id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,187,311 | The prosecution furtheralleged that Naki Mollick abetted the commission of the offence and boththe accused persons threatened to kill her.The accused committed rapeon the prosecuterix several times forcibly and had also falsely assured tomarry her.However, the accused refused to marry thecomplainant/prosecuterix and, therefore, the prosecuterix informed theincident to her family members and neighbours.V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.1. Leave granted.This is an appeal against the judgment and order of convictionpassed by the Calcutta High Court, whereby, the appeal filed by theaccused/Appellant, was dismissed.The accused was convicted by FastTrack, Fourth Court, Krishnagar, Nadia for an offence under Section 376 ,as also an offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafterfor short "IPC").As per the prosecution case, there was another accusedNaki Mollick in the matter, against whom the Chargesheet was submitted,but, he being a juvenile, was sent to the Juvenile Court for facing trial.As per the prosecution, accused Zindar Ali SK was trying to marrywith prosecuterix Chandmoni Khatoon with the help of Naki Mollick.Prosecuterix was working as a weaver and on the day of incident, whenshe was returning from her work, the accused caught her, takingadvantage of the dark and committed rape on her.Salish (a meeting forresolving the dispute) was held in the Village on 24.2.2003, wherein, it wasdecided that the accused should marry the prosecuterix, however, ZindarAli refused to marry the prosecuterix.A complaint seems to have beenmade to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who issued a direction on 10.7.2003to the police to register an offence.This became necessary as though shehad approached the police, they advised her to settle the matter amicablywith accused.Ultimately, a Chargesheet was submitted for offences underSections 376, 417 and 120-B of IPC.However, it was found that the otheraccused Naki Mollick was a juvenile and his trial, therefore, was separated.As many as 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support ofthe prosecution case, including the prosecuterix, her father and mother.Some documents were also filed, including the medical reports, age reportsetc.Doctors were also examined and ultimately, the accused abjured the 3guilt and claimed that he had been falsely implicated, as he had refused tomarry the prosecuterix.Ultimately, the Sessions Judge negatived thedefence and came to the conclusion that the offences of rape and cheatingwere proved against the accused, and convicted him on those two counts,however, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B of IPC.As against this, an appeal came to be filed before the High Court,however, the High Court has dismissed the appeal and that is how, thematter has come before us.Shri Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf ofthe Appellant, pointed out that the whole prosecution story was extremelyunnatural and weak.The Learned Counsel pointed out that theprosecuterix was undoubtedly a grown up girl and though as per theprosecution case, she was raped on 23.2.2003, she not only kept quiet, buthad also indulged in sexual intercourse with the accused again onsubsequent 2 or 3 days and reported the matter only on 27.2.2003 to thePolice Station who did not register the matter and commencedinvestigation only after 5 months.The Learned Counsel argued that thisdelay was fatal and further suggested that there was an element of"consent" on the part of the prosecuterix, and as such, there was noquestion of any rape.The Learned Counsel further suggested that evenotherwise, the absence of any injury on the person of the prosecuterixsuggests that the prosecuterix had surrendered to the advances made bythe accused and engaged herself in the intercourse as per her will, and 4both the Courts below have failed to consider this important aspect.Lastly,the Learned Counsel contended that in fact, there was no Salish ormeeting and there was no question of the accused refusing to marry theprosecuterix during such meeting.The Learned Counsel suggested thatthere was in fact, no sexual intercourse, muchless, against the consent ofthe prosecuterix and the accused was falsely implicated on account of hisrefusal to marry the prosecuterix, who herself wanted to marry him.Both the Courts below have held on the basis of the evidence of theprosexuterix, as corroborated by the other evidences that there was notonly a sexual intercourse between the accused and the prosecuterix, butthe same was without the consent and against the will of the prosecuterixand as such, the accused was guilty of rape.We have gone through the evidence led on behalf of theprosecution.The prosecuterix was examined as PW-1 and deposed thatthe accused was after her, requesting her to marry him, so also his friend,the other accused also used to tell her that the accused wanted to marryher.She, however, refused to oblige.She further deposed that theaccused forcibly caught her and put napkin inside her mouth andcommitted sexual intercourse against her will and consent.She alsofurther deposed that the accused had threatened her and also raped hersubsequently for 2 or 3 days.Her wearing apparels were also torn.Shedeposed that due to fear of her life, she did not disclose the incident ofrape to anybody, however, after 2/3 days of incident, when the accused 5refused to marry her, she came home and reported the incident to herparents.As per her deposition, a Salish was held, where, the accuseddeclined to abide by the decision taken in that meeting of about hismarrying the prosecuterix.She identified her wearing apparels, which wereseized by the Police.She also identified the accused.There is noeffective Cross-Examination to this witness.One question was askedabout her clinical and physical examination.It was suggested firstly thatshe had suffered injuries on her private parts and person.The witness,however, stated that there was no bleeding injury, meaning thereby, thatthe injuries were insignificant considering that she was medically examinedafter about 6 months.Such admission is meaningless.Her versionregarding rape, however, has gone unchallenged.She was asked aboutthe workplace and the boys being there, however, non-disclosure to theboys would only be a natural behaviour and cannot lead us to theconclusion that she had consented for the sexual intercourse.There wasno reason for the poor girl to falsely implicate the accused.There is nosuggestion of any love-affair with the accused also.Her version that shewas raped by the accused, goes totally unchallenged.Her version thatshe was forcibly caught and a napkin was put inside her mouth before theaccused had committed rape on her, was a little exaggerated, but it doesnot demolish her version that she was raped by the accused.8. PW-2, Moshar SK, in his deposition, had spoken about theChandmoni and her father, telling him that Chandmoni was raped by the 6accused.He had also spoken about the village meeting, where, it wasdecided that the accused should marry Chandmoni.Again, there is noCross-Examination of this witness.Of course, this witness had stated thathe had not made any statement to the Police, as he was not interrogated.Anther witness PW-3 Tajem SK (Mallick) also spoke about the villagemeeting, which was held at the instance of Markam Ali SK, father of theprosecuterix.He also claimed that he was not interrogated by the Police.In his Cross-examination itself, it has come that there were about 200-250persons present in the village meeting, where, it was decided that theaccused was guilty.The other witnesses examined on the question of thevillage meeting was Saheb Ali SK and Markam Ali SK, the father of theprosecuterix.It will not really be necessary for us to go to the evidence ofthe village meeting, where, the accused allegedly admitted that he had thesexual intercourse, particularly because the evidence of the prosecuterixon that subject, has remained completely unchallenged and is sufficient tonail the accused.PW-11 Noorjahan Bibi, who is the mother of theProsecutrix specifically spoke about the prosecuterix' reporting to her aboutthe forcible sexual intercourse committed by the accused Zindar Ali.Shealso spoke that when she saw her torn cloths etc., she asked her as towhat had happened, whereupon, the prosecuterix told her about the rapecommitted by the accused, however, she was not able to identify theclothes.She had also spoken about the village meeting.There is again noCross-examination of the witness.As for the medical evidence, from the evidence of the Dr. P.K. Roy,PW-7, it becomes apparent that the girl was major.The medical certificategranted by the Doctor suggests that the Hymen was torn at 6'O clockposition and the rugosity was lost and that the Prosecutrix suggested thatshe was assaulted by Zindar Ali SK, about 6 months back.TheSessions Court, as well as, the High Court have rightly accepted theevidence of the prosecuterix.Shri Ghosh, Learned Counsel for the appellant, pointed out thatallegedly, though there was a village meeting Salish, but there was nothingon record about the same and, therefore, an uncorroborated testimony ofthe prosecuterix should not have been accepted by the Courts below.We have seen that the prosecuterix has very specifically spokenabout the rape.It is, undoubtedly true that the First Information Report inthis case was lodged late, however, it has come on record that theprosecuterix had filed a petition under Section 156(3) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure on 27.2.2003, on the basis of which, the direction wasissued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagar, Nakashipara PoliceStation, for calling investigation into the said allegation.We fail tounderstand this unusual stance of police.They high handedly advised theProsecutrix to "settle" the matter amicably.The High Court has, in ouropinion, very rightly criticized that the First Information Report should havebeen registered only on 19.7.2003 and the direction issued by the Chief 8Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagar on 10.7.2003 should not have beenfollowed for good long more than 17 days.All this, undoubtedly, resulted inthe prosecuterix being sent for the medical examination only after 6 monthsof the offence.Very important evidence was therefore, lost.It is tried to be suggested that the girl did not complain about rapeeven to the medical officer PW-7 and instead, complained only that shewas "assaulted", and that PW-7 had deposed that the tear was not injury,as there was no bleeding.We cannot forget that the girl is an uneducatedrustic person, who had to work to sustain the family.It cannot also beignored that she had disclosed the facts to her parents whose version hasagain gone unchallenged.She had also asserted that she had told aboutthe rape in the Village Meeting which version was supported by her parentsand other witnesses.Besides, her medical examination was conductedafter 6 months of the incident.We would, therefore, choose to go on thebasis of the evidence of the prosecuterix.In our view, though the HighCourt has given a finding about the village meeting, which was supported 9by the evidence of PW-2 Moshar SK, PW-3 Tajem SK (Mallick), PW-4Saheb Ali, as also by PW-6 Markam Ali, the father of the girl, it is really notnecessary to go to that aspect in view of the clinching evidence by the girl.We would, however, use that evidence as corroborating the fact ofimmediate disclosure of rape by the girl.It cannot be forgotten that the girlstuck to her statement made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on13.9.2003, though that statement is not a substantive statement, whichwould only show the consistency in the evidence of the girl.The shabby quality of investigation was severely criticized by thelearned counsel.Besides this, the girl has very specifically stated that even subsequently,she was ravished against her wishes.Therefore, the theory of promise ofmarriage and the consent for sexual intercourse will wither away.We,therefore, acquit the accused of the offence under Section 417 of IPC.This takes us to the last argument about the quantum of sentence.Fine, if recovered shall be paid to the Prosecutrix.She shall be intimated by sending notice to her. | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,187,370 | JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J.Vide Crl.M.C. No. 3920/2003 Anupam Sharma, husband of Anu Gautam prays that FIR No. 323/2002 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Vikas Puri be quashed.Present: Shri L.C. Jain APP for the State with SI Shiv Darshan with case file and complainant Smt. Anu with her counsel Sh.S.K. Sharma, Adv.K.K. Madan, Adv.Complainant is ready and willing to receive Rs. 5,00,000/- in full and final settlement including alimony from the petitioner.Payment of Rs. 73,000/- has already been made.The said amount shall be deducted from agreed amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-.2. Vide Crl.M.C. No. 2111/2004 Anu Gautam prays that the orders dated 25.1.2003 and 5.2.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be quashed.Order dated 25.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reads as under:for the petitioner.Efforts for settlement were made.Both the parties agree that they will move for quashing for FIR and mutual divorce.Rs. 2,27,000/- (Two Lac Twenty Seven Thousand) will be paid at the time of conclusion of this bail application.At the request of the parties adjourned to 30.1.2003 as prayed.Till then interim order to continue.Order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reads as under:Present : APP for State with complainant and her counsel.Counsel for applicant/accused.Parties have arrived at compromise.They are filing petition for divorce and the matter has been settled for Rs. 5,00,000/-.Out of which sum of Rs. 2,98,000/- has been paid by cheque of Rs. 2,05,000/- bearing cheque No. 502081-110023036 and cash of Rs. 20,000/- today.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, applicants are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned IO/SHO subject to the condition that the applicant shall join investigation as and when called for by the IO.Sd/- ASJ At this stage, counsel for complainant showed the cheque to the court that there is a discrepancy in cheque in as much as a sum of Two lacs Five Thousand has been mentioned in words and in figures only a sum of Rs.Two lacs Five thousand (2,00005) has been mentioned.Whereas husband prays that the twin effect of the orders dated 25.1.2003 and 5.2.2003 is that Anu Gautam settled all her claims for Rs. 5 lakhs and on receipt of the same consented to the FIR being quashed, since he has paid Rs. 3 lakhs and as per the settlement is ready to pay further Rs. 2 lakhs, the FIR be quashed.Case pleaded by Anu Gautam is that she never gave any such consent.That it is preposterous for any reasonable person to believe that she gave any such consent considering that her streedhan illegally retained by her in-laws was valued at more than Rs. 15 lacs coupled with the fact that her husband was earning nearly Rs. 1 lakh per month.Pithly stated, case of Anu Gautam is that no sane person would receive Rs. 5 lakhs as full and final settlement amount for the claim towards streedhan, maintenance and permanent alimony.Fulcrum of submission made by Shri M.C. Bhandare, learned senior Counsel for Anu Gautam was that a settlement between the parties as per requirement of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has to be evidenced in writing.(3) Whether Courts, while considering grant of anticipatory bail can encourage parties to settle their disputes.(4) Whether anticipatory bail granted to the husband needs to be revoked.(5) Whether the FIR in question deserves to be cancelled.Certain admitted facts need to be noted, for the reason, in my opinion they would throw considerable light on the issue.After orders dated 25.1.2003 and 5.2.2003 were passed, on 26.5.2003, Anu Gautam lodged a caveat under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon in which she pleaded as under:That the respondent and his family members applied for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi.That a period of 15 days has passed but no initiations regarding the compliance of order dated 25.1.2003 and 5.2.2003 have been made by the respondent.That the caveator has the apprehension that respondent in order to get rid off from the liabilities of balance payment of Rs. 2 lacs may file the suit for dissolution of marriage and get a decree of divorce by misrepresentation of facts and using unfair means therein hence this caveat.Anu Gautam had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Aligarh.She had claimed maintenance.On 5.4.2003, her husband Anupam Gupta filed an objection stating that having agreed to receive Rs. 5 lacs from him in full and final satisfaction of all her claims, including claim for maintenance, she could not claim any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.She pleaded as under:The submission of the respondent is false and baseless as is evident from the orders enclosed with the application of the respondent that the compromise of the petitioner with the respondent was for quashing FIR under Section 406/498A/34 IPC and for divorce between the parties.This Agreement was regarding the FIR No. 323/02, under Section 406/498A/34 IPC, PS Vikaspuri.No compromise has been done under Section 125 Cr.P.C. between the parties for maintenance.Matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time.On 20.9.2002 it was recorded that Rs. 73,000/- have been tendered by Anupam Sharma to Anu Gautam in lieu of part of her dowry articles.It was further recorded that parties would try and arrive at a settlement.Matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time.On 26.10.2002 an order was passed recording that Anu Gautam was willing to settle the dispute if Rs. 7 lacs was paid to her.Matter was adjourned from time to time noting that there are chances of a settlement.A perusal of the order dated 25.1.2003 shows that after recording a settlement where-under Anu Gautam had to receive Rs. 5 lacs from her husband towards full and final settlement, including alimony, from her husband it was recorded that part satisfaction of the claim has been made, in that, Rs. 73,000/- has already been received by Anu Gautam.The order further records that Rs. 2,27,000/- would be paid at the time of conclusion of the application filed by Anupam Sharma seeking anticipatory bail.Matter was adjourned.That she had further received Rs. 20,000/- in cash.Order dated 5.2.2003 records that a second order was passed on said date to the effect that the cheque tendered to the complainant had discrepancy in the same vis-a-vis what was stated in the words and what was stated in figures.It is thus evident that Anu Gautam, conscious of a settlement, received further payment by means of a cheque.She stated that she has received Rs. 3 lacs pursuant to the settlement.She expressed an apprehension that her husband may seek divorce by relying upon the order dated 25.1.2003 without complying with his further obligation to pay to her balance sum of Rs. 2 lacs.Explaining pleadings of Anu Gautam as made in the caveat, Shri M.C. Bhandare, learned senior Counsel for Anu Gautam submitted that this Court should take judicial notice of the fact that litigants blindly sign pleadings drafted by their lawyers.Thus, counsel urged that pleadings in the caveat petition could not be treated as pleadings of Anu Gautam.It is not in dispute that the lawyer who lodged caveat at Gurgaon was not the counsel who was appearing for Anu Gautam in the application filed by her husband seeking anticipatory bail at Delhi.Therefore, how would a different counsel know that his client had suffered the order dated 25.1.2003 recording a settlement.In lighter vein, I may record that Shri M.C.Bhandare, learned senior Counsel for Anu Gautam did not urge that counsel engaged by her i.e. Anu Gautam at Gurgaon, through transcendental meditation gathered knowledge about the order dated 25.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Delhi in the application seeking anticipatory bail by Anupam Sharma.The facts stated in the caveat lodged by Anu Gautam could not have dawned upon her counsel engaged at Gurgaon save and except from the information provided to the counsel by Anu Gautam.I have noted herein above, pleadings of Anu Gautam in the rejoinder afore referred to.She has categorically pleaded that Rs. 5 lacs receivable by her as per the settlement recorded in the order dated 25.1.2003 related to her claim which was subject matter of the FIR No. 323/2002 i.e. recorded her consent that if she received said amount as finds mention in the order dated 25.1.2003 she will agree to the FIR being quashed and marriage be dissolved by mutual consent.She tried to explain the compromise by pleading that it excluded right to receive maintenance.Claim of Anu Gautam of having addressed letters to the ACP, Crime Against Women Cell, Kirti Nagar was denied.I fail to understand as to why Anu Gautam did not tell the learned ASJ that she was being threatened.She pleaded the compromise in 2 independent proceedings.No material has been shown to me that Anu Gautam or her parents asked for the status of Anupam Sharma i.e. whether he was a bachelor or not, much less any material to show that Anupam Sharma made a false statement about himself. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,586,143 | After the marriage Gurpreet Kaur came to the parental house and stated to him and his wife Surender Kaur that her mother-in-law i.e. Petitioner No.3 herein was harassing her by saying that her father had given only some gold ornaments at the time of her marriage and she should bring more ornaments and her husband used to give her beatings.When she complained to her husband regarding this, he along with his mother used to give her beatings.When she complained to her father-in-law Mohan Singh and brother-in-law Varinder Singh, they did not pay any heed and rather threatened her that Harinder Singh was well-educated and asked her to bring money from her father for the business of computers of Harinder Singh.On 18th August, 2004 Gurpreet Kaur was blessed with a child and the Petitioner No.3 put forth a demand of 4 gold bangles.It is alleged that two months prior to the death of his daughter, her in-laws gave her beatings.When they talked on the phone, Crl.P. 681/2009 Page 3 of 10 Gurpreet was weeping bitterly and called them to save her.However, her phone was disconnected.On the occasion of Raksha Bandhan festival Harinder Singh raised a demand of Rs. 1 lakh to run his business.On the complainant showing his inability, Harinder Singh in anger remarked that his daughter was of no use as her father could not pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and he would kill her.On 25th August, 2006 at about 8.30 PM he received a phone call whereby he was informed that her daughter had taken crocin tablets.When he went there, he found his daughter lying on the bed and there were ligature marks on her neck.He prayed that action be taken against the Petitioners and Harinder Singh the husband of the deceased.P. 681/2009 Page 3 of 10During the trial PW-9 Paramjeet Singh, the complainant reiterated his allegations made in the FIR and stated that 10/12 days after the marriage, his daughter came to the parental house and told that the Petitioners No. 1 to 3 used to whisper to each other that insufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage.The Petitioner No.3 said that insufficient jewellery was given.Two days prior to the first Lohri in the year 2004, his daughter informed that the Petitioner No. 1 & 3 stated that the refrigerator was not amongst the articles given in the marriage.However, he showed his helplessness to his Crl.P. 681/2009 Page 4 of 10 daughter to give a refrigerator.When the complainant and his wife went to see their daughter and the newly born baby, the Petitioner No.3 stated that since they had come to see the newly born baby, they could have brought 4 gold bangles.It is further alleged that in the last days of September, 2004 the Petitioner No.1 telephonically contacted him and asked him to foot the bill regarding medical expenses incurred at the time of delivery.Since the surgery was to be performed on his daughter, she was sent to the house of the complainant and prior to Deepawali she went back to her matrimonial home.Two months prior to 25th August, 2006 when the daughter of the complainant died he received a call on his mobile from the mobile of Harinder Singh.He heard his daughter Gurpreet Kaur raising hue and cry saying that he should save her.However, the phone was disconnected.When PW-9 and PW-10 reached the matrimonial home they were sent back by Petitioner No.3 saying that it was their internal matter.On the day of Raksha Bandhan the deceased came to the house of PW-9 and told him that her husband was demanding a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from her for his business and has threatened her with death in case his demand of Rs. 1 lakh was not met with.The Petitioner No.3 further remarked that she had asked for gold bangles and that PW-10 did not intend to settle her daughter at the matrimonial home.It is further stated that in May, 2006 the Petitioners gave beatings to her daughter.PW-9 attended the call and enquired from his daughter as to why she was weeping when she told that she was beaten by the above-named persons.His daughter further telephonically informed PW-9 that Petitioner No.3 was saying that they would kill her.On 9 th August, 2006 on the day of Raksha Bandhan when the deceased came to their house she told that her husband Harinder Singh was demanding Rs. 1 lakh from her to run his business and to buy the land.P. 681/2009 Page 5 of 10Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State with SI Jassa Singh, PS Tilak Nagar.Mr. J.C. Prashar, Advocate for the complainant.HON'BLE MS.By the present petition the Petitioners, who are father-in-law, mother- in-law, brother-in-law and wife of brother-in-law of the deceased, challenge the order dated 23rd October, 2009 directing framing of charge for offence under Section 304-B/ 34 IPC against the Petitioners.The grievance of the Petitioners is limited to the extent that though the charge under Section 498- A IPC is prima facie made out against the Petitioners, however no charge under Section 304-B IPC is made out.The Petitioners were in fact discharged for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and a charge under Section 498-A IPC was framed against them on 22nd February, 2007 and the husband of the deceased was charged for offence under Section 498-A/306 IPC.However, in a revision filed before this Court by the State vide order Crl.P. 681/2009 Page 1 of 10 dated 26th March, 2009 this Court directed the Learned Trial Court to examine the matter in the light of the statements of the witnesses, who had been examined by that time and directed re-hearing to the parties.After hearing the parties, the Learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2009 directed and framed charge under Section 304-B/ 34 IPC against all the accused including the Petitioners herein besides the charges under Section 498-A/34 IPC.P. 681/2009 Page 1 of 102. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that even on the basis of the statements that have been recorded during the trial, no case for charge under Section 304-B IPC is made out against the Petitioners, as there is no allegation that soon before the death, the Petitioners harassed and tortured the deceased for demand of dowry.There are three instances of harassment and the last incident of May, 2006 relates only to the husband, that too for demand of Rs. 1 lakh for business and to buy a land which does not amount to demand of dowry, as held in a catena of decisions.Reliance in this regard is placed on Harjit Singh Vs.State of Punjab I (2006) DMC 11 (SC); Appasaheb & Anr.State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721 and Kans Raj Vs.State of Punjab & Ors.2000 Crl.L.J. 2993 (SC).3. Learned APP on the other hand contends that on an examination of the evidence, which has come on record, the impugned order is justified in law.In Ashok Kumar Vs.Further in Bachni Devi and Anr.State of Haryana (2011) 4 SCC 427 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the demand for property or valuable security, directly or indirectly has Crl.P. 681/2009 Page 2 of 10 a nexus with marriage, such demand would constitute "demand for dowry".Each case has to be looked into on its own facts.After investigation the charge-sheet for offences under Section 304- B/498-A/34 IPC was filed against the Petitioners and Harinder Singh.However vide order dated 20th February, 2007 the Learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 498-A against the Petitioners which was challenged before this Court.This Court remanded the matter back vide order dated 26th March, 2009 for considering the statements of the witnesses also recorded during the trial.It is further stated that the deceased used to tell PW-9 & 10 that she was given beatings by her husband and when she used to tell the Petitioner No.1 & 3 about the beatings, they used to ask her to bring money for the business of her husband.P. 681/2009 Page 4 of 10Statement of PW-10 Surender Kaur, the mother of the deceased has also been recorded.She alleged that after the marriage, Petitioner No.3 demanded more jewellery items saying that the jewellery items given at the Crl.P. 681/2009 Page 5 of 10 time of marriage were insufficient.She further stated that the deceased told her that Petitioner No. 1 & 2 asked her to bring money from her parents as her husband was well-educated.The deceased further stated that the husband used to give her beatings when she brought to his notice that his mother used to complaint of insufficient jewellery brought by her.When they went to visit the matrimonial home of her daughter with gift on account of birth of the newly born grand-daughter, the Petitioner No. 3 & 4 remarked that they had come with silver cadas instead of gold cadas.As regards Petitioner No.4, the only allegation made against her relates to the time when the baby was born in the year 2004, and the allegation made against Petitioner No.2 relates to the initial demands raised after marriage.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE APRIL 30, 2012 'ga' Crl.P. 681/2009 Page 10 of 10P. 681/2009 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,587,946 | I. Application is hereby allowed.CHARUSHILA W/O BABURAO BANSODE and3. BABURAO SHESHAPPA BANSODE, in connection with crime No. 507 of 2019 registered with CIDCO police station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 376(a)(b), 376(2)(f), 504, 506, 34 of IPC, and under Sections 4 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.5,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount on following conditions:-a) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.b) The applicants shall not make any attempt to meet or communicate the informant without her consent in future till disposal of the case.c) The applicant No.1 shall attend the concerned police station once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 8.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. for a period of one year from today.::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2019 06:36:14 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,588,891 | gk/dsk H.C.P(MD)No.124 of 2019 31.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 8/84797 of 2018 and both the bail applications are pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur.K.Dinesh Babu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State by drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit would submit that the Detaining Authority, after due and proper application of mind has rightly clamped the order of detention and prays for dismissal of this petition.This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the entire materials placed before it.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though two bail applications are pending regarding the ground case and the fourth adverse case, similar material was placed only in respect of the ground case and even for the sake of arguments that the detenu is going to come out on bail in the ground case as well as fourth adverse case, still it would not be possible for him to indulge in activities which are prejudicial tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 H.C.P(MD)No.124 of 2019 the maintenance of public order and peace, unless he gets orders of bail in the other adverse cases also.However, the said material fact has been completely overlooked by the Detaining Authority.Therefore, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction derived by the Detaining Authority in that regard is totally vitiated, as such, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly, quashed.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed by setting aside the Order of Detention passed by the second respondent herein, namely, The District Collector and District Magistrate, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai, in Cr.Consequently, the detenu, namely, Tamilselvan, aged about 24 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Madurai is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence [or] custody [or] detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 H.C.P(MD)No.124 of 2019 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.and B.PUGALENDHI, J. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,215,907 | (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.REGUPATHI, J.) On 09.01.1999 at 8.00 p.m the respondents/accused in the case, due toprevious enmity, with the common intention to finish off the deceased, indulgedin wordy quarrel with him at the shop of P.W.1 and followed by that A-3 and A-4caught hold of the deceased and A-1 and A-2 armed with Aruval and kniferespectively, cut the deceased on the left hand and stabbed on the stomach,resulting in his death.As per the firstcharge, on 09.01.1999, at 08.00 p.m, all the accused indulged in a wordy quarrelwith the deceased and when the deceased made an attempt to run away from thescene of occurrence, A-3 and A-4 caught hold of him and A-1 and A-2 attacked himwith Aruval and knife, resulting in his death; thereby, A-1 and A-2 committed anoffence punishable under Section 302 IPC.a)P.W.1 was running a tea shop near Mariamman temple, Sengulam colony.On09.01.1999 at 10.00 AM, at the shop of P.W.1, there was quarrel between thedeceased and the accused and they were pacified and separated.On the same dayat 8.00 p.m., when P.W.1 was in the tea shop, there was a wordy quarrel betweenthe deceased and the accused and, referring to the earlier quarrel took place inthe morning, the accused pushed down the deceased and A-1 attacked the deceasedwith aruval and the cut fell on the left hand and A-2 stabbed him with kniferepeatedly on the left flank and when the deceased made an attempt to escape, A-3 and A-4 prevented by catching hold of him.He also accompanied the deceased tothe Government hospital and he came to know about the death of the deceased onthe next day.e)P.W.6, stated that while he was at the ration shop, on noticing crowd infront of the tea shop of P.W.1, he went there and found the deceased lying onground with injuries and at that time P.Ws.1,4 and 5 were present there.f)P.W.7, the wife of the deceased, stated that there was enmity betweenthe accused and the deceased with regard to sale of arrack and on, 09.01.1999,coming to know about the assault on the deceased, she rushed to the scene ofoccurrence where she found the deceased lying on ground with cut injuries andthe accused fleeing that place.g)P.W.9, who has been examined to speak about the occurrence which tookplace in the morning, did not support the case of the prosecution, therefore, hehas been treated as hostile.h)On the injured being brought to the Hospital at 9.50 PM., P.W.15,Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Trichy, found him semi-conscious with sixinjuries and admitted him as in-patient.The Accident Register issued is Ex.P.13and the Doctor stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased would havebeen caused by weapons like M.Os.1 and 2 aruval and knife respectively.i)P.W.19, Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of the complaint given at10.00 P.M., by P.W.1 namely, Ex.P.1 registered a case in Crime No.11 of 1999 foroffences punishable under Sections 341, 307 and 506(ii) IPC and forwarded copiesof the First Information Report/Ex.P.20 to the Judicial Magistrate concernedand superior officials in the department.j)P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FirstInformation Report, on 09.01.1999 at 10.40 p.m, reached the scene of occurrenceand prepared Observation Mahazar/Ex.P.2 and Rough Sketch/Ex.P.21 in the presenceof P.W.3. P.W.3, in his evidence stated that he was present at the time when theInvestigating Officer prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch and that heattested the Mahazar.P.W.11, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Trichy,was present at the time when P.W.13, recorded the dying declaration and heendorsed in the dying declaration that the deceased was "conscious throughoutthe proceedings".P.8 is the endorsement made in Ex.P.12, the dyingdeclaration.l)P.W.10, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Trichy found the deceaseddead on 10.01.1999, at 07.45 a.m. and passed on intimation to the police.There was a suturedwound about 2" over the left dome of diaphragm.Abdomen; There was reperanizesunses in the left lobe of liver (liver tear stutured with the size of 2squares.Stomach empty.Small intestine, large intestine normal.Bladder empty.Spine & Cramium normal".P.W.16, Head Constable, on conclusion of the Post Mortem received thebloodstained shirt (M.O.5) of the deceased and handed over the same to theInvestigating Officer.o)The Investigating Officer arrested A-1 on 10.01.1999 in the presence ofP.W.8, Village Administrative Officer.A-1 gave a confession statement and theadmissible portion thereof is Ex.Pursuant to the confession, M.O.1 aruvalwas recovered under Ex.Secondly, during the course of thesame transaction, A-3 and A-4 caught hold of the deceased and facilitated A-1and A-2 to inflict injuries on the deceased thereby, they committed an offencepunishable under Section 302 read with 114 IPC.Thirdly, A-1 to A-4 threatenedthe witnesses by showing weapons, thereby committed an offence punishable underSection 506(ii) IPC.When the accused were questioned initially by the trialJudge, they denied the commission of the offence and pleaded not guilty.Therefore, the trial against them case was taken up.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 20,marked Exs.On conclusion of the trial, byorder dated 04.05.2001, the learned trial Judge, acquitted the accused from allthe charges.Aggrieved against the said order of acquittal passed by the trialCourt, the State has preferred the present appeal.On noticing P.Ws.1,4 and 5 andothers gathered there, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence afterthreatening them.P.W.1 took the deceased in an auto to the Government hospitaland thereafter, went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint under Ex.b)P.W.2, cited as an eye witness, did not support the case of theprosecution and therefore, he was treated as hostile.The Investigating Officer, thereafter proceeded to theGovernment hospital and since the deceased was unconscious, returned back to thestation.Again he went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of theinjured.k)P.W.13, Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy, on receipt of therequisition/Ex.P.11 from the Hospital for recording the dying declaration,proceeded to the Government Hospital on 10.01.1999 and, after observing all theformalities, in the presence of P.W.11, Medical Officer, Government Hospital,recorded the dying declaration Ex.P.12 at 3.40 a.m. It is his evidence that atthe time when the dying declaration was recorded, the deceased was conscious andin a fit state of mind.m)P.W.20, Investigating Officer, on receipt of the death intimation at9.15 A.M. on 10.01.1999, modified the offence as one under Sections 341, 302 and506 (ii) IPC and forwarded the express report/Ex.P.22 through P.W.14, who handedover the same to the Magistrate at 10.00 A.M. He held inquest over the dead ofthe deceased at 11.30 a.m. and thereafter, sent the dead body for conductingautopsy along with a requisition Ex.P.9 through P.W.16, Head Constable.n)P.W.12, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Trichy, conducted PostMortem over the dead body of the deceased at 12.30 noon on 10.01.1999 and issuedEx.P.10, Post Mortem Certificate, wherein, she noted down the following:-"External injuries: There is an abrasion over the scalp about 3cm inlength just above the (lt) eyebrow.2)There is a midline sutured wound about 7cmin the abdomen extending to the left in the substernal region about 2 cm inlength.3) There is a sutured wound about 4 cm in length in the left forearmpresent.Internal injuries: On opening the Thorax - there was a contusion in theretrosternal area.No# ribs.No injury to lungs & Heart.P.5 Mahazar. A-2 and A-4 were arrested on 11.06.1999 andA-2 gave a voluntary confession statement and the admissible portion of the sameis Ex.Pursuant to the confession statement given by A-2, M.O.2 (knife) wasrecovered under Ex.P.W.8, Village Administrative Officer attested theMahazars for arrest and recovery.The Investigating Officer examined P.W.18, SubInspector of Police, Palakkarai Police Station and through him, the FirstInformation Report registered in Crime No.6 of 1998, on the complaint given bythe deceased against the second accused and others, for offences punishableunder sections 341, 324 and 506 (ii) IPC, came to be marked as Ex.TheInvestigating Officer forwarded and the recovered material objects to the Courtfor obtaining opinions from the Forensic Lab and P.W.17, the Court Clerkreceived chemical analysis and serological reports as Exs.p)When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to theincriminating materials adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied theircomplicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.No oral or documentary evidencewas let in by the defence.Learned trial Judge, on conclusion of the trial,disbelieved the prosecution case and acquitted the accused, hence, the presentappeal by the State.3.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counselfor the respondents.On the same day at 8.00 p.m, it is the evidence of P.W.1 thatwhile the deceased was already present in the tea shop, all the four accusedcame there, picked up quarrel with the deceased and pushed him down and when hewas about to stand up, A-3 and A-4 catch hold of him and A-1 and A-2 attackedhim with Aruval and knife.The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.Ws.4Since the deceased sustained severe injuries, he was taken to the GovernmentHospital, at the first instance.P.W.15, the Medical officer, examined thedeceased at 9.50 p.m. and issued Ex.P.13, Accident Register, in which it isnoted that the occurrence took place at 8.00 p.m. and that the deceased wasattacked by two known persons.Name of P.W.4 is mentioned as the person whobrought the deceased and Six injuries sustained by the deceased have been listedin Ex.In the mean time, P.W.1 rushed to the police station and lodged acomplaint under Ex.P.1 with P.W.19, Sub Inspector of Police at 10.00 p.m. It issubmitted that the occurrence took place at 8.00 p.m., the deceased was broughtto the hospital by 9.55 p.m., the report was given at 10.00 p.m. and the FirstInformation Report reached the Court by 11.00 p.m; therefore, the FirstInformation Report came into existence in natural course and there was no scopefor embellishment or concoction even at the preliminary stage.Both in the FirstInformation Report as well as in the evidence of P.W.1, the motive as well asthe occurrence part of the prosecution case have been graphically described.P.W.7, the wife of the deceased on reaching the occurrence place, sawthe accused running away with weapons.P.W.18, speaks about the complaint given by the deceased against A-2and others.In the dying declaration/Ex.P.12 the presence of A-1 to A-4 and inparticular the overtacts of A-1 and A-2 have been clearly mentioned.LearnedJudicial Magistrate recorded the dying declaration after observing all theformalities in the presence of Medical Officer who had endorsed in Ex.P.12 thatthe patient (deceased) was conscious throughout the proceedings.Though thedying declaration given by the deceased can be accepted without seeking anycorroboration, in the case on hand, the same has been corroborated through theevidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 and, being independent witnesses andnot related to the deceased, they have no axe to grind against the accused.Theaccused were arrested on 10.01.1999 and 11.01.1999 and the weapons of offencenamely, M.Os.1 and 2, were recovered pursuant to the voluntary confessionstatement given by them.Though the prosecution case has been well substantiatedthrough the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge, withoutproperly appreciating the materials, proceeded on a wrong footing to disbelievethe prosecution case erroneously acquitted the accused.P.2 and 21prepared at 11.00 p.m., would submit that when there are abundant materialsproduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge, overlooking the same,erroneously concluded that presence of light has not been established.ii)It was contended by the learned defence counsel that the accused didnot belong to that area viz., Sengulam Colony, and they are unknown persons,under such circumstances, identification parade should have been conducted.Since the eye witnesses identified the accused only in the Court for the firsttime, their evidence must be disbelieved.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that P.W.1, in his evidence,stated that the accused are known to him and even in Ex.P.1, it has beencategorically stated that the accused are known persons since they reside in thesame street.The accusedare also known to P.Ws.4 and 5 and it is also reflected in their evidence.Thatbeing so, there is no necessity for conducting the identification parade.iii)Learned trial Judge observed that the complaint under Ex.P.1 would nothave come into existence in the manner and time as put forth by the prosecution.It is the evidence of P.W.7, wife of the deceased, that her aunt, after comingto know about the occurrence, went to the police station and brought them to thescene of occurrence, under such circumstances, even before P.W.1 could lodge thecomplaint under Ex.P.1 with the police, a complaint was given by P.W.7 which hasbeen suppressed.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that P.W.7 is not an eyewitness in the case and she came to the scene of occurrence only after hearingabout the occurence.P.W.4 had taken the deceased to the hospital while P.W.1went to the police station for giving complaint about the occurrence that hadtaken place at 8.00 p.m and the deceased was admitted by 9.55 p.m and thecomplaint/Ex.P.1 came into existence by 10.00 p.m. and, in the meantime, therewas no scope or possibility for the police to visit the scene of occurrence,since it is the positive evidence of P.W.19, Sub Inspector of Police that, onthe complaint lodged, a case was registered and, on receipt of the copy of theFirst Information Report, the Investigating Officer, reached the scene ofoccurrence without any lapse of time.Under such circumstances, the positiveevidence of P.W.1 corroborated by P.W.19 cannot be disbelieved.During cross-examination, P.W.19 emphatically denied that a complaint was lodged by the auntof P.W.7 and that he suppressed the same.Relying on the evidence of P.W.19, Sub Inspector of Police, to the effectthat P.W.1 came to the police station and gave a "written complaint" at 10.00p.m, it is submitted that such verision is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1,for, according to P.W.1, he had gone to the police station and narrated theincident and it was reduced to writing.Learned Additional Public prosecutor,referring to the endorsement at the bottom of Ex.iv)It was contended that the injuries sustained by the deceased had notbeen properly explained by the prosecution, in particular injury No.3, whichcould not have been caused by Aruval.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is the evidence ofP.W.12, Post Mortem Doctor, that such injury is also possible due to cut withAruval.Moreover, the deceased, on being taken to the hospital, was examined at9.50 P.M. by P.W.15, Medical Officer, who noted down 6 injuries in the AccidentRegister/Ex.P.13 and also deposed before Court that those injuries would havebeen caused with weapons like M.os.1 and 2 namely aruval and knife and suchversion has been corroborated by P.W.12, the Doctor who conducted post mortem.The testimony of the eye witnesses having been substantiated well by the medicalevidence, there is no scope at all for disbelieving their evidence.v)There are materials to substantiate that the deceased was unconscious.At any rate, it wasdone only in the presence of P.W.11, Medical officer, who has also endorsed asper Ex.P.8 in the dying declaration itself to the effect that the "patient wasconscious throughout the proceedings".vi)Learned trial Judge held that M.Os.1 and 2 were planted by theprosecution and the prosecution witnesses are not definite about the identity ofthe weapons of offence.Further, the properties alleged to have been recoveredon the next day of the offence, reached the court only on 22.07.1999 and it hascreated considerable doubt with regard to the genuineness of the recoveredmaterial objects.According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, though the materialobjects recovered were sent to the Court after a delay of about six months, theDoctor who examined the deceased within two hours expressed his opinion thatinjuries Nos.1 and 2 would have been caused with weapons like M.Os.1 and 2.Such opinion has been corroborated by the Post Mortem Doctor also.The weaponsof offence have been correctly identified by the witnesses.The deceased was taken to thehospital in an auto and P.W.15 gave admission to the deceased at 9.50 p.m andissued the Accident Register/Ex.P.W.1, an independent eye witness, did not haveany axe to grind against the accused.The evidence of the eye witnesses iscorroborated by P.W.15, Medical Officer who initially admitted the deceased andP.W.12, who conducted the Post Mortem.Apart from that, on receipt of intimationfrom the Hospital, P.W.17, the Judicial Magistrate reached the GovernmentHospital and recorded the dying declaration from the deceased at 3.40 a.m in thepresence of P.W.11 Medical Officer.Both the Judicial Magistrate and the MedicalOfficer have categorically stated that the injured was conscious at the time ofrecording the dying declaration.The presence of the accused and their overtactshave been clearly mentioned in the dying declaration.The occurrence took placeon 09.01.1991 and the arrest of the accused was effected on 10.01.1999 and11.01.1999 and the weapons of offence were recovered in pursuance of theconfession statements given by the accused.The prosecution case with referenceto the overtacts attributed to A-1 and A-2 is substantiated beyond reasonabledoubt.7.With regard to the overtacts against A-3, in the dying declaration, ithas been stated that he switched off the light and the overtact attributed byP.W.1 has not been mentioned in the dying declaration.Similarly, though it hasbeen stated that A-1 and A-2 assaulted the deceased on the instruction of A-4,no overtact has been attributed to him in the dying declaration.On a perusal ofthe dying declaration, the presence of A-4 itself is doubtful.Therefore, wehold that A-3 and A-4 are falsely implicated in the case since they participatedin the earlier occurrence that had taken place on the same day at 10.00 a.m.Though P.W.1, in his evidence and Ex.P.1 complaint, has stated that A-3 and A-4caught hold of the deceased, since such aspect is not mentioned in the dyingdeclaration, we are of the considered view that benefit of doubt be given tothem because of the reason that they were not in possession of any weapon andthey did not utter any word of instigation.Moreover, even before lodging ofthe complaint at 10.00 P.M. Ex.P.13, Accident Register, had come into existenceat 9.50 p.m. wherein, it has been mentioned that the deceased was assaulted bytwo known persons at 8.00 p.m. on 09.01.1999 at Sengulam colony.Under suchcircumstances, by giving benefit of doubt, A-3 and A-4 were rightly acquitted.Insofar as A-1 & A-2 are concerned, we are of the considered view thatwhen there are abundant materials available on the side of the prosecution tosubstantiate that A-1 and A-2 have committed the offence of murder, the trialCourt failed to consider the same in a proper perspective and the findingsarrived at are not based on the evidence on record and suffer form seriousillegality; hence, the order of the trial Court is liable to be interfered with.Consequently, the order of the trial Court, acquitting A-1 and A-2, is setaside.We hold that the first charge alone is made out, accordingly, A-1 and A-2 are convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment.8.The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.Learned trial Judge is directedto take steps to secure the presence of A-1 and A-2 and commit them to Prison toundergo the sentence imposed by this Court.smsToThe Inspector of Police,Palakarai Police Station, | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,592,954 | The facts, which can be briefly summarised for the purpose of the disposal of the appeal, are as follows:-P.W.1 is the father and P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased.At the time of marriage, though 10 sovereigns of gold jewels and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- were demanded, P.W.1 was able to give only 7 sovereigns of jewels and promised to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- at a future date.He could not pay the amount as promised by him.After the marriage, when P.W.1 went to the house of the deceased to bring her to her parental home for certain ceremonies in the month of Aadi, A.2 asked him whether he will be able to buy a scooter.P.W.1 expressed his inability to meet the said demand.The accused also told P.W.1 that unless the demands, which were earlier made, are made they will not permit the deceased to go along with P.W.1; but P.W.1 managed to convince them and brought her to his house.The family members of the accused did not go to the house of P.W.1 to bring the deceased back to her matrimonial home and therefore, P.W.1 had to write a letter with a request to come and take back the deceased.In the meantime, P.W.8, Shanmuga Baskar, received a letter from A.1 in which he has mentioned about the demands made by him and his family members.The father of A.1 and A.2 informed P.W.1 that probably A.1 would have written the letter innocently.The deceased was brought back to her matrimonial house.After sometime, for Deepavali, P.W.1 went to the house of the deceased, where a complaint was made to him by the father of A.1 and A.2 that they were cheated by P.W.1, as they were not informed that the deceased is suffering from leukoderma.P.W.1 stated that his daughter is not suffering from any such ailment and that he was informed by his doctor that leukoderma is not leprosy and it is only a change in colour of the skin.On 14.11.1999, he took the deceased to the doctor at Thiruvarur on the demand made by the family members of the accused and the doctor, after conducting all the tests, informed the family members of the accused that the deceased is not suffering from any skin disease.As no one turned up on 6.1.1999 to take back the deceased, P.W.1 went to the house of his son-in-law and asked them as to why they have not come to take the deceased.Thereafter, he left his daughter in their house.In the meantime, at about 4.00 p.m. on 11.1.1999, P.Ws.3, 4 and 5, who are the neighbours of the deceased, heard distressing the cries emanating from the house of the