suicide note and the suicide note alleges that the deceased was beaten a lot that day and that the appellant used to beat her because of Janki and that he had some relations with Janki to which the deceased had objection.As noticed above, the allegation in the suicide note that the deceased had been beaten a lot that day has not been substantiated by the medical evidence.All that has been established is that the deceased had been slapped.Whether it was the Appellant who had slapped her has not been established.Further the allegation that the Appellant used to beat the deceased has not been established.The witnesses for the prosecution including neighbours, friends and parents of the deceased have not supported this allegation.The allegation that the deceased had any relationship with Janki has not been established.A. 25/2012 Page 23 of 24 immediately prior to committing suicide.Further as noticed hereinabove, the allegation in the suicide note that the Appellant had beaten the deceased a lot that day was also not supported by any evidence medical or otherwise.A. 25/2012 Page 23 of 24 | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,314,825 | The appellant/A1 had developed intimacy with her.But, he doubted her conduct.Therefore, according to the prosecution, he wanted to do away with her.P.W.10 claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence.According to her, on the date of occurrence , she and P.W.9 along with their friends were sitting at Palavanthangal Railway Station.The deceased Nabisha came there some time late.These two accused also came there thereafter.At that time, P.W.10 and one Geetha had gone to the nearby hotel for buying food.When they returned, they found the deceased Nabisha lying on the platform and froth was coming from her mouth.They also found the deceased omitting.The body temperature of the deceased was on the higher side.While she omitted some tablets also came out.The 1st Accused told them that Nabisha was not alright and she was unwell.But, Geetha told her that Kalam attacked Nabisha on her chest.P.W.15 Geetha has stated that 1st Accused fisted the deceased on her chest.She would further state that since Nabisha became unconscious, they all took her along with the 1st accused to Puzhidhivakkam to an semi constructed building.Then P.W.15, P.W.9, P.W.10 and the 2nd Accused took Nabisha to the said incomplete building.There, all of them sprinkled water on her face.They found Nabisha alive.All the four stayed in the same building.At about 4.00 a.m. the accused put Nabisha in a bathroom of the house and thereafter all of them fled away from the scene of occurrence.On 16.08.2001, P.W.2 was at his house which is nearby the said incomplete building.He felt some foul smell.The fracture margins showed evidence of bruising .All sutures were intact and not fused.The brain was not found.The skull cavity empty.The appellant is the 1st Accused in S.C.No.91 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.III, Poonamallee, Chengalpattu District.There were altogether two accused in the case.The 2nd Accused has been acquitted by the trial court.Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.He informed P.W.1 who happened to be his friend.P.W.1 went to the house of P.W.2 and thereafter, after ascertaining that the foul smell was emanating from the semi constructed building, P.W.1 preferred a complaint to the police.On receiving the complaint, the police rushed to the spot, where they found the body of deceased in a highly decomposed condition.The police took up the investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence.Since the bathroom of the house could not be opened, P.W.4 was directed by the police to open the bathroom where they found the dead body.An observation mahazar was prepared for the same in the presence of P.W.4 and a saree found on the body of the deceased was also recovered.The dead body was taken to Royapettah Government Hospital and kept in the mortuary.Thereafter, on information by the investigating officer, P.W.5, the grand father of the deceased Nabisha came to the police station where from he was taken to Royapettah Government Hospital.On 16.08.2001 at about 10.00 p.m. He identified the body as that of Nabisha.He also identified the body at Royapettah Government Hospital.P.W.7 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statements of witnesses Sathya and Geetha under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. On completing the inquest by P.W.17 at Royapettah Government Hospital, the body was forwarded for post-mortem.P.W.12 Doctor conducted autopsy.P.7 is the Post-mortem Certificate.He found that the body was in a highly decomposed condition.Hair could be easily plucked off .Eye balls were not found and maggots were coming out of orbital sockets.Nose was not found.Post mortem loosening of some of the teeth seen.Post mortem disarticulation of right hand fingers at the level of meta carpo phalangeal joints, left shoulder joint, right ankle joint and left foot toes at the level of meta tarsophalangeal joints.Post mortem disarticulation of cervical vertebra between C4 and C5, temporo mandibular joints, sternochondral junction and most of the costo vertebral joints.Most of the internal organs were highly decomposed liquified and not found.Intermittent bruised areas with variegated colours seen over the scalp and ectocranial surface of the vault of the skull on both sides.Fissured fracture of the right parietal bone extending from the middle of right coronal suture to the middle of right parieto temporal sutures measuring 5.5 cms long.Length of the right humerus measured 28 cms in length.So by applying the multiplication factor the stature of the individual was about 149 cms. He opined that the deceased would have died of head injuries and the death would have happened 5 to 10 days prior to the post-mortem.On 29.08.2001, P.W.17 took up police custody on the orders of the learned Magistrate.He requested the Tahsildar [P.W.13] to come over to Madipakkam Police Station in order to be a witness to the confessions to be given by the accused.Accordingly, in the presence of P.W.17, the Inspector of Police and P.W.13, the Tahsildar, the 1st Accused [appellant herein] and the other accused gave confessions.The said confessions were all videographed.Apart from that, the confessions were also recorded in writing, in which, P.W.13 signed as a witness.On completing the investigation, P.W.17 laid the final report against the appellant herein and another for offences under Sections 201 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC.Based on above materials, the trial court framed charges under Sections 302 of IPC against the 1st Accused alone and for offence under Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC as against both 1st Accused and 2nd Accused.The accused denied the charges.They were put on trial.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined, 28 documents were exhibited and 7 material objects were marked.When the incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same.They examined one Ms.However, no document was exhibited on their side.Having considered all the above materials, the trial court found the appellant/A1 alone guilty and accordingly convicted him.That is how, the appellant is now before this court with this criminal appeal.I have heard Mr.J.R.Prabhakaran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / A1 and Mr.Therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate, the prosecution has proved the case and, therefore, the findings of the trial court does not require any interference at the hands of this court.I have carefully considered the above rival submissions.As a matter of fact, the medical evidence contradict their evidences .There is no sign of any injury on the chest of the deceased.Further, the evidence of Doctor also does not go to prove the time of death.Apart from all these things, these witnesses, as I have already stated, are untrustworthy which is so evident from their conduct.Above all, the tainted testimony of one accomplice cannot draw corroboration from the tainted testimony of another accomplice.In view of all the above, I am of the firm opinion, that it is not safe to convict the appellant/A1 on the evidences of P.Ws.9, P.W.10 and P.W.15 alone.Thus, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant/A1 is entitled for acquittal.In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed; and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellant/A1 are set aside.Bail Bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.1.The Addl.Sessions Judge,FTC-III,Poonamallee,Chennai.2.The Inspector of Police, Madipakkam P.S. Kancheepuram District | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
13,149,377 | This is the first application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant.The applicant is in custody since 05.09.2014 in connection with Crime No. 140/2014 registered at Police Station Bilaua district Gwalior for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25/37 of Arms Act.It is alleged that on 02.09.2014, the complainant was brought to the Police Station and lodged a report that at about 04:00 PM, his brothers Sonu and Kamlesh had gone to Talsher to graze the cattle, where the applicant/accused came with a 12 bore gun and said him that nobody should come to the Tal from the village.He also said that if anyone comes towards this side, he will fire him.At about 07:30 PM, when the complainant went towards Talsher, he saw the applicant in the light of torch, the applicant was having a gun.With intention to kill him, the applicant fired gun shot at a distance of 20 feet, which hit on the thigh of the complainant.On his shout, his brother Rakesh and Bhikam came to the spot and they also saw the accused running away with the gun.He is alleged to fire gun shot from a distance of 20 feet, (Balu @ Balmukund Kushwaha Vs.State) 2 M.Cr.C. No. 9213/2014 whereas tattooing marks are present on the thigh of the complainant.Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that three more cases has been registered against the applicant besides this case.In Crime No. 560/2000 registered under Section 302/34 of IPC, the applicant was acquitted on 30.03.2001 by 2nd ASJ, Dabra district Gwalior.In other two cases, offences are minor.Keeping in view that facts that the injury caused is having no bony injury, applicant is in custody since 05.09.2014 and disposal of case will take considerable time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to extend the benefit of bail to the present applicant.Accordingly, this bail application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvents surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for securing his presence before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-The applicant will not interfere or influence the prosecution witnesses;The applicant will make himself available or represent (Balu @ Balmukund Kushwaha Vs.State) 3 M.Cr.C. No. 9213/2014 through his counsel on early date of proceedingsA copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Palo) Judge Abhi | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,505,055 | SL No.34 gc/sg CRM 4497 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11.05.2020 in connection with Hariharpara P.S. Case No.457/2019 dated 05.09.2019 under Sections 147/148/149/332/333/354/325/326/307/427 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of: Bikash Majhi & Anr.....Petitioners.Mr. Arindam Roy ...for the Petitioners.Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Ms. Purnima Ghosh ...for the State.The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the Court.Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video conference.Although the petitioners could not be established through video linkage, we have perused the petition and the materials produced before us.However, the 2 prayer for anticipatory bail of five persons which include the present petitioner No.2 was denied upon consideration of the materials on record disclosing involvement of the petitioner No.2 along with four others in assaulting police personnel resulting in grievous injuries.Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail being CRM 4497 of 2020 is rejected.(Jay Sengupta, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.) | ['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,507,454 | resulting in serious injury, but no steps have been taken by the police authorities.It appears that over the selfsame incident, case and counter case have been registered by and between the parties being Baguiati P.S. Case No.199 of 2017 dated 13.03.2017 under Sections 341/323/354A/506/504/ 427 of the Indian Penal Code at the behest of the petitioner and Baguiati P.S. Case No.201 of 2017 dated 15.3.2017 under Sections 341/323/354A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code at the behest of private respondent no.6 herein.The parties are at liberty to approach the Criminal Court and ventilate their grievances in accordance with law, if so advised.With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,508,497 | M.P.No.5982 of 201816.04.2018This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 02.04.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1376 of 2018 in C.C.No.21 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram.4.During the trial, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1376 of 2018 in C.C.No.21 of 2018 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for the purposes of marking the following documents: (1)VAO of Pakkam Village (to establish that A1 and A8 were living in matrimony) (2)Registrar of the Births and Deaths Department (to produce the Birth Certificates of 2 sons of A1 and A8) (3)The Principal of Sri Venkateshwara Matriculation School, Thiruvallur, (to produce the Admission Books of the above 2 sons of A1 and A8) in order to establish the second marriage between A1 and A8 and prove its case u/.s 494 IPC.Challenging which, the defacto complainant has approached this Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction.6.Heard Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.C.Raghavan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 1st respondent.7.The allegation against A1 and A8 is that they had married, while the marriage of A1 with the defacto complainant was subsisting.Therefore, the charge under Section 494 of IPC has been included.The trial Court Prosecutor wanted to mark the aforesaid documents, which will utmost prove that A1 and A8 were living together.For proving bigamy under Section 494 of IPC, the marriage ceremonies have to be established.Keeping a concubine can at the most be a morally blameworthy conduct and not legally barred.The learned Magistrate has stated that the Investigating Officer should have filed an affidavit.8.In the opinion of this Court, when an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is filed, it is not necessary for the Investigating Officer to file any affidavit and it would suffice, if the trial Court Prosecutor files such an application.On this short ground alone, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court to be dealt with in accordance with law.The trial Court is directed to pass fresh orders on the petition in Crl.M.P.No.1376 of 2018 uninfluenced by what is stated above.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.16.04.2018Index :Yes/NoInternet :Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non speaking ordermpsTo1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram.2.The Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Sriperumputhur,Kancheepuram District.3.The Public Prosecutor,Madras High Court, Chennai.P.N.PRAKASH,J,mps Crl.O.P.No.11496 of 2018andCrl. | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