deceased.They rushed there and found the deceased with burn injuries.A.2 was in the house.A taxi, driven by P.W.7, was brought in which, the injured, Meenakshi, who later died, was placed and taken to the private clinic of Dr. Murugesan, who advised them to take her to Government Hospital, Nagapattinam.Accordingly, the injured, Meenakshi, was taken and admitted at Government Hospital, Nagapattinam at about 5.00 p.m. and she was examined by P.W.12, the Casualty Medical Officer.The doctor found the following:-" Burns over the face, chest, neck, both thighs, arms and forearm.Extensive burns around 25% burns III degree burns."P.22 is the copy of the accident register issued by him.He sent Ex.P.23, an intimation, to the police station and also sent Ex.P.10, a requisition, to Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, to go over to the hospital to record the statement of the deceased.A.2, who was also taken along with the injured, Meenakshi, was examined by P.W.11, the doctor, attached to Government Hospital, Nagapattinam and on examining her, found the following injury:-" Two blisters due to burns each 1/4" diameter near inner aspect of right wrist joint."The doctor issued Ex.P.9, the copy of the accident register.The said statement is Ex.P.13, in which, the doctor, P.W.12, appended his certificate that the deceased was in a fit condition to give a statement.The intimation, Ex.P.23, sent by P.W.12, was received by P.W.17, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Out-post police station at Government Hospital, Nagapattinam.He proceeded to the hospital and finding the injured, Meenakshi, in the burns ward, questioned her and she gave a statement.The said statement is Ex.P.18 in which she has affixed her thumb impression.At 9.25 p.m., he seized M.O.2, a plastic can, M.O.3, a match box, M.O.4, an un-burnt match stick, M.O.5, burnt match stick and M.O.6, a burnt saree piece under a mahazar Ex.P.4 attested by the same witness.He also seized M.O.7, cudgen leaves, under a mahazar Ex.He returned to the hospital and questioned Meenakshi and recorded her statement.The said statement given by Meenakshi is Ex.He questioned P.Ws.3, 5, 6 and 7 and recorded their statements and further investigation was taken up by P.W.22, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam.In the meantime, Meenakshi, who was undergoing treatment at the hospital, died at about 9.00 a.m. on 12.1.1999 and the death intimation was sent to the police station.On receipt of the death intimation, the crime was altered to one under Section 302 IPC.and the express report in the altered crime is Ex.P.W.22, after taking up investigation in the crime, went to the scene of occurrence and examined it.He proceeded to the hospital and questioned P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements.On the requisition issued by the Officer, P.W.15, the Revenue Divisional Officer, went to the hospital and conducted inquest over the body of Meenakshi and prepared the inquest report, Ex.At the time of inquest, P.Ws.1, 2 and A.1 were questioned and their statements were recorded.After the inquest, a requisition was issued for conducting autopsy.On receipt of the requisition, P.W.14, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Nagapattinam, conducted autopsy on the body of Meenakshi and found the following:-" Body of a female lies on back arms close to sides and flexed at the elbow.Colour of hair, iris black burns varying from II' to III' seen from head to foot.Burns over the face, neck, front and back of trunk, both upper limbs and lower limbs and pubis.Skin completely peeled off over upper and lower limbs, back of chest cut down much seen over medial side of right ankle face.Burns seen with particles peeling of skin.Eyelids everted due to burns, lips black, tongue inside the mouth.No discharge from nose or mouth, ear shrunken due to burns.No discharge from external genitalia.Abdomen unform.Opening of thorax and abdomen, no fracture of ribs.Heart contain fluid blood with clots, inner walls of the heart congested.C/s. of lungs congested, excides frothy dark blood on compression.Opening of larynx and trachea, smell of kerosene noted.Mucosa congested.No foreign body.Hyoid bone intact stomach distended with gas and fluid.Contains 250 m of black coloured fluid with few undigested cooked rice particles, no specific odour.Mucosa congested.C/s.Of liver, spleen and kidneys congested.Small and large intestine normally distended with gas.Uterus normal size cavity empty.Bladder empty.Opening of head no fracture of skull bones.Membranes intact surface congested.Surface and c/s.Of brain congested."The doctor issued Ex.P.15, post-mortem certificate, reserving his opinion and gave Ex.P.16, final opinion, opining that the deceased died on account of shock due to extensive burns about 6 to 12 hours prior to autopsy.He was brought to the police station and later sent to Court for remand.He questioned other witnesses on 14.1.1999 and recorded their statements.As A.2 was in the hospital undergoing treatment, he arrested her at 5.00 p.m. on 22.1.1999 and also gave a requisition to the Magistrate to remand her to custody.The Magistrate went to the hospital and remanded A.2 to custody for 15 days.The said report is Ex.D.W.1 was also examined to show that some amount was given to the father of the deceased after the marriage in connection with the marriage performed by him.On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we find no reason to reject their evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and A.1 as well as A.2 was demanding dowry.The prosecution has, therefore, succeeded in establishing that there was stained relationship between A.1 and A.2 on one side and P.Ws.1 and 2 on the other side and that A.1 and A.2 have been demanding dowry from the family of the deceased.They rushed to the place and found Meenakshi in flames.They put down the fire.They also found A.2 in the house.JUDGMENT N. Dhinakar, J.The appellants, two in number, challenge their conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in S.C. No. 31 of 2000 and in the judgment, they will be referred to as "A.1 and A.2" in the order they were arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge.The charge against them is that, A.1 and A.2 demanded dowry from the deceased, Meenakshi, who is the wife of A.1 and on 11.1.1999 at about 4.00 p.m., A.2 poured kerosene over the body of Meenakshi and set her ablaze by throwing a lighted match stick and that A.1 shared the common intention of A.2 in causing the death of Meenakshi.The learned trial Judge, while finding A.1 and A.2 guilty under Section 498-A IPC.as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentenced each one of them to six months rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with a default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment for the former and sentenced each one of them to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment for the latter offence.A.2, on being convicted under Section 302 IPC., was sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment, while A.1, on being convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.under charge No. 3, was similarly sentenced.The present appeal challenges their conviction and sentence.On receipt of the intimation, Ex.P.10, P.W.13, Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, proceeded to the hospital and finding Meenakshi in the burns ward, questioned her in the presence of the doctor, P.W.12, at about 5.35 p.m. The doctor, after satisfying himself that she is in a fit condition to give a statement, recorded the statement given by the deceased.and the printed first information report is Ex.The express reports were despatched to the higher officials.The investigation in the crime was taken up by him on the orders of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, as the Inspector of Police was on other duty.P.W.17, on taking up investigation in the crime, proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 11.1.19989 and at 8.30 p.m. prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P.3 and drew a rough sketch, Ex.He questioned the doctors and recorded their statements on various dates.The material objects were sent to Court with a request to forward them for analysis.The final report was filed against the accused after the completion of investigation.The doctor, P.W.14, who conducted autopsy, found burn injuries on her body.The accused also did not, before the trial Court, dispute that she died on account of burn injuries.P.15, the post-mortem certificate and the final opinion, Ex.P.16 and the evidence of the doctor, P.W.14, confirm that Meenakshi died on account of burn injuries and we, accordingly, hold so.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased suffered burn injuries on account of A.2 pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze by throwing a lighted match stick.It is not in dispute that the occurrence was not witnessed by anyone and the prosecution perforce had to rely upon the statement of the deceased made to the Magistrate and to the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.17, as well as the statement made by her during the course of investigation, which stands marked as Ex.The evidence produced before the trial Court show that A.1 and his family members were demanding dowry from P.W.1 and on account of that the relationship between the two families were stained.P.W.1 has graphically described in his evidence as to the demands made by A.1 and A.2 and also stated that since he could not meet the demands of the accused, they found fault with him and even accused him of cheating, by saying that he has suppressed the fact that the deceased is suffering from skin disease.Thereafter, the witnesses took the injured and A.2 and produced them before P.W.12, Casualty Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Nagapattinam, at 5.00 p.m. and the doctor found extensive burn injuries on Meenakshi and therefore, admitted her.He also admitted A.2 as she has some blisters in her palm.The doctor questioned Meenakshi as to how she suffered burn injuries and she informed the doctor that her sister-in-law poured kerosene and threw a lighted match stick resulting in burn injuries.The said statement made by the deceased is the first oral statement given by her to the doctor implicating A.2 with the crime.The said statement of the deceased is found mentioned in Ex.P.22, the copy of the accident register.The doctor, who is an independent witness, has no reason to come out with a false version by saying that the deceased implicated A.2 as the person, who is responsible for the burn injuries found on Meenakshi, the deceased in the case.According to the doctor, after admitting Meenakshi, he sent an intimation, Ex.P.10, to the Magistrate and another intimation, Ex.P.27, to the police station.P.W.13, Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, on receipt of the intimation, Ex.P.10, proceeded to the hospital and in the presence of P.W.12, questioned the injured, Meenakshi, after satisfying himself that she is in a fit condition to give a statement.Meenakshi gave a statement to the Magistrate, P.W.13 and the said statement is Ex.In the said statement, Meenakshi has stated that her husband and her sister-in-law were subjecting her to cruelty and were also demanding dowry from her parents and that on the date of incident, A.2 poured kerosene over her and threw a lighted match stick and that A.2 bolted the door.She has further stated that at the time of incident, A.1 and her father-in-law were not in the house.In the said statement, she has further alleged that on hearing her cries, the neighbours gathered, who removed her to the hospital and admitted her.The statement, Ex.P.13, which is the first document to come into existence in this case, therefore, shows that the deceased was set ablaze by A.2 after pouring kerosene and throwing a lighted match stick at her.The statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate to which a certificate was also appended by the doctor. P.Ws.12 and 13 being independent officers of two different departments, this Court finds it difficult to reject their evidence and a perusal of the statement, Ex.P.13, also shows that the said statement is voluntary in nature and difficult to discard by the Court.We, therefore, accept the statement, Ex.P.13, given by the deceased to P.W.13 and hold that A.2 poured kerosene over Meenakshi and set her ablaze and thereby caused burn injuries leading to her death.Apart from the statement by the deceased to the doctor, we also have two other statements, one recorded by P.W.17 on the basis of which the crime was registered and the other recorded during the course of investigation.They are Exs.In the above two statements also, the deceased had the same version to give and therefore, we accept all the three statements, which are consistent with her earlier oral statement to the doctor at 5.00 p.m., when she was produced before him.Once we accept that the deceased gave a statement to the Magistrate and two statements to the police officers, then we cannot but uphold the conviction of A.2 under charge No. 2 framed against her under Section 302 IPC., since the three statements show that it was A.2, who poured kerosene and threw a lighted match stick at the deceased, leading to her death on account of burn injuries.As stated earlier, in the statement given by the deceased, she has stated that A.1 was not even in the house at the time of incident.In this background, it is difficult to accept the prosecution theory that A.1 shared the common intention of A.2 in causing the death of his wife, since he was not in the house and was not even seen anywhere near the scene of occurrence by any of the neighbours.On the contrary, the deceased, Meenakshi, was emphatic in her statement that A.1 was not in the house, as he was away at his work spot and that the occurrence took place during his absence.We, therefore, acquit A.1 under charge No. 3, which was framed under Section 302 read with 34 ICP.As we accepted the statements of the deceased in which the deceased has stated that A.1 and A.2 were demanding dowry, we uphold the conviction of both the accused under Section 498-A IPC as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The sentences imposed upon them under the above two charges are not excessive in nature and therefore, the conviction of A.1 and A.2 under charge No. 1 framed under Section 498-A IPC.and the conviction and sentence imposed upon A.1 and A.2 under charge No. 4 under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are confirmed.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed upon A.1 under Section 498-A IPC.The conviction and sentence imposed upon A.1 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. | ['Section 498A 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. |
125,504,420 | Case diary perused.This is first application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicants, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.269/2019, registered at P. S. Hata, District-Damoh (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B & 34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.As per the prosecution case, deceased Varsha Singh was married to co-accused Hakam Singh about two years before the incident.Applicants who are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased demanded money from the deceased and on non-fulfillment of their demand the deceased was subjected cruelty.Deceased was found dead in her house with her daughter aged about 8 months and the house in which she was residing was also found completely burnt.On the report marg intimation has been recorded.During marg enquiry, statements of family members and other persons has been recorded.On that basis the aforementioned crime has been registered against the applicants and co-accused persons.Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have not committed any offence.They have been falsely implicated in this case.They are ready to furnish appropriate surety and will comply with the conditions imposed on them.Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application.Applicant Ramnath and Tulsabai are father and mother of the co- accused Hakam Singh.Main allegations are against Hakam Singh that he subjected the deceased with cruelty by which she set herself and her 8 months old daughter ablaze and both have succumbed to death on the spot.Applicants have submitted ration card, job card (MANREGA) etc. On going through which it appears that deceased was residing separately with her husband i.e. co-accused Hakam Singh.Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the applicants deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicants is allowed.It is directed that the applicant No.1 Ramnath and applicant No.2 Smt.Tulsa Bai, shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each 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.C. C. as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE loretta Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 02/07/2019 01:51:26 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
125,514,701 | Appellant no.1 has been convicted by the trial Court under section 304 Part I of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years & fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulations.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is a case where only single blow said to have been inflicted by appellant no.1 to deceased Munna.Remaining jail sentence of appellant no.1 Deepak Awasthi is hereby suspended and it is directed that he shall be released on bail subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18/11/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard, which shall not be less than the period of 6 months till final disposal of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. SOLANKI) | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
125,519,526 | This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.On perusal of the record, it is found that the applicant Krishnadeep claimed himself to be a juvenile.Learned JMFC, Lahar District Bhind vide order dated 06.06.2015 has opined the applicant as juvenile on the date of incident.Considering the provision under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and remanded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhind for further enquiry.On 17.06.2015, learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhind has rejected the application for bail of the applicant.Thereafter, applicant filed an application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar District Bhind and ( Krishnadeep Singh Vs.If the applicant is found major, he be directed to surrender before the concerned Court within three days from the date order and he be taken into custody and dealt in accordance with law.If the applicant fails to surrender the Court would be at liberty to procure his attendance by coercive means.If he is found "Juvenile in conflict with law" the concerning Police Station be directed to file challan before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhind.With the aforesaid, this application is disposed of.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
125,521,176 | The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.191 of 2011 on the fileof the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli.The accused 2 and3 are the parents of the first accused/appellant.She was studying in aPolytechnic College during the relevant time.At the time of occurrence, shewas aged 17 years.The first accused also belongs to the same village.Heused to meet P.W.1 frequently and at one point of time, he proposed his lovefor her.But P.W.1 did not respond positively.While so, on 21.10.2008,according to the prosecution case, at about 9.00 a.m., the first accused metP.W.1 and wanted her to come to the cattle shed of her aunt for having achitchat.P.W.1 responded positively and went along with him to the cattleshed.In the cattle shed, during the talks, he promised to marry her and heextended sexual overtures towards her.She resisted.Despite the same, itis the case that he committed rape on her by having penile sexualintercourse.This was seen by P.W.1's aunt by name Mariammal.Mrs.Mariammal enquired P.W.1 about the affair.P.W.1 told her that they had decided tomarry and that is why they had sex.Thereafter, Mrs.Mariammal informed thefather of P.W.1 about the same.Then, the father of P.W.1, along with hisother relatives, went to the house of the first accused met him and otherelders in his house.He has stated that duringthe month of December 2008, the appellant and his uncle, came to his houseand told him that he and P.W.1 had lived together as husband and wife forsome time.When P.W.6 wanted the first accused to marry P.W.1, he declined.P.Ws.9 to 12 are the Doctors, who have given opinion asnarrated already.P.W.15 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.W.16 has spoken about theinvestigation done.According to her evidence, A1 met herand requested her to come to the cattle shed of her aunt for a chitchat.Shefollowed him.On reaching the cattle shed, it is stated that he wanted tohave sex with her.She declined.But the accused No.1 told her that hewould marry her.The first accused hereinstood charged for offences under Sections 376, 417 and 506(i) IPC and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the accused 2 and 3 stood charged for offenceunder Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. By judgment dated 30.09.2014,the trial Court convicted all of them under various penal provisions.Thetrial Court convicted the appellant No.1/A1 for offence under Sections 376IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and topay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment forsix months for the offence under Section 417 IPC and to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default toundergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and for the offence underSection 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment fortwo years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorousimprisonment for three months.He was acquitted of the charge under Section506(i) IPC.The trial Court convicted the appellants 2 and 3 for offenceunder Sections 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergorigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each.Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the appellants are before thisCourt with this appeal.The firstaccused demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for marrying her.Thereafter P.W.1 went to the police station on 12.12.2008, upon which, the present case wasregistered in Crime No.17 of 2008 under Sections 417, 376, 498(A) and 506(i)IPC by the Sub Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Sankarankoil.During the course of investigation, P.W.1 was sent for medicalexamination.P.W.9 Doctor Velammal conducted medical examination on P.W.1 to whom P.W.1 told that she had sexual intercourse atleast for five times.She found the hymenruptured.She also found that her vaginal cavity allowed two fingers to movefreely.Vaginal smear was taken and sent for chemical examination, whichrevealed that there was no spermatozoa.P.W.9, therefore, gave opinion thatthere was no sign of any recent sexual intercourse.P3 is the Certificateand Ex.P.W.1 was again sent to theGovernment Hospital, Tenkasi to ascertain her age.P.W.10 Dr.Kulandhai Velutook X-rays, examined P.W.1 and X-rays and finally gave opinion that on thedate of examination, she had completed 18 years of age and not completed 19 years of age.M.O.1 series are the X-rays taken and the Ex.During the course of investigation, P.W.16, the InvestigatingOfficer arrested the first accused on 21.12.2009 and forwarded him formedical examination.P.W.11 Dr.Balasubramaniam attached to the Government Hospital at Sankarankoil conducted medical examination on the first accusedand found that he was hale and healthy and he was capable of performingpenile sexual intercourse with a woman.Thus, according to P.W.11, theappellant was not impotent.On 23.12.2009, the first appellant/A1 was againexamined by one Dr.G.Krishnan (P.W.12) to ascertain his age.He took X-rayand based on the same and on examinations, he gave opinion that he had completed 21 years of age.M.O2 series are the X-rays and Ex.P6 is thecertificate issued by him.During the course of investigation, P.W.6, theInspector of Police, examined P.W.1, P.W.2 (her father), P.W.3 (her uncle),P.W.6 (another uncle) and few more witnesses.He collected the medicalrecords, laid charge sheet against the appellants.Based on the above, the trial Court framed as many as five chargesas narrated in the first paragraph of the judgment.The accused denied thesame.In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as manyas 16 witnesses were examined and 10 documents were exhibited, besides 2 material objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has spoken about thealleged sexual intercourse she had with the first accused on 21.10.2008.P.W.2 the father of P.W.1 has stated that he was told by Mrs.Mariammal about the above occurrence.He has further stated that when he along with theother relatives, went to the house of the appellants to request him to marryP.W.1, he declined to marry, demanding Rs.1 lakh as dowry.The accused 2 and 3 also demanded dowry.P.W.3, an uncle of P.W.1 has stated that he also heard about the occurrence.But since hedemanded dowry, the marriage proposal was dropped.P.Ws.4 and 5 were examined to speak about the observation mahazar, but they have turned hostileand they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.When the above incriminating evidences were put to the accusedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.On their side,three documents were exhibited.According to A-1, on 21.10.2008, at about7.30 a.m., when he was at his house, P.W.2 and his relatives came to hishouse and severely beaten him up.He was hospitalised on the same day fortreatment for the injuries sustained in the occurrence.In connection withthe same, on his complaint, dated 21.10.2008, a case in Crime No.91 of 2008was registered on the file of the Panavadalichathiram Police Station.D1is the complaint and Ex.D2 is the FIR and Ex.D3 is the wound certificate ofthe accused.In his evidence, he has stated that when he was at his house at 7.30a.m., on 21.10.2008, P.W.2 and others came and attacked him.He has further stated that since he did not agree for marriage with P.W.1, this falsecomplaint has been made.Having considered the above materials, the trial Court convicted theappellants as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment and that ishow, they are before this Court with this appeal.I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor and I have also perused the records carefully.The learned counsel for the appellants and the counsel for thede-facto complainant Suganya have also signed.In that memo, it is statedthat on 02.03.2015, the first accused has married P.W.1 and they have beenliving happily as husband and wife and that out of the said wedlock, nowP.W.1 is pregnant and she is carrying four months foetus in her womb.Further, they have stated that since they have married and since they areliving happily, the compromise may be accepted and the appellants may be acquitted.The said compromise memo shall form part of the record of thisCourt.In my considered view, going by the fact that Accused No.1 has beenconvicted for offences under sections 376 IPC, which is not compoundable,this Court cannot act upon the said compromise memo.Therefore, this Courtcalled upon the learned counsel for the appellants to argue the case onmerits.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that it is onrecord that P.W.1 was aged more than 18 years as on the date of occurrence.He would further submit that there is enough evidence to show that P.W.1 andA1 had fallen in love for a long time.He would further submit that so faras the sexual intercourse, which, A1 allegedly had with P.W.1 on 21.10.2008,there is no clear evidence.He would point out that as per Ex.P1 complaint,the act of sexual intercourse happened at the house of Mrs.Mariammal.But,according to the evidence of P.W.1 and the charge framed in this case, theoccurrence had taken place in the cattle shed of Mrs.Mariammal.Referring tothe rough sketch drawn by the Inspector of Police showing the place ofoccurrence, the learned counsel for the appellants would point out that thecattle shed belonging to Mrs.Mariammal and the house of Mrs.Mariammal are at a long distance.In between these two places, the house of one Thangasamy,S/o.Mandhiram, is situated and there is also a vacant site.The learnedcounsel would point out that the distance between these two places, namelythe house of Mariammal and the cattle shed must be around more than , a kilometer.He wouldsubmit that first of all, he did not give any promise for such marriage.Regarding dowry demand also, the learned counsel would submit that there is no consistent evidence.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently opposethis appeal.According to him, P.W.1 was only 17 years of age at the time ofoccurrence.He would further submitthat according to the Doctor, P.W.1 would have had sexual intercourse longbefore.He wouldfurther submit that having given a promise to marry, and after having sexwith P.W.1, P.W.1 had refused to marry P.W.1 demanding dowry.I have considered the above submissions.It has been stated by P.W.1 that even thereafter she didnot agree for him to have sex with her, but by force, he had sexualintercourse with her.When she cried out of pain, he closed her mouth withhis hands.Thus, according to the evidence of P.W.1, without her consent,the accused had sexual intercourse with her by force.As pointed by the learned counsel for theappellants, according to Ex.P1 - complaint, on 21.10.2008, when P.W.1 was atthe house of her aunt Mrs.Mariammal, A1 came there promised her to marry and then with her consent, he had sexual intercourse at the house ofMrs.Thus, according to the complaint, the occurrence was at thehouse of Mariammal.But from the rough sketch and from the other evidenceavailable, it is crystal clear that the house of Mrs.Mariammal and the cattleshed of Mrs.Mariammal are at a long distance.Almost the distance betweenthese two must be around , kilometer.There is a house of yet anotherperson between these places and there is also a vacant place.Thus, asrightly pointed out by the learned counsel, there is no consistent evidenceas to whether the occurrence had taken place at the house of Mrs.Mariammal orat the cattle shed of Mrs.Mariammal.The only eye witness to the occurrenceMrs.Mariammal was also no more and thus, the prosecution did not have the benefit of examining her.Thus, the above major contradiction has not beenexplained away by the prosecution.Next, according to A1, on 21.10.2008, at about 7.30 a.m., when hewas at his house, P.W.2 and others came to his house and severely beaten him up and immediately he went to the police station and preferred a complaint tothe police.D1 is the complaint and Ex.D2 is the FIR.Thus, thecomplaint was recorded from A1, while he was in the Sankarankovil Government Hospital undergoing treatment as inpatient for the injury sustained in theaccident.He had told the Doctor that he was assaultedwith stick (kambu) and wooden pestle (ulakkai) by two known persons.According to the medical records, he had sustained as many as four injuries.It is the evidence of A1 as D.W.1 that since he was in the hospital at therelevant time, there would have been no occasion for him to meet P.W.1 and tohave sexual intercourse with her on 21.10.2008 at 9.00 a.m. The prosecutionhas not at all explained the above anomaly in the case of the prosecution.When Investigating Officer was cross examined in respect of the above facts,he has disowned the knowledge of the above case at all.In this background, now, we have to evaluate the delay inpreferring the complaint.The alleged occurrence was on 21.10.2008, whereas,the complaint was preferred only on 12.12.2008, i.e., nearly after 52 days.Absolutely, there is no explanation for the said delay.According to thelearned counsel for the appellants, since case had already been registeredagainst P.W.2 and others, under Ex.D2, as early as on 25.10.2008 itself, as acounterblast, this complaint has been made falsely.She has admitted during cross examination that they had fallenin love with each other and they decided to marry.P.W.6 has stated thatP.W.1 told him that she and the first accused had lived together as wife andhusband for some time.At the most, it can be inferred that P.W.1 had given full consentfor sexual intercourse, because they had already decided to marry.Themarriage proposal had broken obviously, because of the registration of thecase against P.W.2 and others.Thus, I hold that theprosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 376 IPC.So far as the offence under Section 417 is concerned, in view ofthe fact that there was already a case registered against P.W.2 and others,the marriage proposal would have been dropped.Apart from that, the accusedNo.1 and P.W.1 had mutually agreed to marry and there was no false promise also.Turning to the compromise memo filed before this Court, as I havealready pointed out, this Court cannot act upon the same to acquit theaccused.But I referred to the compromise memo only to strengthen my conclusion that there was love affair between the accused No.1 and P.W.1 andnow they have married and they are living happily and out of the said wedlockP.W.1 is now pregnant.In view of all the above, I hold that the prosecution has notproved the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellants areentitled for acquittal.In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed.1.The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) Tirunelveli.2.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, All Women Police Station, Sankarankovil3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
125,521,526 | 15:14:29 -07'00' 10:50:10 +05'30'Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard through video conferencing.This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed in S.P.L.Case No.200031/2015 by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Sabalgarh, District Morena (M.P.) whereby appellant- Deewan Singh has been convicted as under:I.A.No.2668/2020, first application u/S.389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of sole appellant-Deewan 2 CRA-10616-2019 Singh is taken up and considered.This fact has been considered in para-63 of the impugned judgment.The case relates to attack on Police party, wherein firearm was used with a view to give threat to the Police and get the accused escaped, who was in custody of the Police.Perused the available record.The appellant has committed the offences under Sections 396, 120-B, 302/149 of IPC & Sections 11, 13 of MPDVPK Act, Section 307/149 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 225/149 part-2 read with Section 120-B of IPC and tried to get escaped the accused from the custody of the Police. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 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. |
125,527,507 | DATE :- 18 JULY, 2018JUDGMENT (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-By theimpugned Judgment and Order, the Appellants / original accusednos.1 to 5 were convicted as under :For the offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC,the Appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo simpleimprisonment for five months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each andin default of payment of fine, to undergo further S.I. for 15 days.For the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC,the Appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo simpleimprisonment for ten months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each andin default of payment of fine, to undergo further S.I. for one month.For the offence punishable under Section 341 read with149 of the IPC, the Appellants were convicted and sentenced toURS 2 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: 3 APEAL 445-14 Judgment.docundergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine ofRs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo furtherS.I. for six days.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::For the offence punishable under Section 307 read with149 of the IPC, the Appellants were convicted and sentenced toundergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo furtherS.I. for one month.For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with149 of the IPC, the Appellants were convicted and sentenced toundergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- eachand in default of payment of fine, to undergo further S.I. for twomonths.All the substantive sentences were directed to runconcurrently.The accused were given set off for the period alreadyundergone by them in custody.Along with the present accused, there were 8 otheraccused who had faced the trial.Complainant Laxman and his brother Ramdas (deceasedin the present case) were residing together with their parents, theirsister Deepali and Ramdas's wife Pallavi.They were cultivating anagricultural land as a source of their livelihood.Ramdas's mother hadan ancestral agricultural land originally belonging to her grandfatherGenu Bodake.Out of the said land, half portion was cultivated by thedeceased and his family and the other half was cultivated by theAppellant No.1 Vasant.It is the case of the prosecution that theAppellant No.1 had got his name entered in the records in respect ofthe said land and therefore, there was a dispute between theAppellants' family on one hand and the deceased's family on the other.On 08/08/2009, Ramdas's maternal grandmother expired and whenthe family of the deceased was returning after performing the lastrites, the Appellant No.1 threatened them and told them that hewould not allow them to enter the agricultural land.A quarrel ensuedURS 4 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: 5 APEAL 445-14 Judgment.docand the villagers pacified them.On the same day in the evening on08/08/2009 at about 8.00 p.m., deceased Ramdas and his brotherLaxman, the first informant in this case, were proceeding towardsKelewadi, Kothrud on a motorcycle.Their parents were walking onthe same road.When the deceased Ramdas reached near BhairobaMandir bus stop at Kotewadi, the Appellants and 10 to 15 others camein two cars and intercepted their motorcycle.Ramdas fell down.Laxman ran away from the spot and took shelter in the temple nearby.His parents who were at some distance behind,walking on the road, rushed there to find that Ramdas was lying in apool of blood in a ditch.Even the parents were beaten with thoseweapons and then the accused went away from the spot.Laxmanwho was hiding in the temple, came out, went home and brought hisother family members and carried all the injured to Lodha Hospital atWarje.AfterURS 5 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: 6 APEAL 445-14 Judgment.docregistration of the FIR, spot panchanama was conducted at the spotwhich was at Bahuli Mutha Road near Bhairavnath temple.However, nothing turnson their evidence as it is a case of direct evidence consisting of thedepositions of PW 7 Mangal Jori who was the mother of the deceasedand an injured eye witness, PW 9 Subhash Jori who was the father ofthe deceased and an injured eye witness and PW 8 Laxman Jori whowas the first informant and claimed to be an eye witness.The entireprosecution case sails through or sinks depending on the quality oftheir evidence.PW 17 Dr. Pravin Jain was attached to SahyadriHospital and has deposed about the treatment given to the deceasedRamdas when he was admitted to Sahyadri Hospital.PW 18 Dr.Naresh Lodha had examined PW 7 and PW 9 for their injuries.PW 19Dr.Nitin Patil had conducted post-mortem examination on the deadbody of Ramdas.PW 20 Mohan More, PW 21 Vasant Babar, PW 22Satish Patil, PW 25 API Raju Pachurkar and PW 26 PSI PandurangJhakne had taken part in the investigation at various stages.PW 8 Laxman Jori wasthe first informant.He has deposed that the Appellant No.1 was acousin of his mother Mangal.The land was admeasuring 1 acre and was dividedinto four parts.Out of those, two parts were cultivated by theAppellants and the other parts were cultivated by the family of PW 8.Afore-mentioned Chandrabhaga was staying with PW 8's family andsometime with Mangal's sister Kamal.According to PW 8, theAppellant No.1 wanted to usurp the remaining two parts of the land.He has further deposed that on 08/08/2009, his grandmotherChandrabhaga died around 10.00 a.m. At about 3.30 p.m., PW 8'sfamily were returning after performing last rites.At that time, theAppellant No.1 abused them and threatened them that he would notallow them to enter the land.At about 8.30 p.m., PW 8 and RamdasURS 8 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: 9 APEAL 445-14 Judgment.docleft their house on a motorcycle for going to Kelewadi.When theyreached near Bhairavnath temple, one Maruti van and one Indica carcame there and intercepted them.One vehicle was in front of theirmotorcycle and the other was behind and thus, they were caughtbetween the two vehicles and therefore, could not proceed further.The headlights of the vehicle at the back were on and PW 8 saw thatthe Appellant No.4 got down with a sword.PW 8 got scared and ranaway from the spot and hid himself in the temple which wasapproximately 40 ft. away.The Appellant Nos.2, 3 and 5 got downfrom their vehicle carrying swords.Along with them, 7 to 8 morepersons alighted.Ramdas was thenshifted to Sahyadri Hospital.This witness has identified the presentAppellants before the Court.The FIR is produced on record at Exh.80.In his cross-examination, he has admitted that when he was runningfrom the backside of the vehicle, nobody accosted him and nobodybeat him.He has admitted that nobody chased him either.He hasfurther admitted that he did not try to help Ramdas when he wasbeing assaulted and he has explained that he was frightened.He hasfurther stated that at the time of the incident, it was raining.They also beat her husband with their weapons and she herself wasassaulted with sword and sickle.The Appellant No.1 assaulted thiswitness with axe on her back due to which she fell down at the spot ina pool of blood.She then saw the accused leaving from there in twovehicles towards village Mutha.Accused nos.6 to 13 were acquittedof all the charges framed against them.They were charged forcommission of the same offences for which the present AppellantsURS 3 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: 4 APEAL 445-14 Judgment.docwere convicted.The present Appellants were the original accusednos.1 to 5 in the said sessions case.The Appellant No.1 is the fatherof the remaining Appellants.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::Ramdas was assaulted by all the accused and the Appellants withdangerous weapons like sickles, swords, iron rods and sticks.Ramdasgave shouts for help.TheAppellants and the other accused were arrested during the course ofthe investigation.The police recovered and seized various weapons,clothes worn by the accused and the Maruti van at the instance ofdifferent accused.Some Call Detail Records were collected and at theconclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.As thecase was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committedto the Court of Sessions for trial.The case was tried vide SessionsCase No.164 of 2010 before the learned Extra Joint Ad-hoc AdditionalSessions Judge - 1, Pune.At the conclusion of the trial, the Appellantswere convicted and the other accused were acquitted as mentionedearlier.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::We have heard Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, learned Counsel forthe Appellants and Ms. S. S. Kaushik, learned APP for State.Withtheir assistance, we have read the evidence and perused the impugnedJudgment.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::During trial, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses.Outof them, most witnesses were panchas for various recovery andseizure panchanamas.Most of these witnesses had turned hostile anddid not support the prosecution during trial.PW 23Ravi Pardesdhi and PW 24 Dattaram Angre were the officers from thetelephone service provider companies.The defence of the AppellantsURS 7 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: 8 APEAL 445-14 Judgment.docand the other accused was of total denial.After recording theevidence and the statements of the accused, the learned trial Judgeheard the arguments and passed his Judgment and Order.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::All of them started assaulting Ramdas with swords.Appellant Suresh was holding a sickle and the Appellant Vilas washolding an iron rod.PW 8 has further deposed that the AppellantNo.1 Vasant came there with an axe.Ramdas gave shouts for help.PW 8's parents came running there.At that time, the Appellant No.1assaulted PW 8's mother Mangal on her back and hand and the otherAppellants and other accused assaulted his father with their weapons.Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot.PW 8 then wentto his house and returned with his family members.They sought helpfrom a three wheeler tempo and removed the injured to LodhaURS 9 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: 10 APEAL 445-14 Judgment.docHospital at Warje-Malavadi.At about 10.30 to 11.00 p.m., the policecame there and took down his statement in writing.He hasalso admitted that even when his parents were assaulted, he did notintervene.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::PW 7 Mangal Jori was the mother of PW 8 Laxman anddeceased Ramdas.After narrating about the dispute between thefamilies, she has further deposed that on 08/08/2009, there was aquarrel in the afternoon between her family and the Appellant and forthe said incident, her sister Kamal had lodged a complaint with thepolice.She has further deposed that at around 8.00 p.m., her bothsons i.e. PW 8 Laxman and deceased Ramdas, were proceedingURS 10 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: 11 APEAL 445-14 Judgment.doctowards Kelewadi, Kothrud.She herself and her husband wereproceeding towards her sister Kamal's house.Their sons overtookthem on a motorcycle.At some distance, she heard shouts from herson Ramdas.Therefore, she and her husband ran towards him nearBhairoba Mandir bus stop at Kotewadi.She saw that Appellant No.2with an iron rod, Appellant No.3 with a sword, Appellant No.4 with asword and the Appellant No.5 with a sickle, were assaulting Ramdas.After some time, PW 8 Laxman andothers took them in a tempo to Lodha hospital and she was treatedthere for 10 days.Her husband was treated for 5 days.She failed toidentify the other accused, except the present Appellants, before thetrial Court.She was cross-examined in detail in respect of theirdispute and also in respect of the incident of actual assault.However,nothing worth mentioning was brought on record on behalf of thedefence except that there was no electricity in that area, she hasclarified that there was electricity in the temple which was nearby.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::PW 9 Subhash Jori was the father of the deceased and PWHe has deposed that at about 8 to 8.30 p.m. on 08/08/2009 whenthey were proceeding towards his sister-in-law Kamal Kamble's houseat village Bahuli, his sons overtook them on a motorcycle near atemple.At some distance, he heard Ramdas's shouts.Therefore, theywent running there.At that time, the Appellant No.1 gave an axeblow to his wife (PW 7).He has deposed that the Appellant No.2 washaving an iron rod, the Appellant No.3 was having a sword, theAppellant No.4 was having a sword and the Appellant No.5 washaving a sickle.He has further deposed that the Appellants haddetained Ramdas.As this witness tried to intervene, at that time, hereceived a blow with an iron rod on his head.He was assaulted onhand, thigh and back.It is his case that the Appellants assaulted him.He has further deposed that the others were beating him and Ramdaswith fist blows and kicks and that Ramdas had suffered injuries on hishead, abdomen and legs.He has further deposed that thereafter, hisyounger son Laxman (PW 8) arrived there and noticed that everythingwas over and then returned to his house and brought his daughterand daughter-in-law who took them in a tempo to Lodha Hospital atWarje.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::The prosecution has examined PW 19 Dr. Nitin Patil whohad conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body ofRamdas.He has found that the deceased had four wounds on thehead.Those were stitched wounds and there were contusions andabrasions on the hands and legs.In his opinion, the cause of deathwas due to head injury.In the cross-examination, he has admittedthat the Injury Nos.1 to 4 on the head were surgery wounds and therewere two other punctures which corresponded to the medicaltreatment given to him.He has admitted that the abrasions andcontusions were possible because of fall on any rough or hard surface.He has admitted that all the abrasions and contusions found on thedead body of the deceased were were possible if the deceased, whiletraveling on a two wheeler, was given a dash by a four wheeler.As can be seen, Ramdas was operated for his head injuryafter he had suffered the injuries in the assault.Therefore, the post-mortem examination may not indicate the exact nature of injuriessuffered by him during assault.Instead, the evidence of PW 17 Dr.Pravin Jain in this behalf would be of relevance.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::PW 17 Dr. Pravin Jain was attached to Sahyadri Hospitalas a Neurosurgeon Consultant.He has deposed that on 09/08/2009,Ramdas was admitted to their hospital and he was an indoor patienttill 13/08/2009 when he died.The medical papers show that there was a CLWover occipito-parietal region which was sutured before he was broughtto Sahyadri Hospital and there was blunt trauma all over body.Hisevidence shows that there was only one injury which was a CLW onthe head of Ramdas.There was blunt trauma all over his body which,according to the evidence of PW 19 Dr. Nitin Patil, was possible due tofall from the motorcycle.Significantly, the same medical papers ofSahyadri Hospital mention the history as 'assault injury beaten byunknown people by rods around 8 p.m. at Potewadi, Tal.Haveli Dist.Pune on 8/8/9'.Ramdas was brought to Sahyadri Hospital at 3.00a.m.The prosecution has further examined PW 18 Dr. NareshLodha.He has found following injuries on the person of PW 7 Mangaland PW 9 Subhash :::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::Bone muscle exposed, bleeding plus.It was a cut injury.(ii) CLW over occipital region, approximately 3 inches in length, cranial bone exposed, margins were irregular.It was a bleeding injury.(iii) Penetrating close injury over left shoulder region.It was bleeding and wound was contaminated, size 1 inch deep and 1 cm in length.exposed, bleeding heavy, wound was contaminated.(ii) CLW over right elbow region, 5 cm in length, bleeding and wound was contaminated with soil and rice particles.(iii) Blunt trauma over right side of chest.Patient has surgical emphysema, lower rib fracture.Thus, it can be seen that from the evidence of this witness that boththese witnesses PW 7 and PW 9 had suffered grievous injuries.Theevidence of PW 18 further shows that they had suffered injuries due tohard and blunt object as well as a sharp instrument.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::Taking overall view of the matter in the light of theevidence of the important witnesses discussed above, we find that theevidence of PW 8, the first informant, does not inspire confidence.According to him, he was riding on the same motorcycle with thedeceased when they were intercepted by the Appellants and others intwo cars.At that time, he got frightened and ran away from the spotand hid himself in a nearby temple.The entire evidence shows thatthe dispute was between the two families and there was no particularreason to assault Ramdas and leave out PW 8 Laxman.He hasadmitted in his cross-examination that none of the accused chasedhim and there was not even a scratch on his person.There is noreason why he was spared and only Ramdas was attacked.His furtherconduct was also unnatural.Even giving concession to his frightenedstate of mind, it does not stand to reason that he did not go forrescuing his brother and thereafter his old parents.He did not raiseshouts or he did not seek help from any quarter.PW 7 has, in fact,deposed that after everything was over, PW 8 arrived there.Thiswitness has described that Ramdas was assaulted by the Appellant andothers with sharp weapons but there was only one injury on the headURS 16 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: 17 APEAL 445-14 Judgment.docand blunt trauma over other parts.When Ramdaswas admitted to Sahyadri Hospital, PW 7 and PW 9 themselves wereadmitted to Lodha Hospital and they could not be in a position todescribe the incident at that point of time.However, PW 8 was verymuch in a position to narrate the incident and, in fact, had given hisFIR but the medical papers of Sahyadri Hospital mention that theassault was by unknown persons.Therefore, the defence has createdsufficient doubt regarding the evidence of PW 8 and we are notinclined to rely on his evidence.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::Though we have discarded the evidence of PW 8, wecannot treat the evidence of PW 7 and PW 9 in the same manner.Both of them were injured eye witnesses and had suffered grievousinjuries.They were carried together to Lodha Hospital along withURS 17 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: 18 APEAL 445-14 Judgment.docRamdas.Therefore, there is no doubt that they had suffered theinjuries due to assault in the same incident in which Ramdas wasassaulted.Both these witnesses were natural witnesses and theirpresence at the spot at the time of incident is proved beyondreasonable doubt.Therefore, their versions carry more weight.Theinjury suffered by PW 7 Mangal on her back is attributed by her to theAppellant No.1 and his assault with axe.This injury is corroboratedby the medical evidence.Therefore, there is sufficient corroborationto their evidence.The defence has tried to create doubt about theirevidence by suggesting that there was no light at the spot.However,the assailants were close relatives of PW 7 and PW 9 and therefore, itwas not difficult for them to identify them as their assailants.PW 7 inparticular, appears to be a truthful witness and she has refused toidentify the other accused in the Court.Mr. Joshi tried to submit thatsince there was a dispute in respect of the agricultural land andtherefore due to enmity, the Appellants were falsely implicated.Suchenmity is a double edged weapon.It can be a cause for falseimplication but at the same time, it can be a motive for commission ofthe offence.In this case, there is a previous background of theincident in the afternoon when the Appellants had threatened them.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::Therefore, that enmity was proved to be the motive behind thepresent crime.Therefore, we are satisfied that the Appellants hadassaulted the deceased Ramdas, PW 7 Mangal and PW 9 Subhash.The analysis of the evidence discussed above, shows firstRamdas was assaulted by some members of the unlawful assembly.There is no evidence to show as to who was the accused who hadactually caused the head injury which ultimately proved to be fatal.Itis significant that after Ramdas had fallen down, he was not assaultedon his vital parts with deadly weapons and no other serious injury wascaused to him by inflicting blows with such weapons.Even after PW 7and PW 9 reached on the spot, they were assaulted but they were notbeaten to death.All the three victims were at the mercy of theunlawful assembly of the accused who had gathered there with deadlyweapons and yet they were not beaten to such an extent to cause theirdeath on the spot.It shows that the common object of the assemblywas not to commit murder of any of the victims but their object was togive severe thrashing to these victims.Though it is not clear as towho has assaulted deceased Ramdas on his head, knowledge that suchinjury could be caused to the deceased, can be attributed to eachURS 19 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: 20 APEAL 445-14 Judgment.docmember of the unlawful assembly and therefore, under the provisionsof Section 149 of the IPC, each member of the unlawful assembly canbe held liable for committing this offence with the prerequisiteknowledge.Thus, we are of the opinion that the Appellants weremembers of the unlawful assembly.For the injuries caused to thedeceased which ultimately led to his death, each member of theunlawful assembly can be said to have committed an offencepunishable under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 149 of theIPC and not under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.Atthe same time, each member of such assembly has committed theoffence of causing grievous hurt to PW 7 and PW 9 and hence, eachsuch member is liable to be convicted for commission of an offencepunishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC.Hence, the following order.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::under Section 149 of IPC read with Section 307 of IPC is altered to the one under Section 149 read with Section 326 of IPC.Appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorousURS 20 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: 21 APEAL 445-14 Judgment.doc imprisonment for five years for the said offence.The order of learned Trial Judge, so far as the fine is concerned, is maintained.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 :::(iii) Conviction of the Appellants for the offence punishable under Section 149 of IPC read with Section 302 of IPC is converted into the one under section 149 read with Part-II of Section 304 of IPC and the Appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.The order of learned Trial Judge, so far as the fine is concerned, is maintained.(iv) Rest of the order of the learned Trial judge, convicting the Appellants for other offences, is maintained.(v) Needless to state that, Appellants shall undergo the sentence concurrently.(vi) Appellants, who have undergone sentence of more than seven years, are directed to be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:22:03 ::: | ['Section 149 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', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