16,051,896 | The prosecution's case, in short is that, the marriage of the deceased Neeta took place with the appellant No.1 on 21.6.1995 and thereafter, she went to the house of the appellant at Rahatgarh.A merg intimation was sent by Dr. J.P. Nayak (PW-7) to the Police Station, Rahatgarh that she was brought dead before him.In merg inquest, a Panchnama-lash Ex.P/10 was prepared and the dead body of the deceased was sent for its postmortem.It was found that the deceased consumed some poisonous substance and therefore, her viscera was preserved and sent for forensic analysis.Jangbahadur (PW-8) father of the deceased and Dilip (PW-9) brother of the deceased had made omnibus allegations against the appellants relating to the dowry demand and harassment and therefore, a case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.In FSL report Ex.P/16, it was found that in viscera of the deceased B.H.C. (Organochloro pesticide) was found.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Sagar, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Sagar and ultimately, it was transferred to the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar.The appellants abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea in the matter, but they have stated that they kept the deceased with comfort.They have stated that after the death of the deceased, Janbahadur father of the deceased demanded a sum of `50,000/- from the appellants and since such amount could not be given, he had made omnibus allegations against the appellants.In defence, some letters Ex.D/2 to D/5 and prescription Ex.D/6-D/7 3 Criminal Appeal No.1088/1997 were produced.Daulat Ram (DW-1) and Krishnakant (DW-2) were also examined.After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants and other accused persons from the charge of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, but convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the police seized some letters from the parents of the deceased written by the deceased and if those letters are perused then, it would be clear that there was no problem to the deceased in appellants' house.However, the deceased died within six months of her marriage because she was suffering from the illness.Also in the short period of the six months, she could not be tortured so that she could commit suicide.The witness Asha Shrivastava (PW-6) real sister of the deceased, who was residing at Sagar has confirmed that no harassment was committed by the appellants to the deceased and there was no demand of dowry at the time of the marriage and there was no intimation given by her sister about any dowry demand or harassment.Under such circumstances, the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge has committed error in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 4 Criminal Appeal No.1088/1997 498-A of IPC.In alternate, it is submitted that the appellant No.2 is mother of the appellant No.1, is an old person of 62 years of age, who has already remained in the custody for seven days during the trial, whereas the appellant No.1 remained in the custody for 2 months.Looking to their overt acts and fact that they have faced the trial and appeal for last 16 years, it is prayed that they may not be sent to the jail again.On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct and therefore, there is no need to interfere in the conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is to be considered as to whether the appeal filed by the appellants can be accepted? And whether the sentence directed by the trial Court can be reduced?A peculiar fact in this case is that, the deceased died within six months' of her marriage.A suggestion was given to the witness Dilip (PW-9) that the deceased was in love with one Munnu, who died due to stove (kerosene stove) accident and therefore, the marriage of the deceased was performed with the appellant in a hurried manner, but the witness Dilip did not accept the suggestion given by the defence.Jangbahadur (PW-8) father of the deceased and Dilip (PW-9) brother of the deceased have made 5 Criminal Appeal No.1088/1997 omnibus allegations relating to the dowry demand and harassment.However, there is a lot of contradiction between the statements of these witnesses.Dilip has stated that a sum of `50,000/- was given to the appellants in the marriage and they were demanding some articles like cooler, T.V., refrigerator, sofa and a double bed but they could not provide such articles to the appellants and therefore, due to that demand, the appellants had habitually assaulted the deceased Neeta.However, in cross-examination of the witness Dilip, it is established that he did not tell this fact to the police in his case diary statement Ex.D/2 and therefore, such allegations appears to be afterthought allegations.He has also mentioned that his sister wrote some letters about that demand, but no such letters were submitted before the Court.On the other hand, the witness Jangbahadur (PW-8) did not say that a sum of `50,000/- was given in the marriage of the deceased.He has stated that he gave a sum of `40,000/- in the 'Lagun' and he gave a sum of `10,000/- to the appellants prior to the 'Lagun' but he could not told about the reason as to why, he gave a sum of `10,000/- to the appellants without any occasion.In the cross-examination of this witness, he has stated that he was a member in the Gram Panchayat for a longer period.He has stated that he did not give the entire description of the harassment at the first time when he gave his statement before the police.It is apparent from the statement of this witness in the merg inquiry, he 6 Criminal Appeal No.1088/1997 did not allege anything against the appellants.But, when case was registered, he gave the statement alleging so many things against the appellants.Jangbahadur and his son Dilip could not tell that after the marriage of the deceased, they gave anything to the appellants due to their demand or any panchayat took place for such demand.They never intimated to the police about the demand at the time of merg inquiry or in the lifetime of the deceased.On the other hand, Asha Shrivastava (PW-6) real sister of the deceased has stated that the deceased was kept with comfort in the appellants' house.However, she was declared hostile, though she was the real sister of the deceased.Similarly, various persons of the locality, where the appellants were residing did not support the allegations made by the parents of the deceased.Sharad Kumar (PW-4) has stated that he was the husband of the witness Asha Shrivastava and the deceased Neeta told him that she was harassed by the appellants when, the delay was caused in making the food.He did not allege anything against the appellants about the dowry demand or harassment.Similarly, Kamla Bai (PW-5), Pradeep (PW-12) and Prahlad (PW-2) have also turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution's evidence.Under such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly observed that there was no demand of dowry from the side of the appellants and therefore, the appellants were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 304-The witness Dilip could not say about the harassment done by the appellants.He made omnibus allegations against the appellants.In this context, a letter Ex.D/5 is produced, which was alleged to be written by the deceased, which indicates that the same was the last letter of the deceased, in which she blamed her father that, when he went to Sagar, he did not visit the house of the deceased.However, it is doubtful that the letters Ex.D/4 and D/5 were written by the deceased herself or anyone else.If demand of dowry was not accepted by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence given by Jangbahadur then, the appellant No.2 could not be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.However, looking at the evidence of Jangbahadur, it appears that there was some harassment and cruelty done by the appellant No.1 and therefore, Sharad Kumar (PW-4) has accepted that the appellant No.1 was committing some cruelty with the deceased.Under such circumstances, looking to the small corroboration of the witness Sharad Kumar, it appears that the appellant No.1 dealt the deceased with cruelty for some period, though it was not due to dowry demand.Under such circumstances, out of the entire allegations made by the witness Jangbahadur, a small portion can 8 Criminal Appeal No.1088/1997 be accepted and it is proved that the appellant No.1 had committed cruelty with the deceased Hence, the appellant No.1 could be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has imposed the sentence upon the appellants on the basis that the deceased died within six months' of her marriage.It is true that the deceased consumed some poisonous substance but it is also apparent from the facts that the deceased died within six months of her marriage and marriage of the deceased was settled with the appellant No.1 in a hurried manner.It is accepted by the witness Dilip brother of the deceased that one Munnu expired in stove accident and therefore, a possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased was in love with that Munnu and hence, she was not feeling happy after her marriage because of her love affairs with the deceased Munnu and therefore, she could commit suicide.Under such circumstances, the death of the deceased cannot be considered for the sentence of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.Sharad Kumar has stated that on second time, when the deceased came to his house, she told him that she was kept with comfort and therefore, for a small period, the appellant No.1 harassed the deceased or dealt her with cruelty.However, the appellant No.1 remained in the custody for 2 months and he has faced the trial and appeal for last 16 years.Looking at his harassment, it is a fit case in which the appellant may not be sent 9 Criminal Appeal No.1088/1997 back to the jail again but some fine may be imposed upon him.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants can be partly accepted and hence, it is hereby partly allowed.The conviction as well as the sentence directed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC against the appellant No.2 is hereby set aside and therefore, she is acquitted from the charge of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, whereas the conviction directed against the appellant No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is hereby maintained.However, his sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody by enhancing the fine amount from a sum of `1,000/- to the sum of `5,000/-.The appellant No.1 is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months' from today.In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo for six months' R.I.The appellants are on bail.A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 30.10.2012 pnkj | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
160,520,694 | By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.281/2011 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against him.2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that initially the aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner and his parents.Accordingly, after the investigation, charge sheet was filed, however at the stage of charge, parents of the petitioner have been discharged from the offences mentioned above and charge has been framed only under Section 498A of Crl.M.C.No.3110/2015 Page 1 of 8 the IPC.M.C.No.3110/2015 Page 1 of 8Thereafter, petitioner and respondent No.2 compromised the matter on 22.08.2014 and to this effect they made their statement before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, (Mahila Court), NW District, Delhi.Keeping in view the legal position as discussed above, the settlement arrived at between the parties, statement of respondent No.2 and the fact that the marriage has already been dissolved between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, therefore, no purpose would be served by directing the petitioners to face the trial.Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.Consequently, FIR No.281/2011 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections Crl.M.C.No.3110/2015 Page 7 of 8 498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.M.C.No.3110/2015 Page 7 of 8In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with no order as to costs.A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) AUGUST 04, 2015 M Crl.M.C.No.3110/2015 Page 8 of 8M.C.No.3110/2015 Page 8 of 8 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
160,532,269 | CRM 3892 of 2020 with CRAN 2141 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kaliachak P.S. Case No.28 of 2020 dated 08.01.2020 under Sections 147/148/149/186/332/ 333/ 353/307/379/427/436 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 8(b) of the National Highways Act and Section 9 of the MPO Act.And In the matter of: Ajmal Sk @ Majak Sk ....Petitioner Mr. Mritunjoy Chatterjee ...for the Petitioner Mr. Sudip Ghosh Mr. Pratik Bose ...for the State The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court.The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking. | ['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
160,540,888 | sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 4337 of 2019 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17.04.2019 in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 157 of 2019 dated 12.04.2019 under Sections 448/325/307/354A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Subal Mondal & Ors.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 2 and on further condition that they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of fortnight from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
160,541,922 | THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-3500-2017 (MANOJ PATEL @ APPU @ BHAKKU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 7 Jabalpur, Dated : 02-05-2018 Shri P. S. Gaharwar, counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Record perused.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.sh Shri Vishal Dhagat, Govt. Advocate appears and accepts notice e on behalf of the State, therefore, no further notice is required to be ad issued after admission.Also heard on I.A.No.Pr This is an application for suspension of custodial sentence a hy awarded to appellant, who stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 (gha) of the Indian Penal Code.ad Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence that M the appellant committed rape, therefore, trial Court erred in law in convicting him under Section 376(gha) of the IPC and Section 5 read of with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences rt Act.ou On the other hand, Govt. Advocate for the State has opposed the bail application by filing written objection.He has invited our C attention to the evidence of Rajesh Bunkar (PW7), who established the h presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime.Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2018.05.02 16:59:26 +05'30' H ig h DUBEY/-C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sh | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,605,433 | (a) PW.1 is the father of the deceased Durai @ Nalla Durai.He wasemployed in Nithya Agencies, having business of fertilisers at Muppakkoil.Itwas the deceased, who used to go over for collection and one of the customerswas by name Raja, the father of both the accused.When the deceased went overto the house of Raja for collection, he developed intimacy with the daughterof Raja viz., Sathyavadani, the sister of the accused.She became pregnant.The matter came to the notice of both the family.On 23.4.2003 at about 5.15 p.m., PW.1 took tea to his son,who was in the fertiliser shop.The deceased came out of the fertiliser shop toattend a phone call in the neighbouring cycle shop.At that time, PW.2 wasrepairing a cycle.PW.3 was standing nearby.PW.4 also went for getting hiscycle repaired.F.I.R, Ex.P.15 was despatched tothe Court.(c) On 24.4.2003, On receipt of the F.I.R., the Inspector of Police PW.19,took up investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence, made aninspection and prepared an Observation Mahazar Ex.P.1 in the presence ofwitnesses and prepared a Rough Sketch Ex.He recovered blood stainedcement mortar MO.5 and sample cement mortar MO.6 under cover of Mahazar Ex.P.2.He examined PW.4 and other witnesses and recorded their statements.(d) PW.18, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation.On28.4.2003, when both the accused were coming by a TVS Champ, they were arrestednear Palanisamy Nagar Bus Stop and the first accused voluntarily gave aconfessional statement in the presence of witnesses and the admissible portionof which was marked as Ex.TVS Champ (MO.2) was recovered under cover ofMahazar Ex.He recovered blood stained aruval (MO.1) under cover of MahazarEx.On receipt of the same, the case wasaltered for the offence under Sections, 450, 452 and 302 r/w 34 IPC by PW.19,who took up further investigation in this case.He despatched the alteredF.I.R to the Court.Immediately, he proceeded to the Government Hospital,Thanjavur and he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presenceof witnesses.He prepared an Inquest Report Ex.(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J) The appellants two in number have challenged the judgment of the Court ofthe Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Thanjavur dated 22.11.2004 made inS.C.No.68/2004 whereby the appellants/accused found guilty under Sections 450and 302 IPC.The first accused was awarded life imprisonment along with a fineof Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment underSection 302 IPC.Similarly, the second accused was also awarded lifeimprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo two yearsrigorous imprisonment under Section 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC.Further, both theaccused were awarded two years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine ofRs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment underSection 450 IPC.The sentences were directed to run concurrently and the periodof imprisonment already undergone by the accused were given to be set off.The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be statedthus:The father of PW.5Sathyavadani came with a suggestion for the marriage but the father of thedeceased Durai @ Nalladurai was not for that.However, with the assistance offriends and others, the marriage was solemnized on 11.9.2002 and the same wasregistered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Thiruvidaimarudur.From thattime onwards, the family members of the accused were not in talking terms withthe deceased family.Both these accused enraged over the deceased.The secondaccused used to make phone calls and threaten the deceased.One such phone callwas also made on 20.4.2003 and that was immediately informed to PW.7, who was award councillor, for the purpose of going to police station and give a complaintagainst the accused.PW.7 advised the deceased family not to go to policestation and told them that through the Ex-President of Panchayat, the accusedcould be advised.Immediately, both the accused sped away from the placeof occurrence.PW.11 was theDoctor, who was on duty at the time of admitting the injured in the saidHospital.He examined the injured Durai and found injuries as described in theAccident Register.Then, onthe advise of the Doctor PW.11, the injured was taken to the GovernmentHospital, Thanjavur where PW.12 was the Doctor on duty at that time.Heexamined the injured and found the injuries as described in the AccidentRegister.P.8 in that regard.(b) Intimation was given to the respondent police station.PW.17, the SubInspector of Police went over to the Government Hospital, Thanjavur and heenquired the injured.Ex.P.14 is the statement.On the basis ofEx.P.14, PW.17, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in CrimeNo.201/2003 under Sections 452 and 307 IPC.A requisition wasforwarded for the purpose of conducting post-mortem.The Doctor PW.21 conductedautopsy on the dead body of the deceased and she found injuries as described inthe Post-Mortem Certificate, which was marked as Ex.P.28 wherein she has opinedthat the deceased would appear to have died due to the effects and complicationsof Head and Neck injuries involving the vital organs namely the Brain andCervical Spinal column.(f) On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filedfinal report against the appellants/accused.The case was committed to theCourt of Sessions and necessary charges were framed against the accused.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 21 witnesses, marked 28 documents and 6 MOs.Oncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused werequestioned under Section 313 Crl.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstancesfound in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Both the accused deniedthem as false.No defence witness was examined.After hearing the argumentsadvanced by both sides, the trial Judge found the appellants/accused guilty asreferred to above.Hence, this appeal at the instance of theappellants/accused.Advancing his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants wouldsubmit the following submissions:(a) In the instant case, according to the prosecution, there are fourwitnesses.PW.1 is the father of the deceased.PW.2 is the cycle shop owner.PW.3 and PW.4 were standing nearby the cycle shop.There are a lot ofdiscrepancies in the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses, which by itselfwould be sufficient to reject the testimony of the eye-witnesses.IfPW.1 was actually available at the place of occurrence as claimed by him, therewas no need for another witness viz., PW.4, Ramesh to take the deceased to theGovernment Hospital, Kumbakonam.His name alone finds in the Accident Register.Thereby, it is quite clear that PW.1 to PW.4 could not have seen the occurrence.(b) Insofar as the evidence of PW.2 is concerned, there are discrepanciesin respect of the place of occurrence.According to the evidence of PW.2, theplace of occurrence is inside the shop whereas according to the ObservationMahazar and also Sketch, the occurrence was taken place in front of the shop.(c) As per the prosecution, PW.4 Ramesh took the deceased Durai to theGovernment Hospital, Kumbakonam and the deceased was admitted in the hospital.PW.11 was the Doctor, who was on duty at the time of admitting the injured inthe said Hospital.The Doctor was told that three assailants attacked theinjured with aruval.He examined the deceased Durai and found injuries asdescribed in the Accident Register.P.7 is the Accident Register, which saysthat three assailants attacked the deceased Durai.Then, on the advise of theDoctor PW.11, the the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Thanjavurwhere PW.12 was the Doctor on duty at that time.He examined the deceased andfound the injuries as described in the Accident Register.Accident Register isEx.P.8 in that regard.P.8 also reveals that the deceased Durai was attackedby three assailants.The first accused is the elder brother andthe second accused is the younger brother and the description of these twoaccused are clearly indicated after the corrections have been made by theInvestigating Office, which was also admitted by him.This would go to showthat they could not have seen the occurrence at all.The DoctorPW.21, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, has opined in thePost-Mortem Certificate Ex.P.28 that the deceased would appear to have died dueto the effects and complications of Head and Neck injuries involving the vitalorgans namely the Brain and Cervical Spinal column.(f) In such circumstances, a duty was cast upon the prosecution to producethe entire case sheet but the prosecution neither produced the case sheet norexamined the Doctors who gave treatment to the deceased.The prosecution hasmiserably failed to prove its case because the Post-Mortem Certificate Ex.P.28reveals that the accused died due to the effects and complications of Head andNeck injuries involving the vital organs namely the Brain and Cervical Spinalcolumn.According to Ex.In the instant case, it cannot bestated that the ocular testimony put-forth by the prosecution viz., PW.1 to PW.4was corroborated by the medical evidence.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions.At the time ofoccurrence as narrated above, PW.1 was taking tea to his son, who was in thefertiliser shop.PW.2 was a neighbouring cycle shop owner.In the instant case,the prosecution had the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 and they have spoken to thefacts in one voice.Hence, the conviction and sentenceimposed on the appellants under Section 302 IPC and 302 r/w 34 IPC respectivelyand under Section 450 IPC are modified and instead, the first accused isconvicted under Section 326 IPC and the second accused is convicted underSection 326 r/w 34 IPC.Both the appellants are directed to suffer five yearsRigorous Imprisonment for the said offence.The period of sentence alreadyundergone by the appellants is ordered to be given set off.It is reported thatthe second accused is on bail.Hence, the concerned Sessions Judge shall takesteps to commit the second accused to jail to undergo the remaining period ofsentence.In the result, with the above modification in conviction and sentence,the appeal is dismissed.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Thanjavur.Inspector of Police,Kumbakonam East Police Station,Kumbakonam.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
160,545,797 | D/L 31 (SKB) CRM 5820 of 2020 CRAN 4234 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Chapra P.S. Case No. 365 of 2019 dated 19.11.2019 under Sections 326/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act.And In the matter of: Asraf Sk. @ Gharami @ Asraf Sk Gharami ....Petitioner.Ms. Pronoti Goswami ... for the petitioner.Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ...for the State.The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court.The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about 9 months and 10 days.According to her, the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code do not implicate him.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State strongly opposes the prayer for bail.He submits that an 2 injured eye witness, the statements recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 of the Code specifically implicated the present petitioner.Considering the materials available against the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant bail to him.Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.The application being CRAN 4234 of 2020 is disposed of.(Jay Sengupta, J.) (Sahidullah Munshi, J.) | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,986,545 | The State of M.P. ) of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant shall mark his presence before the concerning Police Station in the first week of every month till conclusion of investigation (pending if any) and if charge sheet is being filed, he will mark his presence as per the directions issued by the concerning trial Court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(Vishal Mishra) Judge AK/-ANAND KUMAR 2020.02.18 17:50:30 +05'30' | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,002,008 | ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::2 Apeal672-04.odtThe friends and eyewitnesses to the incident then took theinjured PW3 for treatment to the Government Medical Collegeand Hospital at Nagpur.On the basis of the statement given bythe injured PW3, a first information report (FIR) was registeredagainst the appellant for offence punishable under 324 of theIPC i.e. voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon ormeans.The weapon of assault,being a knife, was recovered and it was sent for chemicalanalysis.An injury certificate pertaining to the injury suffered::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 ::: 3 Apeal672-04.odt by the said PW3 was also obtained and placed on record.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11witnesses.On the basis of the oral anddocumentary evidence on record, the trial Court came to theconclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against theappellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and hestood convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid manner.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::In view of the fact that there were three eyewitnessesand an injured victim who deposed in favour of the prosecutioncase and the injured victim PW3 had indeed suffered injury,the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that there wasinsufficient evidence to prove occurrence of such an incident, isnot sustainable.The evidence of the injured victim andeyewitnesses is consistent as regards the manner in which theinjury was inflicted by the appellant on injured victim PW3.Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination ofthese witnesses and, therefore, to that extent, the contentionraised on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::The said document at Exh.69 shows that theweapon was a knife having length of 11 ½ cm and breadth of 2cm and width of 0.2 cm with a handle.The next document relied on by the learned counselfor the appellant was the injury report at Exh.47, which notedthat there was a stab wound of ½ cm X ½ cm, also referringthe surgical repair of the injury by the Doctor.On the basis ofthe said two documents, it was contended that even if it wasaccepted that the aforesaid weapon i.e. knife was used by theappellant to inflict single injury on the injured victim PW3,dimensions of the injury clearly demonstrated that the knifewas not used with extreme force.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::evidence of the Doctor PW8 and PW11 do show that while thebreadth of the knife recorded in Exh.69 was 2 cm, thedimensions of the injury were only ½ cm X ½ cm.Theevidence of the Doctors shows that such an injury could havebeen inflicted by a Gupti.The injured victim PW3 in hisevidence has also stated that the appellant had inflicted injuryon his abdomen but he could not tell as to whether the saidweapon was knife or Gupti.All that the injured victim statedwas that the appellant had assaulted by means of a sharpweapon.The description of the knife at Exh.69 clearly showsthat if it was indeed used with extreme force, the injury wouldbe certainly larger than ½ cm X ½ cm.This is because thebreadth of the knife has been specifically stated as 2 cm andits length as 11 ½ cm.In this backdrop , there appears to besubstance in the contention raised on behalf of the appellantthat the statements made by the two doctors PW8 and PW11 intheir evidence that the injury was sufficient in the ordinarycourse of nature to cause death, were statements made in amechanical manner without there being any substantialsupport of other material or evidence on record.Thiscontention raised on behalf of the appellant was vehementlyopposed by the learned APP, pointing out that the record::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 ::: 8 Apeal672-04.odt demonstrated that the injured had to undergo surgery and heremained in hospital for about 12 days for treatment.According to the learned APP the said injury inflicted by theappellant fell in the category of grievous hurt and it could notbe termed to be hurt as defined under Section 319 of the IPC.A perusal of the document at Exh.69 (description of weapon)and Exh.47 (injury report) read with the evidence of theDoctors PW8 and PW11 shows that the appellant inflicted onlya single injury on the abdomen of the victim PW3 and thatforce applied while inflicting the said injury resulted in only aninjury of ½ cm X ½ cm.This nature of injury could certainly beclassified as hurt under Section 319 of the IPC , which reads asfollows:-::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::In the caseof Deorao Motiram Sakharkar .vs.Applying the said precedents to the facts of the::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 ::: 10 Apeal672-04.odt present case, in the light of the aforesaid document at Exhs.69and 47, read with the medical evidence, it appears that theconviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in thepresent case against the appellant under Section 307 of the IPCis not sustainable.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::There is no doubt that the aforesaid injury wasindeed inflicted by the appellant and that, therefore, he is liableto be punished for the same.But, the evidence on record andthe facts and circumstances of the present case show that endsof justice would be met by altering the conviction of theappellant from Section 307 of the IPC to Section 324 of the IPCin the present case.It is also relevant that the incident in thepresent case took place more than 20 years ago i.e. on13.03.1998 and the appellant was in jail for a period of aboutsix months from the time when he was convicted andsentenced by the trial Court, till he was granted bail by thisCourt.Considering the fact that the incident in the presentcase took place more than 20 years ago and the appellant isheld to be entitled for alteration of conviction to Section 324 ofthe IPC, this appeal is disposed of in the following terms:::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::(iv) Upon deposit of such fine amount, it shall be madeover to the injured victim PW3 Raju Vitthalrao Bokde ascompensation.Appeal is disposed of in above terms.(Manish Pitale, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 01:26:52 ::: | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,012,266 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Since both the applications are related to one crime, therefore both the applications are heard simultaneously and decided by common order.Applicant Vinod Kumar is in custody since 29.4.2014, whereas applicant Arun Kumar Pandey is in custody since 30.4.2015 in connection with Crime No.87/2015 registered at Police Station Laur, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 377, 376, 511 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant Vinod Kumar is a youth of age group of 24 years of age and applicant Arun Kumar Pandey is an old person of 58 years of age.There is no criminal past alleged against them.Initially the prosecutrix had stated that the applicants inserted penis in her mouth, however the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her mother Kavita (PW-1) have been examined before the trial Court and the prosecutrix did not allege that any of the applicant has done as alleged by her in the past.On the contrary, she has stated that the applicants inserted finger in her mouth.No offence under Section 366, 377 or 376 of IPC is made out against the applicants.Similarly, no offence under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act is made out against the applicants.The remaining offences are not so grave.The applicants are in custody without any sufficient reason.Under these circumstances, they pray for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) each with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 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. |
118,020,675 | O.P.No.3677 of 2020 P.RAJAMANICKAM.J., ebsi ToThe Superintendent of Police, O/o.CRL.O.P.No.3677 of 2020 25.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 4/4This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioner in the name of investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/4 Crl.O.P.No.3677 of 2020When the matter came up for last hearing i.e., on 20.02.2020, Mr.V.Logeswaran, learned counsel represented that he will file intervener application and considering the said submission, the case has been adjourned and posted today.But so far, he has not filed any intervening petition.Hence, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and on perusing the materials on record, order is being passed in this petition.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that based on the complaint lodged by one Loganathan, the second respondent has registered a case against the petitioner.O.P.No.3677 of 2020 hence only for investigation purpose, the petitioner was called and without subjecting herself to the process of law, she rushed to this Court and filed this petition and hence he prayed to dismiss this petition.Admittedly, a case has been registered against the petitioner herein in Crime No.14 of 2019 on the file of the second respondent under Sections 120 (b), 420, 506 (1) of IPC.So far, the petitioner, neither surrendered before the second respondent nor obtained any anticipatory bail.Under the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that she is being harassed by the respondent police.For investigation purpose, the respondent police are entitled to arrest the petitioner and enquire her.Hence, this Court does not find any merit in this petition.For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.25.02.2020 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order ebsihttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 Crl.Superintendent of Police, Erode.