116,749,775 | The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.281 of 2014 for offences under Sections 304(ii) of IPC r/w Section 15 (ii) (b) of Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956, as against the petitioner.. 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.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2014, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.281 of 2014 and file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.11.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No.6144 of 2016 lokhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.6144 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Inspector of Police, Ellavanasoor Koottai Police Station, Ulunthurpettai Taluk, Villupuram DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.No.6144 of 2016 11.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7 | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
116,753,993 | By this revision petition preferred under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), petitioner Mohan Dangi calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 20/01/2017 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, District Shajapur in S.T. No.204/2016, whereby charges for offences under Section 406 in alternate 403, Section 467 in alternate 468 and Section 420 in alternate 420/120B of IPC have been framed against the petitioner.The petitioner along with 6 other persons namely, Kapil Sharma, Neeraj Patidar, Jitendra Singh Yadav, Vivek Choubey and Joaquim Fernandes has been prosecuted by police, on the basis of allegations that two cheques bearing No.339719 dated 12/07/2013 for Rs.23,004/- and No.341734 dated 01/08/2013 for Rs.4,287/- issued by Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited towards salary of complainant Swati Yadav, who was working with the company from 05/01/2010 to 10/07/2013, were deposited in a forged account, which was opened in ICICI Bank, branch Tilawat Govind in the name of Swati Yadav and the amount was later on withdrawn without knowledge of Cr.R. No.301/2017 2 Swati Yadav.R. No.301/2017 2The allegation is that the cheques were never delivered to complainant SwatiYadav and when she complained about non-payment of her salary, it was discovered that the accused persons including the petitioner have hatched conspiracy to criminally mis-appropriate the amount under the cheque and in that regard a forged account in the name of Swati Yadav was opened in ICICI Bank, branch Tilawat Govind and later on the amount was withdrawn by Neeraj Patidar and was mis-appropriated by Jitendra and Neeraj Patidar.The learned trial Court, vide the impugned order had framed charges as stated herein above against the petitioners.It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is not even a whisper in the charge-sheet regarding direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner in opening of a forged account in the name of Swati Yadav and further depositing the cheque in the account and withdrawing the amount under the cheque.It is further submitted that though it has come in the statement of Neeraj Patidar that both the cheques were delivered to him by Kapil Sharma and thereafter the same were deposited in the account, which was opened in the name of Swati Yadav and later on the amount under the cheque was withdrawn, however, there is no allegation against the petitioner.It is also submitted that the petitioner was not charged with the responsibility with regard to distribution of salary to the Cr.R. No.301/2017 3 employees of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., at Indore, therefore, it cannot be said even, prima-facie, that he was part of the conspiracy hatched by Kapil Sharma and others.Cr.R. No.301/2017 3It was further informed by the company that a request was made to Gaurav Sinha to handover the cheques to Swati Yadav, however, it appears that instead of handing over the cheque to Swati Yadav, he handed over the same to Kapil Sharma, which later on were handed over to Neeraj Patidar by Kapil Sharma.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.From the aforesaid it transpires that the petitioner, at no point of time, has dealt with the cheques Cr.R. No.301/2017 4 under question and therefore it cannot be said, even prima- facie, that he was involved in alleged conspiracy to mis- appropriate the cheques.Even if all the allegations made against the petitioner, accepted at their face value, still charges as stated aforesaid are not made out against the petitioner.Therefore it is a fit case for quashment of charges qua petitioner.The learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order has not carefully examined the aforesaid factual and legal aspects of the case.Cr.R. No.301/2017 4Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20/01/2017 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, District Shajapur in S.T. No.204/2016 for offences under Sections 406 in alternate 403, 467 in alternate 468 and 420 read with Section 120B of IPC, to the extent it relates to the petitioner, deserves to be and is, hereby quashed.Resultantly, this petition stands allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge sumathi | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
11,675,438 | The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 3-7-1994, Pura, the Chowkidar of village Chirmiya gave an information to B.S. Parmar, SHO, police station Mahindpur to the effect that, the deceased Chandarbai, the wife of the appellant Hakam Singh had died, however, the reasons of her death, could not be ascertained.In the morning, the mother of the deceased was insisting that the father of the deceased should be called and the postmortem of the dead body should be done, but the appellants did not adhere to the request of the mother of the deceased and have performed the last rites.The deceased Chanderbai was not sick.She has stated that the deceased was married to the appellant no.1, about 3 years back.The appellants were harassing her and were demanding Rs.10,000/- and 2 tolas of gold.She further admitted that when she reached the matrimonial house of the deceased, then she saw that 12-15 persons were sitting there.However, she denied the suggestion that she was told by them that the deceased had vomited before her death.State of M.P.) that except Babu Singh, she did not inform anybody about the death of Chanderbai.She also could not clarify as to whether Babu Singh had informed anybody regarding lodging of the F.I.R. or not.20. Mangilal (P.W.9) is the maternal uncle of the deceased.He had stated that the deceased was married about 11-12 years back.As the deceased was being maltreated by the appellants, because of non-fulfillment of their demand of Rs.10,000/- and 2 tolas of gold, therefore, the deceased was not sent to her matrimonial house.Thereafter, Nanuram and Puralal, after giving assurance, took the deceased to her matrimonial house, where she died 12 days thereafter.He further admitted that inspite of the receipt of the information regarding death of the deceased, he came back from the midway as there was a possibility of dispute.He has further stated that he was informed by the deceased about the maltreatment.In cross examination, this witness has stated that the deceased had died in the year 1994, however, could not specify as to when she was married.However, stated that the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of marriage.(21/08/2018) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 22-4-1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No.434/1994, by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304-B, 498A and 201 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 7 years, 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and 2 years and a fine of Rs. 200/- respectively, with default imprisonment.2 Criminal Appeal No.594/1999 (Hakamsingh and another Vs.Merg enquiry No.16/1994 was registered and the statements of Kamlabai, the mother of the deceased, Balu Singh, the father of the deceased and other witnesses were recorded.It was alleged by the mother of the deceased, that the deceased had injuries on her body and also asserted that the deceased did not die because of any ailment.It was also stated by Kamlabai, that the appellants, inspite of repeated demands, did not wait for the father of the deceased to come and also did not get the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased done and cremated the deceased in haste and accordingly, the police registered the F.I.R. in crime no.124/1994 against the appellants and Puralal for offence under Sections 304B, 498A and 201/34 of I.P.C. and after concluding the investigation, filed a charge sheet against the appellants and co- accused Puralal for offence under Sections 304B, 498A and 201/34 of I.P.C.The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 304B, 201 and 498A of I.P.C.3 Criminal Appeal No.594/1999 (Hakamsingh and another Vs.State of M.P.)The appellants and the co-accused Puralal abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Pura (P.W.1), Harishchand (P.W.2), Kamla bai (P.W.3), Sunderbai (P.W.4), Ramibai (P.W.5), Mankunwarbai (P.W.6) Gathabai (P.W.7), Nanuram (P.W.8), Mangilal (P.W.9), B.B. Singh Parmar (P.W.10) and H.S. Kushwah (PW.11).The appellants examined Bahadur Singh (D.W.1) and Ram Singh (D.W.2) in their defence.The Trial Court by judgment and sentence dated 22-4-1999, passed in S.T. No.434/1994, convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 498A, 304B and 201/34 of I.P.C. and acquitted the co-accused Puralal of all the charges.Since the acquittal of the co-accused Puralal has not been challenged, either by the prosecution or by the complainant, therefore, any reference to the co-accused Puralal, would be for considering the allegations against the appellants.It is not out of place to mention here that the appellant no.2- Ambaram, died during the pendency of this appeal and his appeal has been dismissed as abated and his name has been deleted from the array of appellants in the cause title.Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was ever maltreated by the appellants.The prosecution has also failed to prove that the marriage of the deceased had taken place with the appellant no.1 Hakam Singh, within 7 years of marriage.The prosecution has also failed to prove that the deceased was harassed by the appellants, soon before her death.Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the marriage of the deceased with the appellant no.1, took place within 7 years of her death.The deceased was harassed and 4 Criminal Appeal No.594/1999 (Hakamsingh and another Vs.State of M.P.) maltreated by the appellants because of non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and the deceased was treated with cruelty just soon before her death.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.Pura (P.W.1), is the Chowkidar who had given information to the police.This witness has turned hostile and has also stated that he had never given the information to the police.Although this witness did not support the prosecution story, but surprisingly, he was not declared hostile by the prosecution.Harishchand (P.W.2) was the Patwari of village Chirmiya.Sunderbai (P.W.4) has also not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile and although she was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing could be elicited from her cross examination, which may support the prosecution case.Ramibai (P.W.5) has also not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile and although she was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing could be elicited from her cross examination, which may support the prosecution case.Mankunwar bai (P.W.6) has also not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile and although she was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing could be elicited from her cross examination, which may support the 5 Criminal Appeal No.594/1999 (Hakamsingh and another Vs.State of M.P.) prosecution case.Gathabai (P.W.7) has also not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile and although she was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing could be elicited from her cross examination, which may support the prosecution case.Nanuram (P.W.8) has also not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile and although he was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing could be elicited from his cross examination, which may support the prosecution case.Kamlabai (P.W.3) is the mother of the deceased.This was told by the deceased, however, this witness could not satisfy the demand of the appellants and accordingly, she did not sent the deceased to her matrimonial house.Thereafter, Puralal, Nanuram came to take the deceased back, but this witness initially, refused to send the deceased to her matrimonial house, but when they gave assurance to this witness, then the deceased was sent, however, she died within 14 days thereafter.In the morning at about 4 A.M., four persons came to her house and informed that the deceased has expired.Thereafter, this witness along with Sunderbai, Ramibai went to the house of the appellants, where they found that the deceased was lying dead and had injuries on her neck and the neck was moving freely on either side.Thereafter, she requested the appellants to get the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased done, however, they did not do so and cremated the dead body and thereafter they came back.She had also told about the demand of dowry to her husband and her mother-in-law Maina bai; unfortunately both have expired.This witness was 6 Criminal Appeal No.594/1999 (Hakamsingh and another Vs.State of M.P.) cross examined and admitted that the deceased was married when she was aged about 15-16 years and she expired about 5-6 years after her marriage.She denied the suggestion that the deceased was married when she was aged about 9-10 years.Immediately after the marriage, the deceased had gone to her matrimonial house and thereafter, this witness brought her back as per rites and rituals.The deceased thereafter stayed in her parental home for a period of 3-4 years.The deceased was aged about 20-21 years, at the time of her death.She on her own also stated that about 2 years prior to her death, the deceased had gone to her matrimonial house where she had stayed for months together.She further admitted that no dowry was given at the time of marriage, as the same is never given as per the customs, however, now the grooms have started demanding dowry.She further admitted that no report was ever lodged by them with regard to demand of dowry.However, she further admitted that the dowry was demanded about 3 years back from the date of deposition.She further admitted that even after receiving the information about the death of the daughter, her husband did not go to the matrimonial house of the deceased, as he was suffering from fever and had stated that he would come at a later stage.She further admitted that she did not call her husband and other relatives.She further denied that the last rites of the deceased were performed by the villagers.She further stated that she had seen about 5-6 injuries on the body of the deceased, but could not specify the situs of those injuries.She further stated that the F.I.R. was lodged by Babu Singh who has expired, however, could not specify as to when such report was lodged.She further admitted 7 Criminal Appeal No.594/1999 (Hakamsingh and another Vs.He also could not specify as to when the deceased had come back from her matrimonial house.This witness has further stated that about 6 months prior to her death, he was informed by the deceased about maltreatment.He further admitted that neither any report was lodged, nor any notice was given in this regard.He further admitted that he did not lodge the report and also did not go to the matrimonial house of the deceased, even after coming to know about her death.He has further stated that when he started for coming to the matrimonial house of the deceased, then Balu Singh met with him while he was on his way and he informed that the deceased has expired and thereafter, he was informed by Kamlabai (P.W.3) about the death of Chanderbai.Babu Singh had met him at about 3:30-3:45 P.M., whereas 8 Criminal Appeal No.594/1999 (Hakamsingh and another Vs.State of M.P.) Kamlabai (P.W.3) had met him about 15 minutes thereafter.He came to Narayan for lodging the report and went to Mahidpur.When they reached police station, it was already evening.They met with the T.I. and the report was written by T.I. They stayed in the village Baloda, but did not inform anybody about the incident.B.B.S. Parmar (P.W.10) was posted as S.H.O., Police Station Mahidpur and had conducted the merg enquiry.He fairly conceded that nobody had lodged the report, however, while he was on patrolling, he was informed by Pura, Chowkidar about the incident and accordingly, he had registered the merg.He further admitted that he had not conducted any enquiry as to when the marriage had taken place.Thus, if the evidence of Kamla bai (P.W.3) and Mangilal (P.W. 9) is considered in the light of evidence of B.B.S. Parmar (P.W.10), it is clear that the evidence of Kamlabai (P.W.3) and Mangilal (P.W.9) that the F.I.R. was lodged by Babu Singh, appears to be false.Even the prosecution has not placed on record any F.I.R./report lodged by Babu Singh.Thus, it is clear that the claim of the witnesses that Babu Singh, the father of the deceased had lodged a F.I.R is wrong.However, it is clear that the Chowkidar had already informed the police about the death of Chanderbai and the police had already registered the merg enquiry, therefore, non-lodging of the F.I.R. by father of the deceased, may not be of very importance, but it definitely indicates towards the fact that the parents of the deceased, might not be suspicious about the death of the deceased.Furthermore, Kamlabai (P.W.3) has stated that Babu Singh did not go to the matrimonial house of the deceased as he was suffering from fever, whereas Mangilal (P.W.9) has stated that while he was on his way to the matrimonial house of the deceased, he was told by Babu Singh that the deceased has expired.Thus, it is clear that although the parents of the deceased were aware of the death of 9 Criminal Appeal No.594/1999 (Hakamsingh and another Vs.State of M.P.) Chanderbai, but inspite of that Babu Singh did not go to the matrimonial house and did not attend the last rites of the deceased.Further, so far as the case of the prosecution that inspite of objection by Kamlabai (P.W.3) that the postmortem of the deceased should be performed, but still the last rites were performed is concerned, it is clear from the evidence of Kamla bai (P.W.3) that when she reached the matrimonial house of the deceased, she saw that 15-20 persons were sitting there and the dead body of the deceased was lying.Thus, it is clear that the appellants had informed their neighbourers about the death of the deceased.Further, it is an admitted position that the parents of the deceased were informed by the appellants and they did not cremate the dead body, till the arrival of the parents of the deceased.Thus, it indicates towards the fact that there was no guilty consciousness on the part of the appellants, otherwise, they would have performed the last rites, even before the arrival of the parents of the deceased.Further, when the father of the deceased was aware of the death of the deceased, then it is surprising that he did not go to the matrimonial house of the deceased to see his daughter for the last time.Even Mangilal (P.W. 9) did not go to the matrimonial house of his niece even after getting the information about her death and claims to have returned back from the midway only on the apprehension that there might be a possibility of dispute.This conduct of Mangilal (P.W.9) cannot be said to be natural, because in fact there was no possibility of any dispute from the appellant side, unless and until certain objections are raised by the relatives of the deceased.It is next contended by the Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove that as to when the marriage of the deceased took place with the appellant no.1 Hakam Singh.According to Kamlabai (P.W.3), the marriage of the deceased took 10 Criminal Appeal No.594/1999 (Hakamsingh and another Vs.State of M.P.) place when she was 15-16 years old, i.e. 6 years prior to her death, whereas Mangilal (P.W.9) has stated that the deceased was married to the appellant no.1 about 11-12 years back.Unfortunately, the Counsel for the appellant did not confront Kamlabai (P.W.3) with her case diary statement, in which she had stated that the deceased was married about 11-12 years back.16 Criminal Appeal No.594/1999 (Hakamsingh and another Vs.State of M.P.)We have already noted Section 304B IPC and its essential ingredients.Both Sections 304B and 113B of the Evidence Act were inserted by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to compact the increasing menace of dowry deaths.Section 113B of the Evidence Act reads as under:The witnesses have also failed to point out as to when the deceased was treated with cruelty.There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was treated with cruelty soon before her death.There is nothing on record to corroborate the stand of Kamla bai (P.W.3) that she had ever demanded for postmortem of the dead body.The reasons for 19 Criminal Appeal No.594/1999 (Hakamsingh and another Vs.State of M.P.) Babu Singh, the father of the deceased, for not going to the matrimonial house of the deceased, even after coming to know about the death of deceased have not been proved.The stand taken by Kamla bai (P.W.3) and Mangilal (P.W.9) in this regard are self contradictory in nature.The information of death of the deceased was timely given to her parents and even the neighbourers were informed by the appellants, which shows that the appellants did not have any guilty consciousness.Thus, considering the evidence which has been led by the prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has failed to establish any charge against the appellants, beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly, they are acquitted of charge under Section 498-A, 304-B and 201/34 of I.P.C.Resultantly, the judgment and sentence dated 22-4-1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No. 434/1994 is hereby set aside.The appellants are on bail.Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.The appeal succeeds and is hereby Allowed.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2018.08.23 11:55:40 +05'30' 20 Criminal Appeal No.594/1999 (Hakamsingh and another Vs.State of M.P.) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE SINGLE BENCH:SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.594/1999 .........Appellants: Hakamsingh and another Versus .......Respondent : State of M.P.Judgment post for 21/08/2018 (G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge 20/08/2018 | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