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,435,338 | For the sake of felicity, brief facts of the case, as noted by the trial court, are reproduced as under:-"1. ... the prosecution case is that on 13.8.2007 on receipt of DD No.33 SI Rajni Kant along with Const.Rakesh reached the spot i.e. Magnum Coaching Centre, 33 ft road.Harsh Vihar where injured Vinay was found lying unconscious; that SI Ajay Negi also reached at the spot and sent the injured to GTB Hospital through PCR Van.He left Const.Rakesh at the spot and he went to GTB Hospital where he obtained the MLC of injured who was declared fit for statement.In his statement injured Vinay stated that he was working as a driver of the private vehicle of Grijesh Singh, Sub Inspector of Delhi Police.That on 12.08.07 at about 11.30 PM, he reached his house i.e C-2/76, Harsh Vihar, Delhi and after taking meals went to the terrace for sleeping.After some time he also received a telephone call from Kuldeep from his mobile No.9990090250 and both of them called him at Devinder's dairy at 33 foota road, Harsh Vihar.Since he knew Bunty and Kuldeep, he reached there within 10 minutes where Bunty, Kuldeep, Amit Sharma (who was Dinesh Giri's friend), Devinder and one other boy were present and were consuming liquor.They offered him liquor.He refused to take liquor as he had to go early the next morning.At this Amit (since expired), Bunty and the unknown boy started abusing and threatening him saying that "tu hamare gang mein shaamil ho ja' (you join our gang).When he refused, Devinder and Kuldeep instigated them by saying that "Iska dimag kharab ho gaya hai, oose theek kerna padega" (He has gone out of his mind, he has to be set right).At this Amit took out a CRL.A. 28/2013 & CRL.A. 131/2013 P a g e 2 of 18 country made pistol and threatened him that "Jo hamara sath nahi dega oose apni jaan se hath dhona padega" (anyone who is not with us will have to pay with his life) and thereafter other four persons also pressurized him to join them.At his refusal, Amit Sharma cuffed him and other four persons caught hold of him and Amit Sharma fired a shot at his chest from the katta with an intention to kill him.Thereafter there was a power cut and it started raining also, all the accused persons caught hold of him and threw him outside the dairy on the road and fled from the spot.When he regained consciousness, he called up at no. 100 from his mobile phone.PCR van came there and rushed him to GTB hospital.He wanted that legal action be initiated against them.SI Rajni Kant seized the clothes of injured Vinay, summoned the crime team, prepared ruqqa and gave it to Const.Rakesh for registration of FIR.Thereafter further investigation was marked to SI Ajay Singh Negi.Photographs of the spot were taken, blood, earth control and bloodstained earth were lifted from the spot.Thereafter accused Kuldeep and Devinder were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded.On 15.8.2007, accused Bunty @ Dharmender was arrested, his disclosure statement was recorded and pointing out memo was prepared at his instance.On 17.8.2007, accused Suresh surrendered before the court of Ld.M.M. and he was arrested in the present case.His TIP was got conducted.On 15.9.2007, accused Amit was arrested, his disclosure statement was recorded.One desi Katta along with two live cartridges and its cover were recovered at the instance of accused Amit and same were seized.After completing other necessary formalities charge sheet was filed u/s 307/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act."He deposed that he was working as a private driver for one Grijesh Singh.On 12.08.07, after finishing his job, he had returned to his home when he received a call from Kuldeep and Dharmender @ Bunty who told him that Devinder was calling him.The said call was received by him at about 12:30 am at midnight.As he already knew Kuldeep and Dharmender @ Bunty, he went to meet them at Tyagi Dairy.At the Dairy, he met Devinder, Kuldeep, Bunty and Amit and one more person whom he did not know at that time (later identified as Suresh).He identified all the accused persons in Court.He further deposed that when he reached the Dairy, all the accused persons were consuming liquor and they asked him to join them.When he refused, the accused Bunty and Kuldeep told him "DARU PEE LEY TERA JYADA DIMAAG KHARAB HO RAHA HAI".Thereafter, the complainant was told that if he did not CRL.A. 28/2013 & CRL.A. 131/2013 P a g e 4 of 18 drink, they would kill him.At that time, accused Amit Sharma took out a katta (country made pistol) and asked the injured to join their gang else he would be killed.While all the appellants caught hold of him, accused Amit Sharma fired a shot from his katta which hit the complainant on his chest due to which he fell down.Thereafter, the appellants threw him outside the Dairy.When the complainant regained consciousness, he called up police at 100 number from his mobile phone.The police took him to the hospital where his statement was recorded.He further deposed that as he was not in a position to sign the statement, his thumb impression was taken at point 'A'.The statement was exhibited as Ex.He deposed that he remained in the hospital for 17/18 days.Thereafter he had gone for the TIP proceedings at Tihar Jail where he identified the appellant, Suresh.He again identified all the appellants and also identified his clothes which were seized during the investigation.The shirt and baniyan were exhibited as Ex. P-6 & P-7 respectively.On the same day i.e., on 05.02.2009, the witness was cross- examined.During cross-examination, he stated that when he reached Tyagi Dairy, the appellants were present but it was dark as there was no electricity.He deposed that even prior to the incident, he and the appellants were known to each other.However, he turned hostile on the point of identification of the appellant Suresh and giving any statement to the police or the doctor at the time of MLC.He also stated that prior to CRL.A. 28/2013 & CRL.A. 131/2013 P a g e 5 of 18 the TIP proceedings, the police officials had shown the photograph of appellant- Suresh to him.He further stated that his statement (Ex. PW1/1) was not read over to him and his thumb impression on it was taken by the police officials while he was still unconscious.He further stated that he had identified the appellants on the previous date at the asking of the police officials.He deposed that in the midnight of 12/13.08.2007, he received an information that 'mere ladke Vinay ko kuchh ladkon ne 33 Foota Road, Harsh Vihar, mein goli maar di'.On receiving this information he reached GTB Hospital.He deposed that in his presence, the statement of his son was recorded by SI Rajni Kant, whereafter his son put his thumb impression on the same and he also signed it.He also identified his signatures at point 'B' and thumb impression of his son at point 'A' on the said statement.During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the statement of his son was not recorded in his presence and that he signed the statement in the police station later on.He initially did not support the prosecution case, however, on being cross-examined by the learned prosecutor, he admitted that the appellant Devinder was CRL.A. 28/2013 & CRL.A. 131/2013 P a g e 6 of 18 working in his dairy which was situated at 33 foota road, Gali No. 12, Harsh Vihar.He admitted that Devinder often used to stay and sleep in his dairy.He also admitted that on 12.08.2007 i.e., the night of the incident, Devinder telephonically informed him that since it was raining, he would be staying at the dairy instead of going to his village.He admitted that on the night of the incident, Devinder had stayed at the dairy.POLICE AND OTHER WITNESSESHe stated that on receiving a call from the PCR, he reached the spot i.e., House No. C-2/371, Gali No.12, Harsh Vihar where he met SI Rajni Kant, the Investigating Officer.He also saw the blood which was lying on the floor of the room.Mahavir Singh (PW7) had accompanied SI E.S. Yadav to the spot.He took the photographs of the crime scene and the same were exhibited as Ex. PW7/A to PW7/K and negatives thereof as Ex. PW7/L to Ex. PW7/U.By way of the present appeals, the appellants have assailed the common judgment on conviction dated 08.10.2012 and order on sentence dated 19.12.2012 in FIR No. 697/07 under Sections 307/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, P.S. Nand Nagri whereby all the appellants were convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC and were sentenced to RI for four years along with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default whereof to undergo RI for one year.It was also directed that the fine imposed i.e., CRL.A. 28/2013 & CRL.A. 131/2013 P a g e 1 of 18 Rs.1,00,000/- (in total) shall be payable to the injured/complainant after the expiry of the period of appeal.As both appeals assail a common judgment, they are taken up together for hearing and are disposed of vide this common judgment.After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present appellants and another co-accused, Amit Sharma.The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.During the trial, accused Amit Sharma expired and the proceedings qua him stood abated.The prosecution had examined twenty one witnesses.Dr. Lawish Agarwal (PW18) proved the MLC Ex. PW18/A of the injured.Dr. Devender Kumar (PW19) proved the nature of injuries of the injured as grievous.HC Rakesh Kumar (PW11) had accompanied SI Rajni Kant to the spot where he met the injured.He deposed that the injured had sustained an injury on the right side of his chest.The PCR van took the injured to the hospital.He had witnessed the proceedings conducted at the spot.He further deposed that at about 03:15 am, he took the rukka and got the FIR registered.CRL.A. 28/2013 & CRL.A. 131/2013 P a g e 7 of 18He deposed that after the injured was declared fit by the doctor, the statement of the injured was recorded in the presence of his father.The statement of the injured was read over to the injured and his thumb impression was taken at point 'A' and signature of his father was taken at point 'B' on it.He also deposed that seizure memos were prepared and the crime team was called at the spot.He further deposed that rukka (Ex. PW20/A) was prepared in his handwriting.He proved the call detail records (Ex. PW16/A) with regard to mobile number 9211544503 which belonged to the appellant, Dharmender.He also placed on record the certificate (Ex. PW16/B) in compliance of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that the aforesaid mobile connection was issued in the name of Naresh Sharma.He also exhibited the copy of CAF (Customer Application Form) along with photocopy of the identity proof of the customer as Ex. PW16/DA.The aforesaid mobile number was in the name of Naresh Sharma S/o Mahesh Sharma.I have heard Mohd. Shamikh, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned APP for the State.I have also gone through the entire case record.The injured, Vinay Kumar during his examination in chief completely supported the prosecution case.He not only identified all the CRL.A. 28/2013 & CRL.A. 131/2013 P a g e 8 of 18 appellants but also described the specific roles played by them.He was cross examined on that day, when he turned hostile on the point of identification of the appellant Suresh and disclosing the names of the appellants to the Investigating Officer and the Doctor.It is apparent that the cross examination took place after about 10 months and 11 days.When a witness turns hostile in the cross examination which takes place after a lapse of considerable time from the examination-in-chief, an inference arises that the witness has been won over.The testimony of a hostile witness does not get completely wiped out.If a part of the testimony of such a witness is reliable, the same can be used in the aid of the prosecution case.The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof."CRL.A. 28/2013 & CRL.A. 131/2013 P a g e 9 of 18 "7...............The examination-in-chief of this witness was recorded on November 16, 1976 when he identified all the assailants by name.He stated that he knew the six accused persons in court.......... His cross examination commenced on December 15, 1978........ The High Court came to the conclusion and, in our opinion rightly, that during the one month period that elapsed since the recording of his examination-in-chief something transpired which made him shift his evidence on the question of identity to help the appellant.We are satisfied on a reading of his entire evidence that his statement in cross-examination on the question of identity of the appellant and his companion is a clear attempt to wriggle out of what he had stated earlier in his examination-in-chief."As noted above, the injured was cross-examined after nearly 10 months.His testimony so far as identification of the appellants and disclosure of their names and roles finds support from the testimony of Sunil Tyagi, the Dairy owner.Mahender Singh, father of the injured testified that the statement of the injured where names and roles of all the appellants were given was recorded by SI Rajni Kant.As such, the version given by the injured during his cross-examination is unbelievable.In view of the testimony recorded in the examination-in- chief of the injured, the positive identification of the appellants by the injured in court during his examination-in-chief, the testimony of Mahender Singh and Sunil Tyagi, it stands proved that all the appellants were present at Tyagi Dairy at the time of the incident.The injury suffered by Vinay Kumar is duly corroborated by the MLC as well as the FSL report.Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the first information of the crime was recorded in the form of DD No. 33 CRL.A. 28/2013 & CRL.A. 131/2013 P a g e 10 of 18 (Ex.PW5/A).He contended that as per the said DD entry, the following information was recorded "motor cycle wale goli maar ker bhag gaye".The said information was received from mobile number 9971450915 which belonged to the injured.He contended that though the initial information was about being shot by people who were on a motorcycle but the case set up by the prosecution was not in line with the above information.I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the information recorded vide DD No. 33 and the subsequent prosecution case were different.Merely non-mentioning of the motorcycle in the rukka or in the deposition will not erode the credibility of the testimony of the injured.The testimony of the injured that he reached at the spot after receiving a call from Dharmender is duly corroborated by the call detail records which have been proved on record by Manish Kumar Singh, the Nodal Officer.The appellants have not denied that the mobile number 9971450915 belonged to the injured.The mobile number 9211544503 belonged to one Naresh Sharma.The trial court noted that Naresh Sharma is the real brother of appellant, Dharmender Sharma S/o Mahesh Sharma.The presence of Devinder at the Dairy on the night of the incident was duly corroborated by the statement of Sunil Tyagi, the Dairy owner.He had deposed that on the date of the incident, he received a call from Devinder informing him that he would be staying at the Dairy itself.The presence of the other appellants was duly stated by the injured in his examination-in- chief.The prosecution has been able to prove that the incident took place CRL.A. 28/2013 & CRL.A. 131/2013 P a g e 11 of 18 at 33 foota road, Harsh Vihar.The first information recorded vide DD No.33 also mentioned that the occurrence of the incident took place at 33 foota road, Harsh Vihar.Learned counsel for the appellants further contented that though the injured was stated to be conscious and the appellants were already known to him, yet their names were neither mentioned in DD No. 33 nor in the MLC.He, thus, contended that the appellants have been falsely implicated.The injured had suffered a gunshot injury on his chest because of which he remained hospitalized for 17/18 days.Even otherwise, the primary duty of the doctor is to treat the patient and not to find out as to who had caused the injury. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,944,411 | ORDER Rajagopalan, J.The charges against the petitioner who was accused 1 in the lower Court were in the alternative (1) under Sections 457 and 380, Penal Code that he broke into the house of P. W. 1 and committed theft of a bicycle; and (2) that he dishonestly possessed M. Os. 2 and 3, a dynamo and a light, which formed part of the bicycle alleged to have been stolen.The conviction it-self was with reference to the second of the charges, punishable under Section 411, Penal Code.The conviction was confirmed on appeal.Hence this petition for revision.That it mast have been stolen, can admit of no doubt.The bicycle itself was abandoned.The substantial question that arises for determination in this case is whether any portion of EX. P-3 is admissible at all under Section 27, Evidence Act. The portion of Ex. P-3 that was admitted in evidence in this case in the trial Court was:"I gave the dynamo and the light to Venkataswami (accused 2) .... I got back from Venkataswami the dynamo light.... and the dynamo stolen from my next house and sold them to the proprietor of a soda factory near the Pillayar temple in Anuppapalayam for Rs. 15." | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,441,413 | P R AY E R : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in S.C.No.373 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court) Thanjavur and set-aside the conviction, fine and sentence imposed on the appellant by the judgment dated 20.03.2017 and acquit the appellant.The appellant herein is the first accused in S.C. No. 373 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court) Thanjavur and he was tried for various offences and vide the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2017, the Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the appellant/the first accused as under :-Section Sentence U/s 120(b) r/w 409 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment of 1 year Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous U/s 409 IPC imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment of 1 year Convicted and sentenced to undergo 2 years s.i with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to U/s 343 IPC undergo 3 months simple imprisonment The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and set off was also granted under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Challenging the said conviction, the present appeal is filed before this Court.The case of the prosecution was that the deceased Akila @ Akilandeswari received a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for securing job for Chandran and Janakiraman, her relatives.Similarly Rajkannu Manjojkumar and Niyas also paid money to her for securing jobs.Buthttp://www.judis.nic.in2/21 Crl.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017 as promised, she did not secure any job to them.However, the abovesaid persons got their money back through the second accused namely, Balu @ Balasubramanian.Likewise, there were several persons who gave their money amounting to different sums to the said Akila @ Akilandeswari for securing them jobs.Since, ultimately the job has not been secured to the persons from whom moneys were received by her, a complaint was lodged.On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.495 of 2007 against the three accused for the offences under Sections 343, 306, 354, 409 r/w 120(b) IPC and Section 4(B) of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. The appellant is arrayed as the first accused, who was the Inspector of Police and A3 was the Head Constable.Both the first and third accused were working in the Thanjavur Medical College Police Station.A2 is a close associate of A1 and he was known to the deceased Akila @ Akilandeswari.After completion of investigation, a final report was filed by the jurisdictional police.All the three accused were framed with identical charges as mentioned above.The trial court observed the usual formalities of questioning the accused and providing them the charge sheet, under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.http://www.judis.nic.in3/21 Crl.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017 Thereafter, criminal trial was set in motion.During the criminal trial, on behalf of the prosecution, 93 witnesses were examined and 106 documents were marked and 4 Material Objects were produced and on the side of the defence, 2 witnesses were examined and no document was marked.On completion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the third accused from all charges.The second accused died during the trial.The first accused alone was convicted for offences under Sections 120(b) r/w 409 IPC together with under Sections 409 and 343 IPC.The conviction as recorded by the trial court is the subject matter in the present appeal.On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel has appeared.According to the learned Senior Counsel, though 3 charges were framed against the appellant herein, the charge sheet did not specifically indicate the commission of any offence which would led to charging him for the offence under Section 120(b) r/w 409 IPC.Out of three charges, the first charge is for the offence under Section 120(b) IPC.The second one is offence under Section 343 IPC.The third one is offence under Section 409 IPC.Nohttp://www.judis.nic.in4/21 Crl.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017 where in the charge sheet, it is mentioned that the first accused committed an offence under Section 120(b) r/w 409 IPC for which the appellant/first accused was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment.After completion of trial, the appellant alone is convicted for the offence under Section 120(b) r/w 409 IPC and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.As far as the offence under Sections 409 and 343 IPC are concerned, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is absolutely no evidence to show that Rs.2 lakhs was recovered by the appellant, who was the Inspector of Police-in-charge of the investigation in respect of job rocketing involved by the deceased Ahila @ Ahilandeswari and others.According to the prosecution, under the guise of recovery of amount from the deceased person, the appellant had confined her in a hotel at Thanjavur and recovered Rs.2 lakhs and accounted only Rs.40,000/- as if only Rs.40,000/- was recovered and the remaining Rs.1,60,000/- was misappropriated by the appellant/first accused.Therefore, trust vested in the public servant has been violated, which would attract the offence under Section 409 IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in5/21 Crl.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017The learned Senior counsel would draw attention of this Court to the crucial pieces of evidence in regard to Sections 409 and 343 IPC.Not even a whisper was made anywhere in the evidence deposed by several witnesses that there was an entrustment of Rs.2 lakhs and major portion was misappropriated.Some of the crucial witnesses have turned hostile and they deposed that there was no entrustment of money to the first accused at all during the process of investigation.Further, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in view of the death of the second accused during the trial and also complete acquittal of the third accused from all charges, the question of the first accused being found guilty for offence under Section 120(b) IPC did not arise at all.In the absence of involvement of other accused, there cannot be a charge of conspiracy attributable to the first accused/the appellant at all and on that short ground alone, the finding of the trial court about guilt of the appellant under Section 120(b) IPC is liable to be set aside.The learned Senior Counsel during the course of his argument would also draw attention of this Court to the finding of the trial in paragraph No.12 of the judgment in which it is observed that the collection of money by the appellant is evident from the suicide notes of the deceased.http://www.judis.nic.in6/21 Crl.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would further draw reference to the suicide note which is marked as Ex.P.4 wherein the deceased Akila @ Akilandeswari has stated as follows:''They are aiming for more money it seems today we have to give 7 lakh.I am let with one option.I could no more bear this sexual torture-ma, Ma'' According to the learned Senior counsel, in view of the abovesaid suicide note the trial court has presumed that the first accused has committed an offence under Section 120(B) r/w 409 IPC.Except this statement which was found in the suicide note by the deceased Ahila @ Ahilandeswari, there was no other independent witnesses to corroborate that there was entrustment of money to the first accused namely, the appellant herein.The learned Senior counsel would draw attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 wherein they did not say anything about the amount which was paid to the first accused.In fact, they deposed that all the money was paid to the second accused and some of the witnesses were turned hostile.On cross-examination, the prosecution did not elicit any information directly connecting the appellant herein for misappropriating the money entrusted to him, which according to the prosecution, the appellant had recovered thehttp://www.judis.nic.in7/21 Crl.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017 money from the deceased in order to make payment to the persons from whom the amounts were received by the deceased.As regards the wrongful confinement for offence under Section 343 IPC is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that admittedly the deceased was staying in a private lodging house at Thanjavur at the relevant time.There was no evidence that she was confined in a room at the instance of the appellant herein.In fact, it is stated that she was really moving around which would demonstrate the fact that there was no incident of wrongful confinement of the deceased.As far as the offence under Section 343 IPC is concerned, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, who are the parents of the deceased would point out that the deceased was never wrongfully confined at any place.P.W.1 has stated to the Revenue Divisional Officer that he and her daughter during first week of November 2007, stayed at a hotel, namely Temple Tower and after that, they did not meet any person and he returned to Coimbatore and the deceased went to Chennai.Therefore, the charge that the deceased was wrongfully confined from 1.11.2007 to 13.11.2007 was contrary to the evidence and records.Unfortunately, the trial court on the presumption that thehttp://www.judis.nic.in8/21 Crl.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017 deceased was wrongfully confined in a hotel has convicted the appellant herein.In fact, the trial court does not give any specific finding as to when the appellant had received the money from the deceased.The learned Senior counsel would submit that the trial court had recorded that the appellant is an efficient and excellent police officer and he was placed in the IG Team to assist the investigation officers involved in 8 Districts.Though the compliment was paid to the appellant, nevertheless, the trial court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment without any factual or legal basis.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017 present appeal.This court records that this fact has been accepted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor during the time of argument.Therefore the learned senior counsel would submit that this is not the case where some evidence was available for which there could be presumptions and influence the court.But on the other hand, there appears to be no evidence at all for implicating the appellant to the charges framed against him and therefore it is a fit case that the conviction recorded by the trial court to be set aside.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that as many as 93 witnesses were examined and 106 documents were marked.However the learned Additional Public Prosecutor acknowledges that as far as the appellant is concerned, the evidence of few witnesses were relevant and other witnesses deposed about giving money to the deceased Akila @ Akiladeswari and other persons.However the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that there is sufficient evidence to convict the appellant.Unfortunately, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is unable to point out as to what is the clinching material to show that there was entrustment of money to the appellant for discharging duties in order to implicate him for offences under section 409 IPC.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is unable to showhttp://www.judis.nic.in10/21 Crl.However, he was unable to point out whether staying of the deceased in a hotel would amount to wrongful confinement since her father himself has deposed that it was on their own volition they came and stayed at the hotel.In fact after staying in the hotel she went to Chennai and her father went to Coimbatore.Appellant No.1 has therefore, terminated the contract.Further, the amount has been retained by him as a security because not only is there any handing over of constructed portion, the complainant has also got into part possession of the property and has not handed it back.Also, the complainant has failed to get the property vacated from the tenant’s possession.We, thus find that it is not possible to hold that the amount of Rs. One crore which was paid along with the development agreement as a deposit can be said to have been entrustment of property which has been dishonestly converted to his own use or disposed of in violation of any direction of law or contract by thehttp://www.judis.nic.in13/21 Crl.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017 Appellant.Most significantly the Respondent No.2 has not demanded the return of the amount at any point of time.In any case, we find that the dispute has the contours of a dispute of civil nature and does not constitute a criminal offence.He would submit that when there is no evidence to show entrustment of money to the appellant, the offence of criminal breach of trust did not arise at all.In this case, there is absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that there was entrustment of money at any point of time with the appellant for which even the offence under Section 409 IPC will have to go.As regards 120 (b) IPC, since the second accused died during the trial and the third accused was acquitted from all charges, the allegation of criminal conspiracy would not arise at all.http://www.judis.nic.in14/21 Crl.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017As far as Section 343 IPC is concerned, such Section cannot be invoked in the present case since it emerges from the evidence that the deceased was moving freely and there is no wrongful confinement and there is absolutely no evidence to implicate the appellant even for the offence under Section 343 IPC.Further, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel when the second respondent died during the trial and the third accused was acquitted from all the charges by the trial court, in such situation, the record of conviction for criminal conspiracy under Section 120(b) IPC did not arise at all.The question of appellant who was the first accused entering into criminal conspiracy in the absence of conviction of others cannot be countenanced both on facts and in law.Once one of the accused died and other accused was acquitted from all the charges, the appellant herein cannot be convicted alone for offence under Section 120(b) IPC.Therefore, this Court finds that conviction rendered by the trial court for offence under Section 120 (b) IPC r/w Section 409 IPC is without application of mind and without reference to the legal requirements.The conviction recorded under Section 343 IPC is concerned, overwhelming evidence unequivocably show that the deceased AKila @ Akilandeswari was not wrongfully confined at the instance of the appellant herein.As per the evidence placed on record, she was moving freely and she was also travelling.No witness has spoken about the wrongful confinement of the deceased at the hands of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in16/21 Crl.Unfortunately, the trial court has drawn inference on presumptions and without any basis had convicted the appellant under Section 343 IPC.This court once again notes that the record of conviction under Section 343 IPC cannot be countenanced both on facts and aw.Further, the conviction recorded under Section 409 IPC is concerned, the trial court placed reliance on suicide notes, which were marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.However, the appellant's name has not been mentioned as the person who was entrusted with money.She had stated generally that 'they were demanding more money'.In the absence of naming the person, it is unsafe to draw the conclusion on the basis of presumption that the deceased meant the appellant herein demanding more money.Such a course adopted by the trial court did not advance the case of impartial trial and conclusion.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017 In the absence of any evidence implicating the appellant for offence under Section 490 IPC, the trial court has unfortunately determined to hold that the appellant is guilty of the charges on sympathetic basis due to the death of the deceased AKila @ Akilandeswari.Moreover, the trial court ought to have seen that there are other accused who have received money for securing job on behalf of the deceased and it was very much possible that the deceased could have suffered at the hands of others also.In the said circumstances, it was too unsafe to pinpoint the guilt only as against the first accused/the appellant herein for which he was ultimately convicted by the trial court.In fact the trial court has paid compliment to the appellant that he was an efficient and excellent police officer and he was placed in the IG Team to assist the investigation officers involved in 8 Districts on the one side.But on the other side, the trial court had convicted him for the criminal breach of trust and both observations suffer from contradictions in terms.Be that as it may, ultimately, this Court has to see whether there is acceptable piece of evidence in order to implicate the appellanthttp://www.judis.nic.in18/21 Crl.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017 for the charges framed against him.From the entirety of the evidence and other materials placed on record, this court is unable to see even an iota of evidence connecting the appellant with the charges framed against him.For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is convinced that the conviction recorded by the trial court against the appellant herein has to be interfered with.The appellant has made out a clear case for the grant of relief of acquittal from all charges.Therefore, the judgment dated 20.03.2017 made in S.C.No.373 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court) Thanjavur, is set aside.The appellant is acquitted from all the charges.Any amount paid towards fine shall be refunded by the trial court forthwith.In fine, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.2 7.1 1.2 0 1 9 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No CMhttp://www.judis.nic.in19/21 Crl.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court)The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in20/21 Crl.A.(MD) No.101 of 2017 V. PA R T HI B A N , J CM C rl.A.(MD) N o. 1 0 1 o f 2 0 1 7 2 7.1 1.2 0 1 9http://www.judis.nic.in21/21 | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,445,535 | This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.32/2016 registered at Police Station, Kanad, District Agar, for the offence punishable under Section 326-A & 302/34 of the IPC.As per prosecution case, Anusuiya wife of Kamal Bairagi brought in burnt condition to the hospital at Agar from where she was referred to Jhalawad.The information was sent on which dying declaration was recorded, wherein she stated that she was cooking food, her husband quarelled with her.Thereafter, her husband poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.When specific question has been asked what she wants to say, she stated that at the behest of her Devrani Reena Bai, her husband set her on fire.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence.She has falsely been implicated.There is no allegation against the applicant for taking active participation in the crime.It is further submitted that in the dying declaration deceased has made allegation against the applicant that at the behest of applicant, her husband set her on fire.It is further submitted that co-accused Munna Bai has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02/04/16 passed in M.Cr.Conclusion of trial likely to take time, hence prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent/State.Case-diary perused.As per the medical report 93% 1st and 2nd degree burn has been found.As per postmortem report, deceased died as a result of septicemic shock due to burn injuries.The dying declaration has been recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhalawad, wherein she stated that she was cooking food, her husband quarreled with her.Thereafter, her husband poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.When specific question has been asked what she wants to say, she stated that at the behest of her Devrani Reena Bai, her husband set her on fire. | ['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. |
194,446,602 | The prosecution case was that the accused, a plot promoter and builder, under a false promise of constructing houses for PW-1, entered into an agreement, received sums of Rs.2,30,000/- and Rs.2,25,000/- on 17.09.2003 and 03.05.2004 respectively and issued receipts for the same.As the accused failed to keep up his promise, PW-1 demanded return of monies and the accused has issued 3 cheques each in a sum of Rs.50,000/- on different dates.On presentation, the cheques were returned for the reason insufficient funds. When PW-1 questioned the accused regards dishonor of cheques, he issued life threats.Hence, PW-1 preferred a complaint against the accused.A case was registered in Crime No.209 of 2007 on the file of the first respondent for offences u/s.420 and 506(i) IPC.On completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, the case was tried in C.C.No.194 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District.Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined three witnesses and marked two exhibits.None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any documents marked.On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court rendered a finding of acquittal.Against such finding, the present revision is filed.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).The trial Court found that though PW-1, in Ex.P1 [complaint], has stated that he entered into an agreement with the accused towards construction of houses, the said agreement or any other document relating thereto, has not been produced/marked before the Court.While PW-1, in chief, had deposed that the cheques issued by the accused were dishonoured, in cross, he had admitted that he had not instituted a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act there regards.The said cheques have also not been marked.The trial Court found that from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it was clear that the property in question originally belonged to PW-3, that the accused introduced PW-1 to PW-3, that a sale agreement was entered into between PW-1 and PW-3 and that the accused and his brother were witnesses to such agreement.Thus, the trial Court found that in keeping with the said agreement, PW-1 had purchased the property from PW-3 and the same was substantiated by the evidence of PW-1, in cross, to the effect that he was in possession of the original documents to the property in question and that there was no evidence to prove that the accused was the owner of the property.The trial Court further found that PW-2, wife of PW-1, had deposed that they have intimated the accused in writing the receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- from him which they had given him prior to purchase of the property.Though PW-1, in cross, had deposed that he was in possession of documents to property and that he had produced a Xerox copy of the same before the police station and before this Court, no document was produced/marked therebefore and hence, the trial Court thought it appropriate to draw adverse inference against PW-1 in keeping with Section 114(g) of Indian Penal Code.As regards offence u/s.506(i) IPC, the trial Court found that though PW-1, in his complaint, had stated that the accused had issued life threats, he, neither in chief or in cross, had deposed of any such acts by the accused.Similarly, PW-2 had not made any such allegation.Finding as above, the trial Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly, acquitted him of all charges.11.11.2014Index:yes/noInternet:yes/nogmTo1.The Inspector of Police, Guduvancheri Police Station, Chengapattu Taluk, Kanchipuram District.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,446,703 | The petitioner and other accused pressurized him for publishing counter of the said news, but the complainant did not 2 Criminal Revision No.292/14 do so, therefore, accused started keeping enmity with him.On 8.11.1971 they falsely involved the complainant in a murder case and on 13.11.1971 when he was sitting at his door, then accused No.1 Premshankar Mishra, who was the then Sub-Inspector of police, apprehended him and snatched a gold chain of 2.5 Tola and Rs.1,000/- from him.His clothes were torn and he was beaten with kicks and fists and he was taken to Police Station, Kotwali, Bhind, only in inner garments.(18/02/2020) The instant Criminal Revision is under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.3.2014 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Criminal Revision No.16/11, whereby the appellate Court set aside the judgment dated 18.10.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.716/2019 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind, and remanded the case for re-framing of charges and for deciding the matter after hearing the parties.Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed a complaint against the petitioner and other respondents before Judicial Magistrate First Class on the allegation that respondent No.1/complainant is editor of weekly newspaper "Nirmohi" and he published some alleged disparaging news/article against petitioner and other respondents.In the police Station, other accused also committed Marpeet and tortured him.He was manhandled and abused and his procession was undertaken by defaming him while writing Bhind Ka Guna on his chest.On his complaint, as per the direction of District Magistrate, though an enquiry was conducted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but he got disappointment from the said enquiry and thereafter he filed the present private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class.After filing of the private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, charges were framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and thereafter trial was conducted.The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class framed three questions for deciding the controversy which are reproduced as under :-1- D;k vkjksihx.k us fnukad 13-11-1971 dks LFkku xzke uqUgkVk etjk dksdflag ds iqjk es tc vfHk;ksxh dksdflag ds iqjk es dksdflag iq= yYyw flag ds njokts ij cSBk gqvk Fkk rks vius lkekU; vk'k; ds vuqdze esa vfHk;ksxh dksdflag dks ykr ?kwlksa] twrksa }kjk ekjihV dj mls LoSPN;k lk/kkj.k migfr dkfjr dh \ 2- D;k mDr fnukad le; o LFkku ij vkjksihx.k us vfHk;ksxh dksdflag dks] xaHkhj izdksiu djus o vuknfjr djus ds vk'k; ls mldh twrksa }kjk rFkk mls x/ks ij fcBkydj twrks dh ekyk igukdj vkijkf/kd cy dk iz;ksx fd;k \ 3 Criminal Revision No.292/14 3- D;k mDr fnukad le; o LFkku ij vkjksih izseizlkn us vfHk;ksxh dksdflg ds xys es iMh lksus dh tathj rksMdj o usg:dV tkdsV dh tsc esa j[ksa ,d gtkj :i;s csbZekuh iwoZd vk'k; ls fudkydj ywV dkfjr dh \ After appreciating the evidence and documents on record, Judicial Magistrate First Class held that complainant Kok Singh was under-trial in criminal case and was required for investigation, therefore arrested and complainant failed to prove that petitioner and respondent No.2 at the time of arrest in village Nunhata committed Marpeet with him with legs and fists and willingly caused injuries.Similarly, evidence regarding question No.2 was discarded by the Judicial Magistrate.So far as question No.3 is concerned, the Judicial Magistrate First Class held that complainant did not examine any witness who was present on the spot, therefore, Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted the petitioner and respondent No.2 from the charges, but kept the case pending against respondent No.3 as he was absconding.Against the acquittal of petitioner and other respondent, complainant filed an appeal before the 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, (although without mentioning any provision of law) and prayed for setting aside the judgment of Judicial Magistrate First Class and as per the allegation, Additional Sessions Judge overlooked the provision of Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. and passed the impugned order, therefore, petitioner has preferred this petition.He prayed for setting aside of the impugned order.Despite notice issued to the respondents on 2.9.14 through registered AD mode, nobody turned up and office report dated 13.10.2014 indicates that notice has been served and nobody turned up on behalf of the respondents and it is an old matter, therefore, matter is heard finally.Thereafter, appeal has been preferred by the complainant before the appellate Court and appellate Court remanded the matter back to the trial Court. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,458,454 | Navi Mumbai.2 The FIR was lodged by Prakash MadhukantChandebhamar.The complainant is the Finance Manager withA.P.M. Terminal India Pvt. Ltd. The head ofice of the Company issituated at Lower Parel, Mumbai.The CFS of the Company issituated at Plot No. 100, Sector 2, Dhronagiri, Uran and Plot No.5/18, Sector 6, Dhronagiri, Uran.Since 2012 to 2019Yogesh Agarwal was working as Head of Finance Division of theCompany.The containers of import and export of the Companyare kept after custom clearance of the goods C.H.A. on paymentof charges.The goods are delivered by persons working in both ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 ::: Ethape 3/9 926-ABA-260-320-2020 aw IA-1-20 .docxthe Departments of the Company.There are various departmentslike import and export, admin, security, fnance etc. in thecompany.Some of the workers are outsourced from anotherCompany.Documents are annexed to the interventionapplication.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 ::: Ethape 4/9 926-ABA-260-320-2020 aw IA-1-20 .docx5 Learned counsel for the Applicant in Anticipatory BailApplication No. 260 of 2020 submitted that, the Applicant hasbeen falsely implicated in this case.The FIR mentions that, thealleged irregularities were prior to his joining.The Applicant hasnot participated in this crime.The Applicant has not played anyrole in the misappropriation.The Applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation.The custodial interrogation of theApplicant is necessary.Misappropriation is to the tune of crores ofrupees.The accused are involved in forgery of documents.It is submittedthat, the transaction involved huge amount.The documentsrelating to PDA adjustment entries were also produced to showthe complicity of the accused.8 Learned counsel for the intervener placed reliance onthe documents annexed to the intervention application andcertain documents tendered during the course of his submissionswith regard to pre-deposit, advances etc. It is submitted that, inDecember 2018 the complainant carried out internal audit anddiscrepancies were identifed in Container Management andAccounting System.Thus, the payment were received in the form of cash or incheques.DATE : 20th FEBRUARY 2020PC.1 The Applicants are apprehending arrest in connectionwith C. R. No. 277 of 2019, registered with Uran Police Station,Dist.Navi Mumbai, under Sections 408, 465, 467, 468, 477 Aread with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").First Information Report (for short "FIR") was registered on 11 thDecember 2019 with Uran Police Station, Dist.Applicant Sharukh Shaikh, Yatin Kadam and others areworking in the Company.It was noticed that, the accused hadacted in connivance with M/s. Shubham Clearing andForwarding Agency and by way of false advances, huge amountis siphoned.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 :::4 The complainant has intervened and preferredInterim Application No. 01 of 2020 opposing grant ofanticipatory bail.The cash amount was collected by the co-accused.It was not stated that Applicant has collected the cash.Statement made to the Chartered Accountant incriminating theApplicant is not admissible in evidence.Itis submitted that, co-accused has admitted that he used user IDof Applicant and other persons.The co-accused has takenresponsibility of fraudulent activities committed by him in theletter to APM Terminal India Pvt. Ltd.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 :::6 Learned counsel for the Applicant in Anticipatory BailApplication No. 328 of 2020 submitted that, the interventionapplication and its connected documents relied upon by theintervener is based on audit and internal inquiry.It is allegedthat the confessional statement, during the inquiry, was notrecorded in free atmosphere.The confessional statement runsinto 20 pages.It cannot be considered as incriminating evidenceagainst him.It is not admissible in evidence.The Applicant iswilling to produce bank statement.The provisions of theInformation Technology Act were not invoked.The Applicant is ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 ::: Ethape 6/9 926-ABA-260-320-2020 aw IA-1-20 .docxwilling to explain the entries and transaction by appearingbefore the investigating oficer.The ofence is of technicalnature.The Applicant would be in a position to tenderexplanation to the investigating oficer.Adverse inference cannotbe drawn against him on the basis of allegation withoutunderstanding the scope of nature of allegation.The Applicantneed not be subjected to custody.The Applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation.No ofence is made out in the FIR.7 Learned APP submitted that, ofence is serious innature.Both Applicants have played vital role inmisappropriation of amount.The Accused had acted in connivancewith each other.The crime was committed during the tenure ofthe Applicants.Bank statement of the ApplicantSharukh Shaikh for a period between 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015is produced for perusal.Learned APP pointed out the transactionin the said account.Similarly the bank statement for a period of ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 ::: Ethape 7/9 926-ABA-260-320-2020 aw IA-1-20 .docx01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017, 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018 and01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019 were also produced.Statements of witnesses recordedduring the course of investigation were pointed out.The saidwitnesses have disclosed the involvement of the Applicants andthe manner in which the transaction is executed.Theinvestigation conducted by the Police refects complicity of theApplicant.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 :::The cash component was never deposited by Applicantsand others in the bank and was siphoned of.It was suspectedthat, the accused had forged the entries and misappropriated thefunds of the Company.The accused had confessed the crime.Upon conducting a thorough analysis of the containermanagement system.Auditors have identifed that around 314customers invoices have been adjusted against forged and fakeadvance entries amounting to Rs.6,33,00,000/- by fve cashiersincluding the Applicants, in collusion with the Clearing HouseAgents.It is further submitted that the Auditors conducted aninquiry and the cashiers were interrogated and afterinterrogation the Applicants admitted that cash was siphonedaway with the help of Clearing House Agents.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 :::9 I have perused the documents and also perused theinvestigation papers.Thorough investigation is required to beconducted.Prima facie it appears that, fraud has beencommitted by the Accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 :::Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 260 of 2020and Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 328 of 2020 arehereby rejected.Interim Application No. 01 of 2020 is disposed of.( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. ) ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:32 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,944,601 | Public Witness -1 Smt. Vijya Lakshmi, the complainant of this case accompanied by her mother-in-law Public Witness -2 Smt. Vidya Wati on September 5, 1986 had come to Daryagani for consulting some doctor and after taking medicines from the doctor they proceeded to the Fountain on Chandni Chowk, from where they boarded a four wheeler scooter being driven by PW-8 Jagdish bearing No. DLR-214 for coming back to their house in Shahdara and at the time Suresh accused also boarded that four wheeler.At about 2.30 P.M. the said four wheeler reached Dharampura Bus Stand, G.T. Road, Suresh alighted from the said vehicle and paid his fare and immediately he snatched a golden chain being worn by Public Witness -1, in the process causing injuries to her neck and he started running away and was being followed of Public Witness -1 Smt. Vijay Laxmi and at that time fortunately enough constable Vijender Singh, Public Witness -7 who was just on routine patrolling duty arrived at the spot and he, on hearing the cries of the complainant, proceeded to follow the appellant and with the help of Public Witness -3 Sukhpal Singh, a public witness the appellant was apprehended.Before the appellant could be nabbed, the appellant had taken out a dagger with which he inflicted the injury on the hand of the constable threatening to kill him.JUDGMENT Bahri, J.(1) These two appeals have been filed by Suresh Kumar who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara for an offence punishable under Sections 3901 39213941397 Indian Penal Code .and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000.00 , in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under one count and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years under, the second count under the Arms Act with the directions that both the sentences are to run concurrently.The golden chain which was snatched from Smt. Vijay Laxmi's neck Ex. Pi was recovered from the pocket of the trousers of the appellant and the dagger was also seized.The appellant was brought to the police station Along with the said dagger and the golden chain and witnesses.The case was registered on the statement of Smt. Vijay Laxmi by the duty officer A.S.I. Rajinder Singh, Public Witness -6 and Ex. Public Witness 1/A is the copy of the FIR.A.S.I. Rajinder Singh also prepared the sketch of the dagger Public Witness 1/C and converted the golden chain as well as dagger into the separate sealed parcels and took them in possession by Memos Public Witness 1/B and Public Witness 1/D and deposited the case property in the Malkhana.The investigation was entrusted to S.I. Parkash Chand, Public Witness -9 who recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the spot and prepared the site plan Public Witness 9/A and also arrested the appellant and prepared the personal search memo of the appellant Ex. Public Witness 9/A. He took into possession the document Ex. Public Witness 41A. a copy of the receipt showing the purchase of the golden chain.Public Witness 5 Ramesh Chand is the goldsmith.All these witnesses duly proved the case against the appellant.The story which was suggested by the appellant in cross-examination of the main witnesses is that he in fact had got into that four wheeler Along with the other passengers including Public Witness -1 and Public Witness -2 and had alighted at the Dharampura Bus Stand.According to him the golden chain of Public Witness 1 was snatched by some other person who escaped from the spot while he was unnecessarily taken to the police station and was falsely implicated in this case.So, the appellant did not dispute the factum of his being present at the spot and that the robbery having taken place but he only set up the plea that he was falsely implicated.In the cross-examination of Public Witness -1 nothing was suggested to show as to why the complainant should have falsely implicated the appellant.Admittedly she had been robbed of her golden chain and there was no reason turn her to .falsely implicate the appellant if the appellant was not the culprit.Secondly, the golden chain which was robbed from the complainant, was recovered at the spot from the appellant.If some other person had committed the robbery and taken away the robbed golden chain, there could be no occasion for the golden chain being found on the person of the appellant.Danger could have been kept concealed by the appellant in the dub of his trousers and he could have taken out the dagger in order to avoid his being caught by the constable and the said public witness who were pursuing him.The contention that the dagger could not have been kept by the appellant in the trouser's dub does not convince me at all.So, it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that appellant had committed this robbery and had caused injury with the said dagger on the person of the said constable and while committing the robbery he had caused hurt to the complainant and the golden chain in question and the dagger in question were recovered from the appellant.The dagger in.(4) A half hearted contention was raised on behalf of the appellant that being a young person aged about 22 years or so at the time of commission of the offence, should have been given the benefit of Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The counsel for the appellant forget that under Section 394, Indian Penal Code , an imprisonment for life is also prescribed as a sentence and where such sentence is prescribed, provisions of Probation of Offenders Act are not applicable.Indian Penal Code .for imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and fine cannot be read conjunctively so as to mean that it provides an alternative sentence for the offence concerned.It was held that where the accused is convicted under Section 394, Indian Penal Code .he cannot be given the benefit of provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. As far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, the same is well based because the appellant had used the said dagger for inflicting injury on the person of the constable when he was being apprehended by him.I hence confirm the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 394 Indian Penal Code .Indian Penal Code to four years rigorous imprisonment.The appellant be informed about this judgment through Superintendent of Jail.Both the appeals arc dismissed with above modification. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,460,216 | The motive having its origin in the marital discord is established from the ocular and documentary evidence.34. PW-2 has testified that there had been a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased in the morning of 28.06.1996 in the course of which the appellant had become abusive and violent.She, however, took it as a routine happening and went away on her duty having left the house at about 8 AM advising the appellant not to indulge in such behaviour.She was informed at about 10 AM in the office about the Crl.2) in the present case.On the Crl.A.No.173/2000 Page 21 of 26 contrary, she being privy and a resident of the same room was in the best position to bring out the true facts.A.No.173/2000 Page 21 of 26During the course of investigation at the scene of crime, the IO (PW-19) had found, amongst others, two parts of scissors, broken from each other.One blade of the scissors (Ex.P1) bearing blood stains was found lying near the dead body and was seized vide Ex.The other part of the scissors, the blade (Ex.P2), its nut and bolt were found lying on a shelf during search of the place and were seized vide separate memo (Ex.During the investigation, the IO had also collected sample of the blood stains lying on the floor and from around the dead body vide seizure memo (Ex.PW/D), broken pieces of glass (Collectively Ex.P3) near the lower limbs of the deceased, vide memo (Ex.PW-2/C), and a tape recorder with cassette (Ex.P4 and P5 respectively) besides blood stained clothes, towel, pillow, bed sheets, mattress, shoes etc. (Ex.P6 to P15) vide memos (Ex.PW-2/A to F).One part of the scissors (Ex.P1), found lying near the dead body was sent to the autopsy doctor (PW-3) on 29.06.1996 with the request (Ex.PW-19/D) for opinion about its possible use to inflict the injuries noted in the post-mortem examination report.PW-3 gave subsequent opinion (Ex.PW-3/B), inter alia, drawing a sketch of the said part instrument recoding her views that the external injuries mentioned in the autopsy report could possibly have been inflicted with it having been used as a weapon.On 06.07.1996 the said very part of the Crl.A.No.173/2000 Page 22 of 26 scissors (Ex.P1) was also sent to Dr. Arun Kumar (PW-17) with the request (Ex.X X XA.No.173/2000 Page 20 of 26 violent incident and had rushed back home to learn the details of what had happened.A.No.173/2000 Page 20 of 26The appellant relies on Shivsharanappa & Ors.V. State of Karnataka (2013) 5 SCC 705, Surjit Singh & Anr.V. State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 110 and Lalla @ Raj Kumar Singh V. State of U.P. 2004 (2) Crimes 101 to argue that the conduct of Seema Mehta (PW-2) was unnatural and so does not deserve to be believed.The appellant referred to the judgment of the learned sessions judge, Pauri Garhwal in the earlier case to point out that the testimony of this witness was found to be fraught with exaggerations.He refers to her testimony in the trial court mentioning the incident in the morning of 28.06.1996 wherein the deceased was beaten by the appellant in PW-2's presence.The argument raised is that given the past conduct, PW-2 could not have trivialised this incident and proceeded to her office simply after counselling the appellant.PW-17/B) as to its possible use vis-a-vis the injuries suffered by the appellant, as noted in the MLC (Ex.PW-1/A).PW-17 recorded his opinion (Ex.PW-17/C) again confirming that the sharp injury noted in the MLC could possibly have been inflicted with the said part scissors having been used as a weapon.A.No.173/2000 Page 22 of 26The witnesses of the scene Meena Chauhan (PW-8) and Devender Kumar (PW-9) have affirmed on oath that when their attention was drawn towards the room occupied by the appellant (and the deceased) in the morning of 28.06.1996, blood was coming out from beneath the door, which was bolted from inside.Both spoke about efforts being made by the local residents to get the door opened but with no immediate success.Upon information reaching the police station (vide DD no.4A), head constable Satyabir Singh (PW-11) was the first police official to reach the scene.He has testified confirming the word of PW-9 in particular that it was only after the arrival of the police that the door was opened by the appellant.As per the evidence of PW-11 when he had reached the place, the tape recorder was running on full volume inside the room.Thus, PW-8 and PW-9 may not be wrong in stating that they had not heard any cries that might have been raised for help by the deceased at the time of the assault.It has been the defence of the appellant that some intruder had entered the room and had fatally stabbed his wife and also wounded him with the same weapon.As noted earlier, it was a small room with only one door for gaining entry into or exit from the place.The said door was bolted from inside.We are not persuaded to accept the Crl.A.No.173/2000 Page 23 of 26 defence plea that the intruder may have put his hand through the window to latch the bolt back on the door from inside while leaving the place.There is no evidence showing any such possibility and is rather farcical.This theory was not suggested to any of the relevant witnesses.In our considered opinion, this plea raised at the stage of appeal is nothing but a wild imagination.A.No.173/2000 Page 23 of 26The possibility of an intruder having come in to commit the offence and then having gone out after bolting the door from inside by accessing the bolt through the window is, thus, non-existent. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,944,652 | JUDGMENT S.S. Ganguly, J.This is an appeal from the judgment and order of conviction passed by Shri D. Banerjee, Sessions judge, Midnapore Under Section 302 I.P.C. in Sessions Trial case No. XVI of April, 1983 sentencing the accused--appellant Dulal Nayek of Village Phulpahari under Police Station--Kotwali to imprisonment for life.On allegation that he had killed his wife, Bari Nayek by hitting her violently on her head twice with the wooden leg of a cot, the appellant stood his trial before the learned Sessions Judge who finding the prosecution case established against him beyond any reasonable doubt and disbelieving his plea of insanity has convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated above.Hence, this appeal.The points which arise for decision in this appeal are (1) if the evidence on record justify the appellant's conviction and (2) if any plea of insanity was established before the learned Sessions Judge.Information of her death reached the Police Station at 12.30 P.M. (P.W.10) and S.I, Sarbagna the I.O. (P.W.11) who reached the house of Dulal at Phulpahari that very day at about 2.00 P.M. (P.N.4) found the dead body of Bari lying there with two wounds on her head.Post-mortem held on the very following day also revealed two wounds with fractures of both the parietal bones and serious intracranial injuries which according to Dr. B. C. Roy of Sadar Hospital, Midnapore who held the post-mortem examination (P.W.6) were sufficient to cause death and did actually cause death in this case.The injuries, so opined the doctor, were ante mortem and might be caused by hard and blunt substance such as the leg of a cot.It is pretty clear that somebody had caused the death of Bari by hitting her twice on her head with some hard and blunt substance.The learned Sessions Judge as stated above has held that it is the present appellant who had caused the death of his wife by hiting her on her head twice with the wooden leg of a cot.Now, it appears that in coming to his decision in this regard the learned Judge has relied to a great extent on the evidence of two eye-witnesses of the incident--one of whom, i.e., Lakshmi Nayak (P.W.2) is the mother of the appellant himself and the other, i.e., Chhabi Mitra (P.W.3) is none other than a sister of hers apart from being a very close neighbour.Lakshmi (P.W.2) said in her evidence before the learned Judge that it was her.Our son the present appellant who had hit his wife twice on her head with the leg of a cot.She saw him delivering both the blows.Chabbi (P.W.3) on the other hand said in her evidence that hearing the cries of Lakshmi (P.W.2) she had come out of the doors of her house when she saw the present appellant hitting his wife on her head with the leg of a cot.The learned Judge has placed his lull reliance upon the evidence of these two witnesses and we cannot blame him either.Ordinarily the near and dear ones of an accused do not come to depose even if they are eye-witnesses and when they do they almost invariably depose in his favour.Here is a case rarest of the rare where a mother and her sister came to depose against their own son and nephew charging him with the most heinous crime imaginable--battering to death a defenceless and an unsuspecting woman without any apparent provocation whatsoever.That is very good reason why the evidence of these two witnesses should have been accepted, for, it is quite clear that poor and unlettered rustic women as they were, they felt that the truth should be told and the guilty punished according to law even though the guilty in this case was none other than their own son or nephew.In this connection it must be added that the defence did not even suggest that the two witnesses had any particular reason for deposing falsely against the present appellant.They being witnesses of truth, therefore, the learned Judge certainly made no mistake by relying on them.It appears further that in coming to his conclusion in this regard the learned Judge has also taken into his consideration the other materials on record which are corroborative in nature.Thus there is the evidence of Binode Nayek, (P.W. 5) the eldest brother of the appellant himself who hastened to the spot hearing the hue and cry raised by his mother (P.W. 2) almost immediately after the incident.He says that at that very time Chhabi (P.W. 3) told him that the present appellant had battered his wife to death.The witness also says that he detained the appellant who seeing him tried to run away.Another brother, Sushil Nayek (P.W. 4) who came back home at about 11.00 A.M. got the same version from his mother Lakshmi (P.W. 2) and he also says that the appellant was trying to run away and was detained by them.This witness (P.W. 4) together with Asoke Das (P.W. 1) who drew up and sent the F.I.R. (ext. 1) to the police station, corroborating S.I. Sarbagna (P.W. 11) also said that in pursuance of a statement made by the appellant and at his pointing out the leg of a cot (ext. 1) was recovered from a bush.This leg of a cot which on chemical examination was found to contain blood stain (ext.5(2) was identified by Lakshmi (P.W. 2) as the weapon of offence in this case.The naming of the appellant by the two witnesses as the culprit shortly after the incident, his attempts to run away, recovery of the blood stained leg of the cot identified by one of the eyewitnesses as the weapon of offence from a bush at the instance of the appellant and the results of the post-mortem examination fully corroborate the version of the eye-witnesses.It appears from Chhabi's evidence that her house is situated only 5/8 cubits away from the house of the appellant and further that whereas her house faces east, that at the appellant faces west.It was perfectly possible, therefore, on her part to come out of her house hearing the cries of Lakshmi (P.W. 2) as the first blow was delivered, to witness the second blow being delivered. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,716,187 | In view of the guidelines laid down by this Court, the urgent bail applications have been directed to be heard through Video Conferencing.Written submissions have been received online from Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, Counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record.Heard Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, Counsel for the applicant through Video Conferencing.This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Adil, who is involved in Case Crime No. 1132 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 323, 332, 336, 353, 427, 436, 120-B IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station- Kotwali City, District- Bijnor.The applicant has been implicated along with 18 named accused persons forming mob of 200 to 250 people who had gathered in front of a mosque raising Anti C.A.A. slogans and indulged in vandalism. | ['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. |
1,187,238 | The Judgment of the Court was delivered byKhanna, J. The short question which arises for determinationin this appeal on certificate granted by Patna High Court iswhether the appellant who was less than 21 years of age onthe date of his conviction for an offence under section 326read with section 149 Indian Penal Code, can claim the,benefit of section 6, of the Probation of Offenders Act,,1958 (Act No. 20 of 1958).,876The appellant and five others, who belong to village Mandilin District Gaya, were tried in the court of AdditionalSessions Judge Gaya for offences under sections 147, 148,307, 323 and 307 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code andsection 25 of the Arms Act. Jugal Kishore appellant wasconvicted under section 326 read with section 149 andsection 148 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of five years on thefirst count and rigorous imprisonment for a, period of twoyears on the second count.The sentences awarded to theappellant were ordered to run concurrently.Madho Saran went to his houseand narrated the incident to his brother Sadho Saran.MadhoSaran and Sadho Saran along with others then came out oftheir house and while they were near a barrage, they met theaccused who were accompanied by about 30 person of theirvillage.One of the accused, namely, Hira Lal, who wasarmed with a gun, fired a shot as a result of which Sadho'Saran was hit on his head.Sadho Saran fell down,whereafter87 7the other accused, including the appellant who was armedwith a garasa, caused further injuries to Sadho Saran andhis companions with sharp-edged and blunt weapons.Theinjured were thereafter taken to Jehanabad Hospital.Appeal under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of Indiafrom the judgment and order dated December 10, 1968, of thePatna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1966.S. M. Mishra and S. S. Jauhar, for the appellant.B. P. Jha, for the respondent.The other fiveaccused were also convicted for various offences and weresentenced on those counts.On appeal the Patna High Court as per judgment dated January22, 1968 acquitted two of the accused.The conviction ofthe appellant for offences under section 326 read withsection 149 and 148 Indian Penal Code was maintained.Thesentence of the appellant for the offence under section 326read with section 149 Indian Penal Code was reduced fromfive years to three years.The sentence for the offenceunder section 148 Indian Penal Code was, however,maintained.The conviction of the other three accused wasmaintained for some of the offences, and they were awardedsentences of imprisonment on that count.After the pro-nouncement of the judgment by the High Court, an applicationwas made on behalf of the appellant that his case be deal;with under the Probation of Offenders Act on the ground thathe wag below 21 years of age at the time of his convictionby the trial court.This application was rejected by theHigh Court as per ,order dated December 12, 1968 on theground that the offence for which the appellant had beenconvicted was punishable with imprisonment for life, and assuch, the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act could nobe invoked in his case.On prayer made by the appellant,the High Court certified the case to be fit for appeal tothe Supreme Court as it involved the question relating tothe applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act.Field No. 1719belonged to the appellant.Onreceipt of intimation from the doctor incharge of thehospital, a police Sub Inspector went to the hospital andrecorded the statement of Madho Saran, Nand Kishore, one ofthe accused, also lodged a report at the police station.Appellant to surrender to the bail bond.Appeal dismissed. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,725,321 | It is stated that parties have entered into the compromise voluntarily without any threat or caution.Ms. Versha Kothari, counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant.The parties filed I.A. No.11182/2018, an application for compromise.On the report of complainant Sonam Jain, the Crime No.170/15 was registered at Police Station, Bhedaghat, Jabalpur for offences under Sections 341, 354, 354-D and 506-II of the IPC.Considering the same, matter was referred to the Registrar (J) for verification of compromise dated 10.7.2018, the same has been received. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,726,073 | As per prosecution case, on 03-09-2018, there was celebration of "Gokulasthmi Festival" in the Nandurbar town.The events of "Dahihandi" was arranged in the area of "Andhare Chowk" and the first informant Shri Pintu Narendra Maske and his associates had been to Andhare Chowk for participation in the celebration.JUDGMENT :-1. Heard.Both the appeals are taken up for final hearing on merit with the consent of both parties to appeals.Both these appeals are arising from one and the same Crime No. 292 of 2018 and rests on the identical issue of anticipatory bail in the offence of the Act of 1989, therefore, these allied appeals are dealt with simultaneously for its adjudication on merit by this common Judgment.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 :::3 Cri Al-847-18-JWhen the first informant Shri Pintu Maske and his associates were prepared to participate in the event to break the pot, that time the appellants and their 10/15 accomplices picked up the quarrel with them.They hurled castiest abuses to the first informant and his associates by saying that they have no right or eligible to participate in the event to break the pot of 'Dahihandi festival'.The appellants and their accomplices advised them in sarcastic manner that they only use to celebrate Ambedkar Anniversary.The appellants and their 10/15 accomplices started assaulting them with kicks and fists.They also forcibly snatched away the golden chain of first informant worth Rs.30,000/-.Pursuant to First Information Report (for short "FIR") filed by one Pintu Narendra Mhaske, the Police of Nandurbar City Police Station, Nandurbar, District Nandurbar registered the Crime No. 292 of 2018 and set the Penal law in motion against the appellants and others.I.O. arrested one co-accused Shri Sachin Pardeshi in this crime and obtained his police custody remand for investigation.The present appellants have an apprehension that they may be arrested in this crime.Therefore,::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 ::: 4 Cri Al-847-18-J apprehending their arrest at the hands of police, the appellants rushed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar and filed the applications bearing Bail Applications No. 208 and 209 of 2018 for the relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. However, learned Sessions Judge found reluctant to grant relief of pre-arrest bail to these appellants and rejected the applications filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge is challenged in these appeals.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 :::The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that the appellants are innocent of the charges levelled against them.They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case on account of political rivalry.The learned counsel drawn the attention of this Court towards the documents of FIR of Crime No. 288 of 2018 and submits that there was another FIR by one Ajay S/o Rajesh Tamyachekar, the associate of the appellants for assault and robbery by the first informant Pintu Mhaske of the present crime.The appellants Yuvraj was the eye-witness of the incident.Therefore, the first informant Pintu Maske in order to give counter-blow to the earlier complaint vide Crime No. 288 of 2018, filed the present false FIR after two days of the incident.The appellants are resident of Nandurbar town.There is no possibility::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 ::: 5 Cri Al-847-18-J of absconding the accused.They are ready to abide the conditions, if any, imposed on them.Their custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case.Hence, he requested to nod in favour of appellants for relief of anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 :::6. Learned APP for respondents raised objection and submits that the section 18-A of the Act of 1989 put embargo on the Court for exercising powers under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The appellants abused the complainant on his caste within public view.Therefore, application for anticipatory bail of the appellants cannot be entertained.The learned APP produced on record the relevant documents of investigation of the crime for perusal.The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also filed affidavit-in-reply on record.When the Court is held competent to enter into scrutiny of the allegations to determine whether the person can be treated as accused of commission of offence under the Act of 1989, then question would arise as to what extent the Court would be justified to examine material to determine the prima facie case against him.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 :::In the instant appeals, the prosecution applied the provisions of section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989 against the present appellants which reads as under :Punishments for offences of atrocities :-(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :-There are sweeping and omnibus allegation and no specific aspersion against each of the present appellants in regard to their overt-act or castiest abuses flung towards complainant.At this juncture, it would be profitable to make reference to the observations of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Shashikant Ramhari Tambe and others Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 All MR (Cri)2132, in which it has been observed in paragraph No. 5 that:::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 :::Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants."It is also essential to take into consideration that in the present crime the FIR came to be filed at a belated stage after about two days of the incident.There was another Crime::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 ::: 9 Cri Al-847-18-J No. 288 of 2018 registered against first informant of the present crime, namely, Pintu Mhaske and the present appellants - Yuvraj was shown as one of the eye-witnesses of the incident in the said FIR.These circumstances are, prima facie, sufficient to create flaw in the veracity of allegations nurtured against the appellants.In regard to charges of rioting and dacoity under Section 395 of the IPC, there are no incriminating circumstances prima facie on record to show the involvement and participation of appellants for committing crime of dacoity.The I.O. has also availed custodial interrogation of one of the co-accused in this case.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 :::There is also no possibility of absconding of the accused in this crime.So far as the apprehension of tampering with the evidence of prosecution is concerned, the requisite conditions would be imposed on the appellants.Therefore, there is no impediment to allow the::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 ::: 10 Cri Al-847-18-J present appeals for the relief of anticipatory bail as prayed in the present appeals.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 :::In sequel, the appeals stand allowed.The impugned orders dated 28-09-2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, in Bail Applications No. 208 and 209 of 2018 are hereby quashed and set-aside.The applications of the appellants filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for their pre-arrest bail before the learned trial Court are hereby allowed.The appellants- (1) Yuvraj S/o Mohansingh Pardeshi and (2) Sudarshan S/o Krishnasingh Pardeshi, in Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2018 and appellants- Ketan S/o Dilipsingh Raghuvanshi (Pardeshi), in Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2018 be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 292 of 2018 registered at Nandurbar City Police Station, District Nandurbar, for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 323, 395, 504 read with section 149 of the IPC as well as section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount each.It is stipulated that appellants- applicants shall not indulge, directly or indirectly, in any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of prosecution witness.The appellants/applicants shall attend the Nandurbar City Police Station, District Nandurbar, on every Sunday in between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet and shall co-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 :::investigation into the crime.Inform the concerned Investigating Officer accordingly.The present Criminal Appeals stand disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK.***::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:18 ::: | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,187,277 | ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 :::On 5.11.2007, while the prosecutrix-Puja was returning to her house from the house of her girl- friend, the appellant who was her neighbour and known to her since prior to the date of the incident, met her and threatened her and took her forcibly to S.T. Stand, Yavatmal and thereafter to village Bechkheda, to the house of his relative Bagya, who resided with his old mother.The appellant falsely told them that prosecutrix is his wife.On that night, Bagya and his mother slept outside their house ; whereas appellant and the prosecutrix slept inside the room.It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant on that night forcibly committed intercourse with the prosecutrix as also on consecutive night.On 7.11.2007, the prosecutrix insisted to leave her to her house.She came to her house and narrated the incident to her parents.According to the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 ::: 3 prosecution, the appellant, an already married man with a wife and two children, had falsely assured prosecutrix that he will marry her.First Information Report was lodged on 6.11.2007 by the father of prosecutrix after he came to know while searching for his daughter, that appellant had enticed his minor daughter.During the course of investigation, accused / appellant was nabbed and investigating Officer drew spot panchnama; statement of Prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded; clothes of prosecutrix were seized;::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 :::Sample of her blood, pubic hair, vaginal swab were collected.While prosecutrix was referred to Medical examination.................................................................................... Sixthly, with or without her consent when she is under sixteen years of age."PW 1 Puja contended that while she was going to her School, the accused had followed her and talked deliberately, threatening to kill her if she tells about talking to her.Then accused took her forcibly to the S.T.Stand Yavatmal and then to village Bechkheda in the house occupied by one Bagya and his mother, telling them that prosecutrix is his wife.DATE OF RESERVING: 17.09.2009 DATEOFPRONOUNCEMENT: 23.09.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :By means of this Criminal Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.09.2008 in Sessions Trial No.21/2008 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, whereby the appellant was found guilty and convicted for offence punishable under ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 ::: 2 sections 363, 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" in short) and sentenced as under :The accused was also referred for medical examination and sample of his semen and pubic hair were collected.Clothes of the appellant were also seized during investigation.The Investigating Officer collected date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix from her School.Upon completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Yavatmal, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Yavatmal.The charge was framed against the appellant under sections 363, 366 & 376 of the IPC on 9.6.2008, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.His defence is of total denial.The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses including the prosecutrix to prove the offences alleged.The appellant did not lead ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 ::: 4 any defence evidence.The trial ended in conviction and sentence, as aforesaid.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 :::In support of the Appeal, Mr K S Deshpande, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the exact age of the prosecutrix is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 :::I have considered the submissions in the light of the rulings cited supra, looking to the facts and circumstances brought on record, in the present case.A married man much elder to her with two children had no excuse whatsoever to entice and remove her away from her natural guardianship in such a way to seduce or force her to sexual intercourse.Learned APP submitted that sexual intercourse by appellant with prosecutrix amounted to rape, irrespective of her consent as she was minor girl, below 16-years of age on the date of the incident.9. Let us now turn to evidence as regards age of the victim girl:PW 1 Puja/(victim ) stated her date of birth being 7.7.1992 in her evidence.She specifically denied suggestion in cross-examination put to her by the defence Advocate that she is falsely stating her age.Thus, the suggestion otherwise which are denied would not help the contention of the defence that Puja was major girl.On the date of incident i.e. on 5.11.2007 Puja was of 15- years 3 -months and 28-days old i.e. much below the age of 16 years.Father of the prosecutrix has no reason nor any suggestion to falsely ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 ::: 7 implicate the appellant.PW 5 PSI Vivek Kurwade had collected the School leaving certificate of prosecutrix.PW 7 H S. Hore, Headmaster of the Z.P.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 :::Original school admission register entry (Exh.32) and true copy (Exh. 34 ) indicates that she was studying in 9th standard.Further it indicates the same birth date 7.7.1992 which, according to the witness, is true and correct.Medical witness Dr. Vibhuti Panbude (PW 8) also confirmed that Puja is aged about 15 years.The evidence led as above by the prosecution is sufficient and beyond reasonable doubt enough to conclude that victim girl was below 16 years of age as on the date of the incident.We now turn to the evidence as regards kidnapping and rape as led in the trial Court:On 5.11.2007 at about 1.45 p.m. while Puja was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 ::: 8 returning from the house of her girl friend and was near Sharda Chowk, accused met her and asked her to come along with him; but she refused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 :::While Bagya and his mother slept outside in verandah, accused slept inside with prosecutrix and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her under threat that if prosecutrix shouts he could kill her.On 6.11.2007 also during evening, accused committed forcibly sexual intercourse with her while prosecutrix had asked him to leave her to her house.The evidence also indicate that accused had during transit promised to marry with prosecutrix though accused was already married having two children out of the wedlock.Father of the victim girl lodged FIR.In cross-examination, it is revealed that victim girl knew the appellant who resided near her house since one or two months prior to the incident.She admitted in the course of cross-examination that she had love affair with accused since 2/3 months prior to the incident.Her father (PW 2) however, denied it.Medical evidence of PW 8 Dr.Vibhuti indicate that prosecutrix Puja was examined and it was found that her hymen was ruptured and vagina admitted two fingers easily.Dr. Vibhuti also deposed that generally ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 ::: 9 hymen ruptures due to sexual intercourse while it can be ruptured by other sources also.The victim girl was found capable of sexual intercourse (Exh.43) Jangya (innerwear) Art.5 of the victim referred to C.A. and Regional Forensic Science Laboratory was found to have stained with human blood in the middle portion and appeared to be washed although group of blood could not be determined.Accused on his medical examination (Exh. 51) was found able to do the sex or intercourse.Thus, there was corroborating evidence consistent with the evidence by prosecutrix.In defence, the appellant denied the prosecution case in toto claiming that false case is filed against him.Even otherwise, consent of prosecutrix is no defence when she was below 16 years of age on the date of the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 :::Thus, there appears sufficient and reliable evidence that the accused had enticed the prosecutrix who was under sixteen years of age a took away at his relatives' house in village Bechkheda, without the consent of the prosecutrix's lawful guardian ( father or mother ) and had subjected her twice to forcible sexual intercourse, at the house of his acquaintance.Undoubtedly, the prosecutrix was a minor below 16 years of age, taken away from lawful custody of her parents and had been subjected to rape.Rulings referred to by Shri Deshpande, Adv.for appellant are not ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 ::: 10 attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to rescue the appellant in any manner, including on the point of quantum of sentence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 :::Seven years substantive imprisonment awarded by the trial Court was directed to run concurrently on every count of conviction and I do not find reasons adequate or special enough to award sentence of imprisonment for less than seven years prescribed as minimum for offence of rape u/s 376 IPC which was coupled with the offence of kidnapping punishable u/s 363 and 366 of the IPC.The victim was kidnapped in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.She was taken to a village; the appellant misled his acquaintance to believe that prosecutrix is his wife and ultimately she was ravished by the appellant.For the reasons afore-mentioned, the trial Court was right in its conclusion.The Appeal being sans merit, deserve dismissal which I direct.Appeal is dismissed accordingly.JUDGE sahare ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:39 ::: | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.