116,755,610 | Lakshmanan [P.W.4] is their landlord.P.W.1 to P.W.3 are their neighbours.[ii] The accused has become a drunkard and he used to pick up quarrel with the deceased after consuming liquor.On New Year eve [31.12.2010], the accused promised the deceased to take her to Church.However, he returned home only at 10.30 p.m. in a drunken-state.The deceased questioned his conduct.The accused retorted vd;Dld; ,Uf;FDk;dh ,U> ,y;nyd;dh rht[ and poured kerosene and set her on fire.The deceased came out of her house.Mary told them that the accused set her on fire.They contacted Ambulance Service over phone and she was taken to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai in 108 Ambulance.[iii] Dr.He found burns on Mary's neck, chest, back abdomen and both upper limbs.He admitted Mary to Burns Ward of the Hospital.P.3 is the duplicate Accident Register dated 01.01.2011 issued by Dr.P.5 is the dying declaration.P.W.10 - Doctor certified that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give her statement.P.7/8 is the Certificate issued by P.W.10-Doctor.Ex.P.12 is the First Information Report.P.W.12-the then Inspector of Police, Valasaravakkam, took up the investigation and visited the place of occurrence at 8.15a.m.on 01.01.2011 and prepared Ex.P1-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P13-Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses.He seized M.Os.1 to 5 viz., 1.While Colour Plastic Bottle, 2.Blouse Bit.P.W.1 to P.W.3 are their neighbours.The postmortem report [Ex.P.9] issued by P.W.9 Doctor, who conducted autopsy, on the body of Mary, undoubtedly reveals that Mary died due to burns [Septicaemia].According to the prosecution, the accused set the deceased on fire.The defence of the accused that he was not responsible for the burns sustained by Mary.The deceased was examined by Dr.Sureshbabu [P.W.5], attached to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, who issued Ex.P.3 Accident Register dated 01.01.2011 at about 12.15 a.m. The deceased Mary was taken to the Hospital in 108 Ambulance.The evidence of P.W.5 would reveal that the deceased told him that her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire.The accused is the appellant.This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.2 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvellore, ordering the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/-, in default, to undergo further period of six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(2) IPC.The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are as follows:-[i] The accused is the appellant herein.Mary [deceased] fell in love with the accused.The accused is a native of Seyyur.She eloped with the accused and lived at Seyyur for some time.The accused is a coolie and they have migrated to Chennai.Santha [P.W.1], Anbudhasan [P.W.2] and Valli [P.W.3], neighbours of Mary, on hearing the screams came out and saw Mary in flames.They dowsed the fire.R.Suresh Babu.[iv] Dr.Nirmala Ponnambalam [P.W.10], Associate Professor, in charge of Burns Ward treated Mary.She sent requisition memo to the learned Judicial Magistrate for recording the declaration of the deceased.P.10 is the Requisition Memo [given to the Magistrate].S.Priya [P.W.8], then XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, received the intimation and visited the Hospital at 5.40 a.m. and recorded the statement of the deceased.[v] Mr.Mahadevan [P.W.11], the then Sub Inspector, attached to Kilpauk Police Station, visited the Burns Ward at 7.30p.m.on 01.01.2011 and recorded the statement of the deceased (Ex.P.11) and on the basis of Ex.P.11, he registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2011 for the offence under Section 307 IPC.One saree, 4.Skirt and 5.Match Box.[vi] The Investigating Officer examined Mary, Santha, Anbudhasan, Valli, Lakshman, Dhuraikannu, Dr.Sureshbabu, Tmt.Latha and Mahadevan and recorded their statements.He arrested the accused at about 5.00 a.m. on 03.01.2011 in the presence of the witnesses Venkatesan and Anandhaprabhu and he recorded the statement of the accused.The deceased died on 04.01.2011 at about 14.00 hours at the Hospital.He held inquest over the dead body between 11.00 a.m. and 3.40 p.m. at the mortuary.P.15 is the Inquest Report.W.Harry Santha Seelan [P.W.9], attached to Forensic Department, Kilpauk Medical Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Mary.He found the following injuries:C/S:All chambers contained clotted blood.CORONARY VESSLES: Patent.SCALP: Intact.SKULL BONES: Intact.MEBRANES:Intact.BRAIN: Normal.SPINAL COLUMN: Intact. [vii] He opined that the deceased would appear to have DIED OF COMPLICATION OF BURNS INJURIES (SEPTICAEMIA).P.9 is the Postmortem Certificate.After completion of investigation, P.W.12 laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.[viii] In support of the prosecution case, 12 witnesses were examined.15 documents have been marked and 5 Material Objects were produced.The accused denied the commission of the offences.[ix] The accused stated that at about 10.00 p.m. on 31.12.2010, the deceased asked him to take her to Church.He told her as he was tired he would take her to Church in the morning.Thereafter, he lay down and fell asleep.He woke up to the screams of the deceased.He saw the deceased in flames.As their residence was a thatched house, he pushed her out of the house.He along with P.W.1 to P.W.3 doused the fire.The deceased became unconscious and 108 Ambulance was contacted over phone.The accused informed his brother over phone and on his advice, immediately, he went to the Police Station.He was detained at the Police Station.He has further stated that the deceased used to threaten him that she would commit suicide and put the blame on him.According to him, he was not responsible for the death of Mary.[x] Moorthy [D.W.2], a native of Seyyur, has stated in his evidence that prior to the incident, the .accused informed him that the deceased used to threaten that she would commit suicide and put the blame on him.He advised the accused and the deceased to lead a moral life.On the date of incident, the accused contacted him over phone and he advised him to report the matter to the Police.He has also stated that on the next day, he along with Thiyagu, brother of the accused went to the Valasaravakkam Police Station to meet the accused.However, they were prevented from meeting the accused by the Police Personnel saying that a case was registered against the accused.The Trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution partly and convicted the appellant / accused under Section 304(2) IPC.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal.Mary was admitted to Burns Ward.P.W.10, Assistant Professor was in charge of the Burns Ward.It is the evidence of P.W.10 that the Mary was conscious at the time of admission.She has sent a requisition memo [Ex.P.10] for recording statement of the deceased by the learned Judicial Magistrate.S.Priya [P.W.8], learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, visited the hospital at 5.40 a.m. She ascertained that the deceased was in a fit condition to give statement.After ascertaining the fitness of the deceased from Dr.Nirmala Ponnambalam [P.W.10], she recorded dying declaration [Ex.P.5] at about 5.45 a.m. On 01.01.2011, P.W.10 has also certified that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give her statement.P7/8 is the Fitness Certificate issued by P.W.10-Doctor.In Ex.P.5 the deceased clearly stated that her husband set her on fire.It is seen from evidence of P.W.10-Doctor that, Mary sustained only 36% burns.Mary died at 2.00p.m.Therefore, there is no reason disbelieve evidence of P.W.10-Doctor and P.W.8 [Magistrate].In her Ex.P11 statement to P.W.11 also the deceased has stated that her husband set her on fire at their house.It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 that immediately after the occurrence, the deceased informed them that her husband set her on fire.The accused has admitted that at the time of occurrence, he was present at the place of occurrence.However, he would state that after taking food, he lay down and fell asleep and thereafter, he woke up to the screams of the deceased and saw the deceased in flames.D.W.2 would state that the accused informed him that on the date of occurrence, Mary committed suicide and that he only advised him to lodge a complaint in the nearest Police Station.According to them, the deceased used to threaten the accused that she would commit suicide and put the blame on him.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution.In the cross-examination, they have said that they did not asked the deceased as to how she sustained injuries.P.W.3 in her cross-examination would state that Mary was not in a position to speak.P.W.4 signed as a witness in Ex.P.1 (Observation Mahazar] Ex.P.2 [Recovery Mahazar].In his cross examination he would state that he signed the Mahazars at Police Station and at that time, the accused was in the Police Station.The case of the accused is that immediately after the occurrence, he went to the Police Station.The Inspector gave evidence with case diary.Therefore, his evidence to the effect that the accused was arrested on 03.01.2011 cannot be doubted.They were not cross-examined on the said date.The use of evidence of the said witnesses did not make any difference as the statements of the deceased was sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution.The accused was present in the house at the time of incident.The deceased sustained burns.However, admittedly, the accused did not take her to the Hospital to save her life.The explanation offered by the accused does not appear to be reasonable and accords with probabilities.Therefore, the statements of the deceased cannot be doubted on the basis of the evidence given by the defence witnesses.It is well settled that a judgment of conviction can be recorded on the basis of a dying declaration alone provided the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is not vitiated in any manner.In the case at hand, as has already been noticed the deceased has made consistent statements to Doctor [P.W.5], the Magistrate and to the Police, who have recorded her statements that the accused set her on fire.The statement s of the deceased do not suffer from any infirmity.He would further submit that the appellant has to look after his aged parents and he has no bad antecedents.The accused appears to have committed the crime wholly in a fit of rage and anger and under the aforesaid circumstances.The deceased sustained 36% of burns and she died due to burns [septicaemia] as per postmortem report. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
116,756,460 | Heard finally.This is the second application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.First application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 13/11/2014 passed in M.Cr.Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 79/2014 registered at police station Sagra, District Rewa for the offence punishable under sections 341, 294, 323, 327, 324, 506-B/34 of IPC.As per prosecution, it is alleged that this applicant alongwith other co-accused persons have humiliated complainant Shivam.It is further alleged that co-accused Harpreet @ Chachha and Gudda have demanded money for drink and snatched one Nokia Mobile Phone and Rs.1100/- from complainant.He is ready to co-operate in further investigation and trial.Under such changed circumstances, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. SOLANKI) | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 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. |
116,757,145 | as per rules.Case diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 393 of IPC and section 11, 13 of MPDVPK Act registered as Crime No. 204/2013 at Police Station Baghchini, District Morena.Learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.Reading of the FIR and material available on record indicates prima facie involvement of the applicant in the crime alleged and the enlargement of the co-accused on bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is of no avail to the applicant since the co-accused was enlarged under section 439 of Cr.P.C. and not under section 438 of Cr.P.C.In view of above, this first anticipatory bail application deserves to be and is, therefore, dismissed.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
116,758,187 | Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Ram Pravesh Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.As per FIR version, applicant was married to the deceased; after marriage the applicant left her matrimonial home and was residing at her parental home.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her 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 her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her, in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.(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.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 7.8.2020 S.Prakash | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
1,167,691 | The further case of the prosecution is that nine others came out from the same Kuliya.One of them was armed with Gupti and the others were armed with rod and lathis.All the persons then assaulted the deceased and they left the place.In the requisition Ex.JUDGMENT K. Jayachanra Reddy, J.There are four appellants.They are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.The trial Court acquitted nine others and convicted the four appellants and their convictions are confirmed by the High Court in the appeal.The prosecution case is that there were two factions in East Karia Pathar, Jabalpur, one led by the deceased Lalli alias Babulal and the other led by Chintaman father of appellants Gulab Singh and Kalyan Singh.There was an apprehension of the breach of peace and proceedings under Sections 107 and 117, Cr.P.C. were also launched.On 14-11-1973, the deceased Lalli, his nephew and the two others were going to attend their cases in the District Court and when they reached near the house of the deceased they were informed by one boy that the appellants along with other were roaming about armed with deadly weapons.When the deceased came 100 yards from his house these four appellants armed with Farsas and iron rod came out from a Kuliya and it is said that they attacked the deceased.On hearing the cries the wife of the deceased, two daughters and son came forward to intervene and they were also challenged by the appellants.PM6 he mentioned that these four appellants and others attacked the deceased with Farsas, iron rods and lathies.The inquest was held on the dead body and the post-mortem was conducted.The Doctor examined the deceased and found ten incised wounds and five contusions and he opined that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of the nature to cause death.The Courts below have taken the view that nine others did not share the common object and hence acquitted them.The other witnesses as already mentioned are all interested witnesses.The Head Constable mentioned in his report that these four appellants attacked the deceased.He mentioned in his report all the facts which were seen by him and there was no occasion to stale in that report what had been told him by the other witnesses at the spot.The medical evidence fully corroborates the evidence of the eye-witnesses.P.W. 5 an independent witness corroborates the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the extent that he has seen the first three appellants going away with blood-stained Farsas and the fourth appellant was armed with an iron rod.The evidence of P.W. 22 is not very helpful because she has not witnessed the occurrence.P.W. 20 is another independent witness.She stated that on hearing the cries she came out and saw first three appellants and the acquitted accused came to her house armed with Farsas and Gupti and were shouting that they have shown red flag to the deceased and that they would also cut Lakhan and Hunurnan.In the Court she pointed out the appellants A-2 to A-4 and also wrongly identified appellants No. 1 (Ramesh) though in her evidence she has stated that Tout accused was the fourth person who attacked.Thus there is a material discrepancies and her identification of appellant No. 1 becomes doubtful.Having regard to the fact that the other eye-witnesses are also interested witnesses their evidence has to be corroborated in respect of each of the accused.In the result the convictions and sentences awarded to appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 before this Court are confirmed.The appellant No. 1 Ramesh Kumar alias Munna before us is acquitted. | ['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
116,770,764 | Heard through video conferencing.This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 17.3.2019 in connection with Crime No.325/2015 registered at Police Station Porsa, District Morena for offence under Sections 395, 307, 353, 332, 333, 384, 186 of IPC, under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and under Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case the complainant was looted by the applicant and the co-accused persons.Although some of the co-accused persons were arrested after the incident, however, the applicant was absconding.The application fails and is hereby dismissed.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (alok) ALOK KUMAR 2020.08.14 10:24:26 +05'30' | ['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
116,772,293 | CRM No. 8368 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18th September, 2018, in connection with New Jalpaiguri Police Station Case No. 323 of 2018 dated 08.05.2018, under Sections 447/465/467/468/ 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Md. Affruddin and another ... Petitioners Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Mr. Prajnadeepta Roy .. for the petitioners Mr. Ranabir Ray Chowdhury, Mr. Mainak Gupta .. for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with New Jalpaiguri Police Station Case No. 323 of 2018 dated 08.05.2018, under Sections 447/465/467/468/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
116,773,777 | The said case was registered by the CBI on the basis of complaint of one Shri Ashok Arora to the effect that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- from him towards illegal gratification for not demolishing his property.Trap was laid and petitioner was apprehended.Page 1 of 8 Crl.P. No. 965/2003Page 1 of 8During the pendency of trial of aforesaid case Sh.Ashok Arora on 3rd March, 1994 made a complaint with the CBI that the petitioner along with his co-accused in this case had approached him and offered a sum of Rs.7,000/- as bribe in case he did not support the prosecution case and gave in writing that the petitioner had not demanded any bribe from him.On the basis of this complaint present RC No. 15(A)/94/ACB/DLI under Section 12 of the P.C. Act was registered by the CBI.After investigation, charge-sheet in the trial court has been filed against the petitioner and his co-accused, for the offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 193/201/214 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.It may be noted that petitioner had also filed an application seeking his discharge.Application of the CBI for alteration of charges to Section 214 IPC read with Section 34 IPC has been allowed and pursuant thereof charge under Section 214 IPC had Page 2 of 8 Crl.Page 2 of 8Main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that right from the beginning CBI was conscious of the fact that the offence under Section 12 of the P.C. Act was not made out on the basis of allegations contained in the complaint of Shri Ashok Arora and at best the offence under Section 214 IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence, was disclosed.Application filed by the CBI to alter the charges to Section 214 IPC supports this contention.Accused challenged this order.P. No. 965/2003 a legal bar for the police to investigate into a non-cognizable offence without obtaining an order from a competent Magistrate.Page 7 of 8For the foregoing reasons, I quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in so far as it relates to the offence punishable under Sections 214/34 IPC, thus, resulting in discharge of the petitioner.Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.A.K. PATHAK, J.July 27, 2010 rb Page 8 of 8 Crl.P. No. 965/2003 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,192,388 | One of the co- accused has been enlarged on bail by this court, vide order dated 14.3.2016 in M.Cr.C. No. 4244 of 2016 as follows :-In the circumstances, the application is allowed.On applicant's furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. Tikamgarh for securing his presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing to be fixed in this regard during trial, applicant be released on bail.The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.C.C. as per rules."Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE bks | ['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,193,716 | th (Passed on this 10 day of August, 2015) This Criminal Revision is filed against the order passed by learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.76/2014 dated 07.04.2015 whereby, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 294, 307/34, 325/34, 323 and 506 part 2 of IPC.According to the prosecution story, the incident took place on 05.05.2013 at about 07:45 pm, when the complainants were standing outside there house.It is alleged that the accused persons are residing in front of their house.They started using 2 abusive language against the complainant and then, it is alleged that accused Satish brought sword from his residence and gave blow on the complainant Ghanshyam aiming at his head and when he tried to save himself, the sword hit his ring finger and he sustained incised wounds.The other accused gave blows from iron rod etc. It is further admitted by both the counsel during argument that there is counter case registered against the complainant and the accused Satish succumbed to the injuries which he suffered during the fight.In this case, though, some of the injuries were grievous in nature, however, there is no opinion of the doctor that the injuries were dangerous to life or sufficient to cause death in 3 original course and nature.The injuries suffered by Ghanshyam, who was allegedly given a blow by Satish with sword, is at ring finger and which was muscle deep without active bleeding.Counsel for the State submits that blow of sword was so aimed that likely to hit head of the complainant Ghanshyam.However, looking to the injuries caused in his finger, it does not seem to be given with sufficient force to cause such injuries even on head, would be sufficient to cause his death in original course and nature.On the contrary, the person who gave such blow, died during the incident and this may explain to some extent while he gave the blow on the complainant it may be in attempt to save himself.Accordingly, this revision deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed.The impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore is set aside.Learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to hear both the parties and after hearing them, frame charges in any other appropriate provision of law except under section 307 of IPC and also in case of 4 offences are triable by the Magistrate, he may remand the case under the provision of section 228 of Cr.P.C.With the observation and direction as above, the revision stands disposed of. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,195,267 | 1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.22808/2019 (Lala @ Nahru s/o Babu Khan Mansuri Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 19.06.2019 Mr. Rituraj Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.The victim and her parents have already been examined 2 before the trial Court on 23.04.2019 and 02.04.2019; and they have not supported the prosecution story and turn hostile.Under these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.The investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed.Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.06.19 17:30:09 +05'30' | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,197,645 | cause notice dated 27/02/2017 issued to the Petitioner by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, City Division, Sangli.By the said show cause notice the Petitioner is asked to show cause as to why he should not be externed from four Districts namely Sangli, Satara, Kolhapur and Solapur for a period of two years.The said show cause notice is founded on the three FIRs registered with Vishrambaug Police Station, Sangli and the criminal cases arising therefrom.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2017 02:26:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2017 02:26:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2017 02:26:51 :::6 Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Saste would support the show cause notice and would question the maintainability of the Petition on the ground that after the proceedings are concluded before the externing authority, the Petitioner has a remedy by way of an Appeal.As indicated above, the earlier show cause notice dated 19/03/2014 culminated in the order dated 24/04/2014 passed by the externing authority whereby the said show cause notice was dropped.As indicated above, the said show cause notice was founded on the same two cases on which the instant show cause notice is founded.The externing authority in the earlier round has dropped the show cause notice on the ground that the activities or conduct of the Petitioner were not such as to cause danger to the life and property of the legal residents.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2017 02:26:51 :::The above Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2017 02:26:51 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,171,981 | ORDER D.K. Jain, J.These two Criminal Revision Petitions, by the husband, the mother-in-law, the sister-in-law and husband of the sister in law of the deceased, namely, Smt. Chanchal, are directed against the order of learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 30 May, 1998 whereby charge under Sections 304B/498A/34, IPC was framed against them.Since the material facts in both the petitions are common as they arise out of the same FIR, these are being disposed of by this common order.The deceased Smt. Chanchal was married to Rajesh Diwan on 3 September, 1992 but on account of some marital discord between the family members of the petitioners and the deceased, she left the matrimonial home sometime in December 1992 and remained with her family till the alleged incident took place.On 1 December 1995, at about 3.15 PM, information was received from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital regarding admission of Smt. Chanchal in a burnt condition.She had suffered 75 to 80% burns and was declared unfit for making statement.She was however, declared fit for statement on 3 December, 1995 when Shri K.K. Dahiya, SDM, was called for recording of her statement and on the basis of her statement before him, a case was registered under Sections 498-A/406/304-B IPC against all the petitioners.On completion of investigations, charge sheet against the petitioners was filed and on a consideration of the matter, in the light of the material placed on record by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 498-A and 304B IPC against the petitioners in Crl.Rev. 339/98, namely, Rajesh Diwan and Smt. Pritam Diwan and under Section 498-A IPC against the other petitioners in Crl.Rev. 340/98, namely Bhola Deep Sahni and Smt. Vijay Deep Sahni.Against these orders the petitioners have come up in revision for quashing of the said orders.It is submitted by Mr. Rajnish Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, that there is no material on record to even remotely suggest that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the petitioners for or in connection with any demand for dowry particularly when the deceased had admittedly left the matrimonial home in December 1992 and was living with her parents although thereafter till her death and, therefore, one of the important ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, namely, cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry should have been meted out to the deceased that charge under Section 304-B IPC could not be framed against accused Rajesh Diwan and Smt. Pritam Diwan.It is asserted that even in the dying declaration of the deceased there is no specific allegation regarding the demand for dowry.The petitions are resisted by Ms. Mukta Gupta and Mr. Akshay Bipin, learned counsel for the State.It has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for a limited purpose to find out whether or not a prima facie against the accused has been made out.However, as regards Section 498-A IPC, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners.In the entire statement the allegation against the said petitioners is as under: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,172,030 | The investigation ended in a charge sheet being No. 32 dated 1.3.93 and after cognizance was taken by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately transferred to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Alipore who framed charges against the accused petitioner under Section 306/498A IPC.The allegation made in the revisional application Is that the prosecution in course of trial did not examined as many as eight(8) witnesses whose names figured in the charge-sheet.But they were refused to be examined by the Public Prosecutor as because their statements to the l.Accordingly, an application was made before the Trial Court allegedly under Section 306 1PC praying for the same witnesses being examined by the Court.The said prayer was rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 7.9.95 where by a date was also fixed for examination of the I.O. making it a closer of the prosecution case.It is averred in the petition that the Trial Judge were wrongly rejected the prayer of the defence to have the testimony of the left over witnesses taken in accordance with the law.The learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on Section 311 Cr.P.C. as also a decision where duty of the public prosecutor in the matter of conducting trial of a Criminal Case has been laid down.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 7.9.95 stands set aside.The learned Trial Judge is directed to examine all the aforesaid 8 witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Liberty must be given to the parties to crossexamine those witnesses and thereafter he shall proceed in accordance with law.The revisional application accordingly stands allowed on contest. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,211,170 | The fact that the two deceased persons were residents of House no.WZ-584 and were found to have met with violent deaths late in the evening of 30.10.2012 at the said place was proved at the trial by evidence which is beyond reproach and which part of the prosecution case is not Crl.LP 160/2016), the elder son of the deceased persons, was the first informant on the basis of whose statement the FIR was recorded.After the discovery of the incident, he appeared during the trial as a witness for the prosecution (PW-14) and, with corroboration from other evidence on record, proved that he had reached House No.WZ-584 at about 8.15 p.m. on 30.10.2012 and had found the main gate open but the lights inside not functional.Since his parents would not respond to his calls, he entered and discovered his father (first deceased) lying with bleeding injuries between two articles of furniture in one of the rooms.With the help of a neighbour, he rushed his father to nearby Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.It is his version that he had asked his friend to go back and look for his mother only to be informed after sometime that his mother had also been found in unconscious state and had been removed to Max Hospital, also declared there to have been brought dead.The matter was brought to the notice of the local police vide Daily Dairy (DD) entry no.40A on the same evening and the matter thus eventually led to registration of the FIR, which was subjected to investigation.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 3 of 12LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 4 of 12According to the prosecution case, in the wake of the discovery of murder of his parents, Sanjeev Garg (PW-24) had come back and checked the property kept in the house.He found an almirah kept in the back side room to be in locked condition.The said almirah upon broken open and it was discovered that cash of 2.5 Lakhs, some jewellery items including one gold chain, three gold rings, one gold set and one silver glass were missing therefrom.He also found the purse of his father containing cash, driving licence and some documents besides laptop bag and three mobile phones to be missing.This added the element of robbery to the investigation.According to the case for the prosecution, as presented through the reports under Sections 173 Cr. PC, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that at about 12.30 a.m. on 30.10.2012 Rameshwar Dass (PW-14), elder brother of the first deceased, while passing by house no.WZ-584 had noticed three young persons coming out, two of them carrying a black coloured bag.PW-14 brought this information to the notice of the Investigation Officer (IO) expressing suspicion as to their involvement.The prosecution alleged that one additional input had been received at the initial stage of investigation from Pankaj Kumar (PW-15) to the effect that a few days prior to the incidents which are subject matter of the case at hand, A3 had called him with his Crl.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 5 of 12 vehicle and alongwith one another person had gone and met A1 and, thereafter, proceeded to the Sri Nagar Colony (the locality where house no.The prosecution alleged and presented evidence in the endeavour to prove that on 14.12.2012, at the instance of A2, one gold necklace and one gold ring of the deceased were recovered from his residence in Village Mehrana, District Jhajjar, Haryana and further, on 16.12.2012, at the instance of A1, a yellow coloured file containing original documents relating to an immovable property described as property bearing no.D-4, 40ft. road, Aman Vihar, Delhi (for short hereinafter referred to as property no. 'D-4') situate in Khasra no.816, Village Kirari, Suleman Nagar, were recovered from the house in Village Koyal, District Narwana.The Investigating Officer (IO) relied upon the call detail reports (CDRs) of the mobile phone numbers of all the respondents to allege that all of them were present in the area of Aman Vihar, Delhi on 28.10.2012 when the criminal conspiracy was allegedly hatched.A1 is the real brother of the second deceased.Since the testimony of PW-14 in this regard does not find due corroboration from the deposition of PW-24 on this crucial score, we are not inclined to take a different view.The evidence on record reveals that A3 was a person well known in the area on account of his connection with a political leader.The crimes were committed during the day on 30.10.2012 and had admittedly resulted in PW-14 joining in the investigation from the same afternoon.In his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC made to the IO on 01.11.2012, he had vaguely mentioned the facts Crl.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 8 of 12 constituting last seen theory.He did not give sufficient description of any of the three young persons seen by him coming out of the house of the deceased persons - not till 09.12.2012 when A2 was arrested.If he was acquainted with A3 from before, there was no reason why he would not be able to identify him from the beginning and name or at least properly describe him in the input to the IO in the first instance.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 8 of 12The allegations of motive, alleged to be primarily the intent to grab the property and the recovery of the title deeds of said property were sought to be substantiated by evidence which, upon close scrutiny, is found to be shaky and not believable.According to the evidence of PW-24, the son of the deceased, the documents which were found missing pertained to property no.WZ-584A. He is on record to state that he had checked the house more than once and had found all the property documents to be intact - reference may be made to his statements dated 31.10.2012 (Ex. PW-24/A), another dated 31.10.2012 (Ex. PW24/DX2) and the third dated 01.11.2012 (Ex. PW24/DX1) - except those pertaining to the above said property.The documents which were admittedly safe in his possession, custody and control even after the crimes, he having checked and satisfied himself in such regard, could not conceivably have been stolen so as to be found in possession of A1 later.R.K. GAUBA, JThe respondents Pawan Jindal, accused no.1 (A1), Sandeep @ Sonu, accused no.2 (A2), Chand Veer, accused no.3 (A3) and Vikram @ Billu, Crl.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 1 of 12 accused no.4 (A4) stood trial in the court of sessions, in Sessions case no.61/2013 registered on the basis of reports under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) submitted on conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.422/2012 of Police Station Subhash Place, on the charge of offences punishable under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 302 read with 120 IPC and 394 read with section 120B IPC, the gravamen whereof, was that all of them had entered into a criminal conspiracy in pursuit of object whereof, sometime during the day on 30.10.2012, they had committed murder of Satpal Garg (first deceased) and his wife Ram Kali Garg (second deceased) by strangulating their respective necks by rope in house no.WZ-584, Sri Nagar, Gali No.1, Shakur Basti, Delhi (in short, referred to hereafter, as house no."WZ-584") and robbery by taking away a number of valuable articles belonging to the deceased persons including cash 2.50 Lakhs, one gold chain, three gold rings, one set of gold jewellery, one silver tumbler, one wallet containing driving license, some documents, laptop bags and three mobile phone instruments and certain property documents, the murders having been committed in the course of committing the said robbery.A1 and A2 were additionally charged for the offences punishable under Sections 411 IPC on the allegations that they had been found in possession of the parts of the said stolen property.To be specific, the charge against A1 was that on 16.12.2012, he was found to have retained the stolen property in the nature of two Will deeds dated 14.07.1999, two agreements to sell and other documents, all in favour of Ram Kali Garg, General Power of Attorney (GPA) and related documents Crl.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 2 of 12 in favour of Satpal Rameshwar Das, Suresh Kumar, Banwari Lai, Prem Chand and four receipts of 50,000/- each besides 3 photocopies of receipts dated 29.05.1992 of Upkar property dealer.Similarly, the charge against A2 referred to he having been found on 14.12.2012 to have retained in his possession stolen property in the nature of one gold necklace and one gold ring belonging to the two deceased persons.On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 21.11.2015 held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges leveled against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts and thus proceeded to acquit them.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 1 of 12LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 2 of 12The petitions at hand, one (Cr. LP 146/2016) filed by the State and the other (Cr. LP 160/2016) filed by Sanjeev Garg, son of the two deceased persons, pray for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, seeking to assail the findings returned by the trial court and the result of the prosecution case mainly submitting that the evidence adduced was not properly appreciated.We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State, counsel for the petitioner at length and are of the opinion that the grounds urged to challenge are completely without merit.By this judgment, we set out the reasons for the said decision.In the course of the said investigation, the dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination.The facts pertaining to the post mortem examination of the two dead bodies and the inquest proceedings leave no room for doubt that both the deceased persons had been physically strangulated to death.This part of the evidence, however, was not of any avail to the prosecution since, in his court deposition, PW-15 did not confirm such visit of A-1 to A-3 for reconnaissance.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 5 of 12It is the prosecution case that A-1 and A-2 were arrested on 09.12.2012 and made disclosure statements confirming their respective involvement as also that of the other two respondents in the crimes.A2 was sent for Test Identification Parade (TIP) on 11.12.2012 but he declined to participate.According to the prosecution, A3 and A4 could not be arrested initially and on the basis of processes issued at the instance of the IO, they were declared proclaimed offenders.A3 was arrested on 08.04.2013 and is stated to have got recovered one gold chain and one pair of pajeb from his house.Similarly, A4 was statedly arrested on 14.04.2013 and led to recovery of some further stolen property being two gold rings, silver pajeb and some silver coins.The evidence of PW-14 was one of the major planks of the prosecution case presented to support the last seen theory.This evidence is closely connected with the allegations concerning the motive, primarily of A1, to grab the property of the deceased persons by eliminating them and snatching away the title deeds.It has come in evidence that though PW-14, the elder brother of the first deceased, had been earlier supportive of the latter - in that having shifted residence from his native place in Kaithal, Haryana to Delhi in 1987-1988 and having set up business here, upon the first deceased following him to Delhi in 1991, he was joined by the former in a partnership business - both families concededly had eventually fallen apart, the relations having become so sore that the deceased persons would not even attend the wedding Crl.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 7 of 12 ceremonies of the children of the witness, the interaction having been reduced to the level of occasional, each side having no concern with the other.In contrast, the evidence on record shows that A1, being the real brother of the second deceased was on cordial terms with the family, he having been earlier allowed by the deceased persons to occupy a portion of their property no.D-4, for his business and, upon being called upon by the first deceased having vacated the said portion without raising any dispute or demand.Further, there is no explanation as to why upon A1 making a disclosure statement (Ex. PW34/F) after his arrest on 09.12.2012, no effort was made to make a search for the missing property documents or stolen property till Crl.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 9 of 12 16.12.2012 when the recoveries are stated to have been effected from the house in Village Koyal, District Narwana.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 9 of 12The learned trial court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution with regard to the recoveries of certain valuable articles from the possession of A2, A3 and A4 - in our opinion, again for good reasons.There is a conspicuous pattern to the investigation pursuant to the disclosures attributed to each of these respondents which renders the evidence statedly gathered in its wake unconvincing.A2 was arrested on 09.12.2012 and is stated to have made a disclosure (Ex. PW34/C) on the same date, resulting in the IO accompanying him to his village Mehrana, District Jhajjar on 14.12.2012 leading to recovery of two articles of the jewellery necklace and ring.A3 was arrested on 08.04.2013 and is said to have made a disclosure (Ex. PW25/D) about he having kept a part of the stolen jewellery and money in his village Kablana.On 14.04.2013, he is said to have made another disclosure (Ex.PW35/Q) now stating that the stolen property was not in village Kablana but kept concealed in a house in Kailash Vihar, Kirari, Suleman Nagar, Delhi.A4 was arrested on 14.04.2013 and is said to have made a disclosure (Ex. PW34/M), inter alia, stating that some articles of stolen jewellery were lying in his house in Village Silothi.On 18.04.2013, he is said to have made another disclosure statement (Ex. PW34/P) now stating that his share in the booty was lying on the first floor of house no.384, 40 ft. road, Aman Vihar, Delhi.What stands out in the evidence about above mentioned recoveries is that concededly the IO had made no efforts to search or recover the stolen properties immediately upon disclosures being made by A2 on 09.12.2012, A3 on 08.04.2013 and A4 on 14.04.2013 respectively.There is no explanation worth the name as to such omissions in general and for the need to further interrogate A3 and A4 on 14.04.2013 and 18.04.2013 leading to fresh disclosure statements.Admittedly, in his statements to the police, PW-24 had not given any specific mark of identification or description about the stolen articles of jewellery.He conceded at the trial that the articles which have been presented as stolen property recovered are easily available in open market and do not bear any distinguishing mark of identification.For the above reasons, we are not inclined to reach any conclusions contrary to the ones arrived at by the learned trial judge.In the information received from PW-14 (with regard to the presence of strangers coming out of the house of the deceased persons), there was no description worth the name as to their appearance, physique etc. On 09.12.2012, the IO concededly had no clue.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 11 of 12PW-14 in his deposition would not support the word of the IO in such regard.There is similar deficiency with regard to the alleged confirmation of the involvement of A4 in the crime by PW-14 at the time of visit to the scene of crime on 18.04.2013 during investigation.The witness would not support the evidence of the IO on this score either.He having been a past acquaintance, the omission on the part of PW-14 in properly describing him in the initial input is a jarring circumstance rendering the accusations incredible.[see Kallu Alias Masih and Ors., Vs.State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313].We, thus, find no reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.The leave to appeal is declined.The petitions are dismissed.(R.K. GAUBA) JUDGE (GITA MITTAL) JUDGE July 14, 2016/yg Crl.LP 146/16 and 160/16 Page 12 of 12 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,211,202 | (p.j.) CRM No. 9003 of 2013 In re: An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.6.2013 in connection with Haripal Police Station Case No. 122 dated 9.6.2013 under sections 147/148/149/452/427/323/354B/506 of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, learned Counsel prayed for release of the accused persons on bail on any condition.Learned Counsel for the State resisted the prayer for bail and drew my attention to the copies of the statement of witnesses, particularly at page 12 of the case diary.Considering the period of detention and the fact that the investigation is in nascent stage and the nature of allegation having serious impact in a free country to exercise their personal choice as alleged, I do not consider that this is a fit case for granting bail at this stage.Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected.(Toufique Uddin, J.) | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
11,721,257 | 8,628 men candidates and 830 women candidates cleared the physical efficiency test.After the physical efficiency test, 1,710 men candidates and 445 women candidates cleared the written test.From various process of selection viz., physical measurement, physical efficiency and written test, 2,546 comprising of 1,710 men candidates and 445 women candidates from an open competition and 379 men and 12 women candidates from 20% department quota became eligible for the interview and were called in batches during November 1998 and December 1998 at the Police Training College, Chennai - 600 083 by two Committees formed by the Government, as per D.O.Ltr.The Government appointed two Committees consisting of one Chairman and four Members in each Committee.The first Committee was represented by one Mr.V.Jagannathan, I.P.S. as Chairman and assisted by four other I.P.S. Officers as Members.The second Committee was headed by the petitioner-Mr.K.Subbiah, I.P.S. as Chairman and assisted by four other I.P.S. Officers as Members.Each Board was to interview 80 candidates per day.The candidates to be interviewed on each day by the particular Board would be allotted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board at random.10 marks were allocated for VIVA-VOCE, 3 marks for special achievements and 2 marks for special achievements in Sports and Games and NCC and NSS.It is reported that on receipt of information of the Commission of irregularities and malpractices by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board in the above recruitment of Sub-Inspectors of Police, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, resulting in registration of Regular Case in Cr.No.1/AC/2002/CC2 of V & AC for the offence punishable u/s.120B r/w.465, 468 r/w.471, 167 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s.109 of IPC, dated 28.02.2002 against the petitioner and three others.N.Elangovan, I.P.S. (Retired), A-3, formerly Deputy Inspector General of Police and Member Secretary of TNUSRB, Thiru.V.Jagannathan, I.P.S., formerly Inspector General of Police and the Chairman, Interview Committee No.I and the petitioner-Thiru.K.Subbiah I.P.S., formerly Inspector General of Police and Chairman of Interview Committee No.II and Thiru.T.M.Rajendran, I.P.S., (Retired) formerly Personal Assistant in TNUSRB were charged for conspiring to frame incorrect records, making false entries in the Interview Assessment Sheets, by manipulating marks, for selecting certain ineligible candidates.The sum and substance of the allegation is that the interview assessment sheets were tampered with and also some candidates were benefited by being selected under sports quota, which was found to be untrue.It is to be mentioned in this context that two Committees were set-up.Committee No.I, headed by Thiru.V.Jagannathan, I.P.S., A-1, Committee No.II headed by Thiru.During the period when both A-1 and A-2 were Inspectors General of Police.A-1 who was working as Inspector General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Salem during 1998-1999, was nominated as Chairman of Interview Committee-I along with one Deputy General of Police and three Superintendents of Police.V.Elangovan, I.P.S. who was working as Deputy Inspector of Police and the Member Secretary of Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Chennai during 1998-1999, was nominated as one of the members in the Interviewing Committee-I. Besides he was also entrusted with the custody of all records relating to the recruitment process and finalization of selection.4. Thiru.would state that "during a meeting held on 09.09.1998 at the Chamber of Secretary to Government, Home Department, it was resolved that Thiru.N.Elangovan, I.P.S., Member Secretary of Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board would attend the matter connected to the exercise recruitment and he was entrusted with the work of P.C's recruitment".He would further state that Thiru.N.Elangovan, I.P.S. fully maintained the selection process, till the release of the final list and that he was in custody of interview assessment sheets.The said Thiru.N.Elangovan, who was A-3 in the above case has already been discharged by the trial Court.He was the custodian of all the records pertaining to the interview that took place for the candidates for the post of Sub-Inspectors.It is submitted that A1-Thiru.K.Gopalakrishnan and P.W.14-Thiru.The allegation against A-3 was that he was the custodian of records and therefore he is the correct person to speak about the records regarding the alteration of marks.Now, he is not shown in the picture, since he has been discharged.Accordingly, the Government directs that further action against A-2 and A-3 on the allegation of possession of disproportionate assets be dropped.The said order was passed by the Home Secretary of the State in G.O.Ms.As per the order of the Home Secretary, the revision petitioner is an innocent top Police Officer and has not been involved in any kind of irregularity and illegality in his tenure of service.A total number of 27,304 applications for men candidates and 4,339 applications for women candidates, for Sub-Inspectors, were received.On scrutiny of applications, 26,012 applications for men candidates and 4,167 applications for women candidates, were found to be valid.1,292 applications for men candidates and 172 applications for women candidates were found to be invalid.The eligible applicants were called for physical efficiency test.V.Jagannathan, I.P.S., having the rank of Inspector General of Police, is the Chairman of Interview Committee No.I, assisted by one Deputy Inspector General of Police along with A3-Thiru.N.Elangovan participating as Member Secretary and two Superintendents of Police in the selection of Sub-Inspector of Police.Likewise, Committee No.II, is headed by the revision petitioner herein/Thiru.K.Subbiah, A2, who was also an Inspector General of Police, assisted by a Committee of Members in the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police and three Superintendents of Police.N.Elangovan, is the custodian of records for both the Committees and he has been discharged by the trial Court in a common order in Crl.6. A-4, Thiru.T.M.Rajendran, I.P.S. was working as Personal Assistant (Administration) in Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board in the relevant period in Chennai.He was nominated to assist the Interview Committee I and II and also during the course of interview, to verify the identity certificate of NCC/NSS/games/sports candidates before sending them to the Interview Committee-I and II.A-3, Thiru-N.Elangovan, and A-4, Thiru.T.M.Rajendran filed petitions separately to discharge them before the framing of charges.A-3, Thiru.N.Elangovan's petition for discharge was allowed by this Court and A4's petition was dismissed by the trial Court.The revision petitioner herein submitted that the petition filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging of the petitioner/accused No.2 from framing of the charges on the final report filed by the respondent/complainant, was dismissed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.Aggrieved by the dismissal of the discharge petition, the above Criminal Revision has been filed.M.P.No.61 of 2006 on 30.09.2007 assumes much importance.It was stated that in the order of this Court corrections are said to have been made and attested by an Officer in the rank of Inspector General of Police.The respondent submitted that whether the accused had knowingly with a dishonest intention made a false interview assessment sheet by making false corrections, therein by his own handwriting for the selection of several candidates or not, could be canvassed in trial only.In this regard, the expert has also been examined.The disputed corrections were subjected to the examination by the document expert, who confirmed the alterations of marks and also by using the ink of different tints for making corrections.The allegations explained above by the prosecution cannot be thrown out without the commencement of trial.All the other queries raised by the petitioner could be canvassed and decided only after adjudication.The respondent submitted that the prosecution has relied upon a large number of documents besides the statements of several witnesses particularly, the Selection Committee Members viz., Tmt.Archana Ramasundaram, I.P.S; Tr.A.Alexander Mohan, I.P.S; Thiru.K.Gopalakrishnan, I.P.S; and Tr.A.M.S.Gunaseelan, I.P.S. who are listed as witnesses 11, 12, 13 and 14 respectively, who spoke about the corrections and alterations of mark sheets in the interview assessment sheets by the Selection Committee Chairman.The revision petitioner has filed a reply counter and resisted the counter statement of the respondent.The revision petitioner stated that there is no sufficient ground and prima facie case to frame charge under Section 120-B of I.P.C. As per the Interview Committee No.II, chaired by the revision petitioner/accused No.2 is the only remaining conspirator, as the other two conspirators viz., Thiru.N.Elangovan, I.P.S., and Thiru.T.M.Rajendran, I.P.S., their rank A-3 and A4 respectively were discharged from the Proceedings.while so, the charge sheet was filed as against accused 1 to 4 for the offence under Section 120(B) r/w.465, 468 r/w.471, 167 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s.109 of IPC.As far as the first accused viz., Thiru.V.Jagannathan, I.P.S., is concerned, he was the head of Committee No.I and there is no link between the Committee No.II, in the matter of conducting the viva-voce for the selected candidates.When accused 3 and 4 were charged by being the Members of the conspiracy and two were discharged by the trial Court and this Court, then the question of singling out a particular person being the Member of the criminal conspiracy cannot be sustained.Only on the strength of 120-B of I.P.C., all other penal provisions are included in the final report.This view about to the total lack of evidence for the conspiracy charge will be further strengthened when considering the materials in respect of the alleged commission of other specific offences charged against the accused."The trial Court held, Para 8:Thus there are no circumstances in the material provided by the prosecution the corrections were not bona fide.The revision petitioner further stated that in all the offences, there is absolutely no material or prima facie case or even remote chances to frame the charges with the sufficient grounds except to draw inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act or u/s.20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The revision petitioner further stated that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the 161 statements of all the witnesses or any other document filed by the prosecution the name of the petitioner finds a place for committing the offence punishable under section 120(B) r/w.465, 468 r/w.471, 167 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s.109 of IPCThe petitioner further stated that Tmt.K.Subbiah, I.P.S., the Chairperson.A.M.S.Gunaseelan, " I have noticed the above additions and reduction when I signed in the Interview Assessment Sheet.N.Elangovan, I.P.S., the Member Secretary for TNUSRB was the custodian of the interview assessment sheet after awarding of mark sheet by the Committee."Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner as alleged by the L.W.11, L.W.12, L.W.13 and L.W.14 as stated in the counter.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there are totally four accused in C.C.No.17 of 2005, in which the revision petitioner has been arrayed as A-2 and he has been charged under Section u/s.120B r/w.465, 468 r/w.471, 167 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s.109 of IPC.In order to prove the prosecution case against all four accused, 121 documents were filed, out of which 74 tally sheets were filed.104 witnesses are listed.V.Chandrakishore, I.P.S., spoke about the conducting of an interview headed by A-1 and A-2 assistance of A-3, custody of records, verification of certificates by A-3 and signing of tally sheets and other relevant facts.Likewise, the revision petitioner has to be discharged from the Criminal Proceedings.Archana Ramasundaram, spoke about the Interview Committee headed by A-2, procedures relating to awarding of marks in the interview assessment sheet, verification sheet by A-4, filling of tally sheets during the interview.Custody of records by A-3 and the subsequent personal of interview of assessment sheets of Committee-II, alterations of some marks without their knowledge, using of inks of different tints and other relevant facts.A.Alexander Mohan, I.P.S., P.W.13-Thiru.The witnesses, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13 and P.W.14 rendered evidence in a hypothetical manner.As per their statement, there is no mention of relevant particulars regarding alteration of records besides time, date and place and from whom the revision petitioner collected the assessment sheets and made alterations and remarks.The prosecution has approached the Court with an unclear statement of particulars.The interview was conducted by the Committee No.I and II, consisting totally of 10 top police officers, each committee consisting of 5 elite Police Officers, out of which, the criminal case was filed against only 4 officers.Already 2 officers were discharged stating that they were not connected with this case.The learned counsel further stated that the prosecution had registered a case under Section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, stating that the petitioner had received a sum of between 2 to 3 lakhs from the ineligible candidates and altered the mark sheets in order to favour the candidates.P.W.94, one Thiru.Ravi, who spoke about his participation in the selection for Sub-Inspector, informed that he met with A-3 at his residence before the personal interview and that he demanded Rs.3,00,000/- for selection.The learned counsel further submitted that the recruitment was made in the year 1997-1998, but the prosecution case has been registered from an information of an unknown person.The case was registered in the year 2005, after about 7 years and the prosecution case was initiated against the 4 accused including the revision petitioner/A-2, who was an honest and eminent police officer in the rank of Inspector General of Police, law and order, who maintained the law and order in the entire state of Tamil Nadu impeccably and who is now retired from service with a distinguished record.The Home Secretary's order has become final and part and parcel of the prosecution case.State by Inspector of Police Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore."In exercise of powers u/s.482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court in appropriate cases is entitled to look into the documents submitted by the accused."2010 (4) MLJ Crl.166K.P.S. Jeyachandran Vs.State Rep. by D.S.P., Erode Town"Since the petitioner accused has been exonerated in the department proceedings and the existence of malice against him has been recorded by the Highest Police official in the state the Criminal Proceedings against the petitioner shall stand quashed."2011 (4) MLJ Crl. 687 (SC)R.Ramachandran Nair Vs.Deputy Superintendent, Vigilance of Police and anotherNo Whisper of allegation in FIR or charge sheet that appellant had made any personal gain in the transaction - Prosecution waited 81/2 years to file charge sheet, not justified - Prosecution cannot be allowed to proceed - Even otherwise he being a Vice-Chancellor, acted diligently by following procedure, no action could be initiated after a period of 8 years from the initiation of the complaint - Government had taken a decision to withdraw criminal proceedings pending against him, but, no follow up action was taken before concerned Court seeking permission - Court may legitimately draw a presumption that Government had taken a conscious decision exonerating appellant and no reason to doubt integrity of appellant - In view of abundant materials factually and in view of non-compliance of statutory provisions, appellant satisfied case for discharge from the criminal proceedings - Appellant discharged from all allegations - Appeal allowed."The respondent has filed counter statement and opposed the revision petition.In the order, it has been stated by this Court that the corrections are said to have been made and attested by the officer in the rank of Inspector General of Police.The learned counsel further submitted that the issue, whether the accused have knowingly, with a dishonest intention made a false assessment sheet by making false corrections therein through his own handwriting for the selection of several candidates, has to be decided after adjudication by the trial Court and therefore, at this juncture the discharge petition is not maintainable.The final report reveals that the accused used an ink of different tint in several pages and this is also to be canvassed only in the trial Court.The expert has also been examined in this regard and he has confirmed the alteration of marks by the use of inks of different tints for making corrections.If the revision petitioner is discharged from the criminal proceedings, the entire prosecution case would collapse.Learned counsel further argued that P.W. 11, P.W.12, P.W.13 and P.W.14 are all the elite Police Officers, who spoke about alteration of marks by using inks of different tint and they are the concrete witnesses in the prosecution case.Learned counsel further argued that the Court at this stage of framing of charge exercises a limited jurisdiction.It will only see whether a prima facie case has been made out and it will not delve deep into the matter for the purpose of the appreciation of evidence.It is beyond any doubt or dispute that at this stage of framing of charges this Court will not waive the evidence.The stage for appreciating the evidence for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the prosecution is able to bring home the charge against the accused will arise only after all the evidences are brought on record at the trial, as per the said contention observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and reported in MLJ (Criminal) 2008, Page No.1641, in Hemchand Vs.Learned counsel further submitted that the ineligible candidates are also listed witnesses in the prosecution case, who have not produced the certificates viz., NCC, NSS, sports and games, but they had been awarded marks and had been selected.This alteration had been made for personal gain after receiving illegal gratification, hence the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, therefore, the learned counsel for the State entreats for the dismissal of the revision petition.Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that there is no demand or acceptance in the prosecution case, as such the prosecution case carries only unclear statements.Absolutely, there is no prima facie case against the accused, hence no disciplinary action can be taken against the accused persons even though, they are retired from service for the reason that there is an order passed by the Home Secretary of this State in G.O.Ms.No.1163, dated 03.08.2007, wherein the Home Secretary has directed to drop further action regarding the allegation of disproportionate assets, in the same crime number in which, A-3 an A-4 have already been discharged and as such the revision petitioner is also entitled to get similar relief.The prosecution case have been levelled only on the basis of one sided statements.Clause-II :-There is no specific evidence for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and this was strengthened by the order passed by the Home Department of this Sate in G.O.Ms.Clause-III :-The accused No.3, Thiru.N.Elangovan was the custodian of the entire records as per the prosecution case.Therefore, he is the fittest person to speak about the records when the records were handed over to the revision petitioner (relevant time, date and place), who was discharged from the Criminal Proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.61, 1186, 1188 of 2006 in C.C.No.17 of 2005 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.Using as genuine a forged (document or electronic record)-whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any (document or electronic record) which he knowns or has reason to believe to be a forged (document or electronic record) shall be punished in the same manner as if he had such forged (document or electronic record) "As per Section 468 and 471 forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, A-3 presence is absolutely necessary, in order to establish this section, since he was the custodian of the entire records and he has already been discharged from the prosecution case.The language of 167 reads as follows:-Clause No.As per this section, the accused committed the offence by conniving with the co-accused and as the co-accused A-3 and A-4 were discharged, hence this section lapses.On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the citations cited by the learned counsels, this Court's view of clauses I to IX and on scrutiny of the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.9450 of 2010 in C.C.No.17 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order is set-aside.Consequently, the discharge petition in Crl.Accordingly, ordered.Resultantly, the above Criminal Revision is allowed.Consequently, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.9450 of 2010 in C.C.No.17 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated 16.09.2011 is set-aside and the Crl. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,172,182 | The prosecution story started on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 4 Charan Singh on 25-8-1976 at about 1 a.m. after negotiating a distance of 1 mile.The incident is said to have taken place in the same night of 24/25-8-1976 at about 12 p.m. It is alleged that the accused are in inimical terms with the complainant and the injured Hari Singh.Litigation has been going on.In one criminal case, the complainant was on bail.This was disliked by the accused.In the night of occurrence, the complainant and Hari Singh, injured were sleeping in their Sehan.A lantern was burning.The accused Om Prakash and Madan along with Kanchhi, who is the brother-in-law of Om Prakash all of a sudden entered his house.Getting inkling, the complainant and the injured got up and raised an alarm.But the accused Om Prakash, Kanchhi and Madan pounced upon Hari Singh and caused knife injuries to him.Hearing the alarm, Allah Bux, P.W. 2, Girwar Singh, Shyam Lal and several other persons arrived and saw the accused.However, the accused escaped.JUDGMENT G.S.N. Tripathi, J.The then VIIIth Addl.Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar vide his judgment and order dated 4-9-1979 passed in S.T. No. 9/79, State v. Om Prakash and two others convicted the accused Om Prakash, Madan and Kanchhi on a charge under Section 452, I.P.C. read with Section 34,I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo 2/2 years' R.I. and also pay a fine of Rs. 60/-.On failure to pay fine, two months' additional R.I. was awarded.These accused were further convicted under Section 324,I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 1 1/2 years' R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.All the accused were acquitted on the charge under Section 307, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. only accused have preferred this appeal and not the State against the order of acquittal under Section 307/34, I.P.C.He found three injuries as noted by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge at page 5 of his judgment.All of them were caused by knife.Injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were on the vital parts and they could have resulted in death even, had medical aid not been provided in time.After usual investigation, a charge sheet was laid by the prosecution.The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Hari Singh, the injured.He has narrated the entire prosecution story as contained in the F.I.R.P.W. 2 Allah Bux is the resident of the same neighbourhood.He knew the accused from before.After hearing the alarm, he proceeded towards the spot with a torch and lathi.He saw the accused and identified them.The accused were armed with knives and they caused injuries to Hari Singh.P.W. 4 is Charan Singh another eye witness.He is also the complainant.He has also stated as done by Hari Singh, P.W. 1, P.W. 7 Girwar Singh is also an eye witness of the occurrence.Other evidence is formal in nature.P.W. 5 Dr. B.K. Rastogi has proved the injury report prepared by him.He has further said that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 could not have been self-inflicted or self-suffered as they were on the vital parts of the body.He has further opined that if the injury had been allowed to bleed further, the injured could have even died.Of course, they have pleaded enmity and said that on account of the same, they have been falsely implicated.The accused have led no evidence in their defence.Accused Om Prakash has said that his son Ved Ram was assaulted by Hari Singh, P.W. 1 and Charan Singh, P.W. 4 and a case under Section 325, I.P.C. has been pending against these accused and in order to pressurise these accused, this false case has been launched.The witness Girwar, Allan Bux wanted to take begar from the accused.On refusal, they have sided with the complainant.A similar statement has been made by Kanchhi and Madan as well.After evaluation of the entire circumstance and evidence on the record, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution case was credible.He convicted the accused and sentenced them accordingly.Feeling aggrieved, the accused have filed this appeal.During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants Madan and Kanchi are said to have died.Only appellant Om Prakash is left.I have heard learned counsel Sri J.S. Tomar and the learned State Counsel at great stretch and perused the record.I find that there is very little force in this appeal and it deserves to be substantially dismissed.The incident is said to have taken place in the night of 24/25-8-1979 around mid night.The F.I.R. was lodged in the same night at 1 a.m. after covering a distance of two miles.The accused were named and their weapons were also specifically mentioned apart from the witnesses, Medical examination took place in the same night at 1.30 a.m. and as many as three knife injuries were found as noted by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge in the body of the judgment.Thus there was very little opportunity available to the complainant to cook up a false case.Such a prompt FIR is a veritable asset to the prosecution and court can usefully utilize it for corroboration purposes.Another beauty of the FIR is that it contains in detail the names, weapons, date, time and place of the occurrence and also the role played by the accused, apart from the factum of motive being in the shape of the enmity between the parties which is an admitted fact.Therefore, this FIR is complete in all respects.It cannot be said that the prosecution has developed itself at a later stage on the basis of legal advice or made any embellishment in its original version.Therefore, I agree with the learned Addl.It has not been suggested to him that in fact these injuries were not on the person of the injured Hari Singh.This way, indirectly the accused have admitted the factum of injuries on the person of Hari Singh.They were quite fresh at the time of examination.Some of the injuries were bleeding at that time when the injured was examined by Dr. Rastogi.So, from the statement of Dr. Rastogi, the factum of injury is clearly established.Apart from it, we have the statement of P.W. 1 Hari Singh, the injured.He has given a vivid description of the incident and described the manner in which the accused caused knife injuries to him.He has also described that there was enmity between the parties and on account of that enmity, the accused had launched this attack.As observed earlier, even the accused admit that there was enmity between the parties vide their statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. So the statement of Hari Singh is very reliable.After critical examination of the same.I find that it has not been suggested to him that he had not received injuries at all as an attempt was made with Dr. Rastogi, supra.The accused were known persons.They came in a very close contact and bodily touch with Hari Singh while causing knife injuries.There was a lantern as well.The accused were known persons.Even in star-lit night, they could have been identified without any difficulty.So, I am in agreement with the learned Addl.Sessions Judge that Hari Singh had adequate opportunity in identifying the accused unmistakably.Despite very lengthy cross-examination, the witness has remained unscathed.There is no reason to disbelieve him.He is an injured person.So naturally, he will not allow the real assailants to go scot-free and substitute them with imaginary and unreal culprits.The result is that the solitary statement of Hari Singh, coupled with prompt medical report FIR and factum of enmity is sufficient to record conviction against the accused.Whether we take into notice the testimonies of other witnesses or not, it will make absolutely no difference as regards the culpability of the accused in this crime.That apart P.W. 2 Alla Bux is a neighbour.After hearing alarm, he reached the spot.It is quite natural that the neighbours will come to the rescue of any other neighbour.The only allegation against him in the cross-examination was that he was an old aged person with weak eye sight.He could not identify the accused.He gave his age as 71 years.He denied the allegations that he was 92 years old.He had a torch, which he had shown to the I.O. and with the help of the same, he saw the accused and identified them.He is an independent witness and there is no reason for him to falsely implicate the accused.P.W. 4 Charan Singh is the complainant and real brother of Hari Singh.It is a night incident, which took place in the house of this witness.Therefore, his presence on the spot cannot be denied.He moved the machinery of law without any delay and lodged the report in the same night.He took the injured person to the Doctor and made available the prompt medical aid.This way, his presence on the spot cannot be disputed.Of course, he is real brother of the injured.I have applied that test while evaluating that testimony.A mere suggestion has been made in the end of the cross-examination that he was not present on the spot without any background for the same.Therefore, this suggestion will not help.The result is that the statement of Charan Singh is reliable.P. W. 7 Girwar Singh is another eye-witness of the locality and he has deposed on the basis of his eye witness account, which he gathered from the spot.He has also no serious enmity with the accused and there is no reason why he will tell a lie.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge has properly evaluated his evidence and found that Girwar Singh is a reliable witness and I agree with the conclusions drawn by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.This way, there appears no fault in the conclusion arrived it by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge and there is no force in this appeal.The accsued have no previous conviction to their credit.There is no evidence on the record that they have repeated their performance after this incidence.Of course, they committed the crime due to enmity.It is further said that accused Om Prakash, the sole surviving culprit is also aged over 60 years.Taking all these factors into consideration, leniency in the sentence can be shown.Accused Om Prakash is convicted on the charge under Section 452, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 6 months' R.I. He is further convicted on the charge under Section 324/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.On failure to pay the same, additional two months' R.I. shall be suffered by him.Both the sentences shall run concurrently.But later on after passing this order for sending the alleged compromise for verification, Sri Tomar submitted that he did not press the point of compromise and wanted to argue the case on merits.This prayer had been accepted and 9-1-1995 has been fixed for arguments and it is no more open to him to claim that the compromise should be sent to the lower court for verification. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,220,277 | The prosecution version as unfolded during the trial is asfollows :-The victim was residing with her brothers Prince andManikandan at the house of her maternal uncle Mr. Ravi Naidu.The victim was working as a babysitter.Her working hours werebetween 9.30 am to 8.00 pm.The appellant-accused and thevictim were residing in the same area.Two years prior to theincident, the victim and the appellant-accused got acquaintedwith each other.In due course, this friendship turned into a loveafair.RESERVED ON : JULY 29, 2020 PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 5, 2020 1/122.cri appeal 1070-15.odtJUDGMENT : (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.) The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment rendered bythe Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court,Greater Mumbai.The appellant faced trial for alleged commissionof the ofences punishable under Section 307 along with 341 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').The AdditionalSessions Judge found the appellant-accused guilty and sentencedhim to sufer imprisonment for life, with fne of Rs.5000/-, indefault of payment of fne, he was to undergo further R.I. for twomonths.The appellant-accused was also held guilty for theofence punishable under section 341 of the IPC and sentencedto sufer one month simple imprisonment and to pay fne ofRs.500/-, in default of payment of fne, he was to undergo furtherS.I. for 15 days.The victim's uncle came to know about the afair andtherefore objected to the same.The victim stopped meeting theappellant-accused and refused to continue her relations with him.The appellant-accused tried to obstruct her near G.T.B. RailwayStation twice.The victim in clear terms indicated that she does 2/122.cri appeal 1070-15.odtnot want to continue her relationship with the appellant-accusedand that the appellant-accused should not keep any contact withher.The appellant-accused issued threats and also beat her onone occasion as he wanted her to marry him.In the evening, on her way back home, the appellant-accused suddenly entered the rickshaw in which the victim wasseated.The victim was pulled out of the rickshaw.The appellant-accused threatened the rickshaw driver and forced him to leave.The appellant-accused assaulted the victim with his fsts andpulled her to the footpath adjoining 'Satyabhama Hotel'.Hethreatened to kill her if she refused to marry him.On her refusal,the appellant-accused took out a knife from the right side pocketof his pant and inficted injuries on her neck.The victim startedshouting.In her attempt to save herself, she raised her hands asa result of which she sustained injuries on her hands too.Thepeople who witnessed the incident rushed towards the victim tosave her.The appellant-accused threatened them with direconsequences if they helped the victim.Nobody thereforeintervened.At that time, one police vehicle arrived.Theappellant-accused ran away from the spot.The victim was takento the hospital and on the basis of her statement the ofencesunder Section 307 and 341 of the IPC came to be registeredagainst the appellant-accused.This act of balancing isindeed a difcult task.Considering the sentencingpolicy illuminatingly stated by the Apex Court, according to us,the sentence awarded by the trial Court needs to be reduced bymaintaining the conviction.Looking to the circumstances inwhich the ofence was committed and the nature of the injuriesand the harm caused to victim, the sentence of 10 years rigorousimprisonment, in our opinion, would meet the ends of justice.We accordingly partly allowed the Appeal limited to thequestion of sentence.The conviction of the appellant-accused forthe ofence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is 11/122.cri appeal 1070-15.odtmaintained. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,588,653 | JUDGMENTORDERThis appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act,1951 (for short, the Act) has been preferred by the elected candidate.Thefacts are brief and few.Byjudgment and order dated 28th July 2000, the appellant was convicted andsentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years by the VIAddl.Immediately thereafter,Criminal Appeal No.658 of 2000 was preferred by the appellant challengingthe judgment of conviction and order of sentence.Pending the appeal, theBombay High Court granted stay of the execution of the sentence.(2) The fresh elections to Karnataka Legislative Assembly were notified.The election programme notified was as under:Last date of nomination : 31.03.2004Date of scrutiny of nomination : 02.04.2004Last date for withdrawal : 05.04.2004Date of polling : 20.04.2004Date of declaration of result : 13.05.2004The appellant moved an application in the pending appeal, for stay of theorder of conviction dated 28th July, 2000, so that he can contest theelection.The Bombay High Court, by order dated 26th March, 2004, stayedthe conviction pending appeal.The respondent raised an objection to theacceptance of appellant's nomination, contending that the appellant wasdisqualified under Section 8(1) and (3) of the Act. The said objectionraised by the respondent was rejected by the Returning Officer.(3) The election of the appellant was challenged by the respondent beforethe Karnataka High Court on the ground that the appellant was not qualifiedto contest the election.The High Court afterconsidering the special reason, granted the order staying the conviction. | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,868,442 | The case was one of circumstantial evidence.One of the key witnesses was Swapan Devnath (PW-1) - brother of the deceased Ujjwal Devnath.He stated that the deceased was having a dharam kanta at 3072, Gali No.36, Beadan Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.On 2nd September, 1996, the deceased left his house at around 10 am after taking Rs.40,000/- from PW-1 stating that he was going to the Appellant for getting the sale deed of the Shop No.34/3112, Second Floor, Beadan Pura, Karol Bagh executed.PW-1 stated that the deceased had already paid to the Appellant Rs.1,10,000/- as part consideration.When the deceased did not return till 9 pm, PW-1 along with his other brother Ratan Devnath (PW-7) went to the Appellant at his shop, where Satish (A-2) was also purportedly present and inquired about the deceased.In reply, the Appellant informed them that deceased had not come to him that day.After searching for the deceased till the night, when PW-1 reached the dharam kanta , he came across one constable at around 1.30 am on 3 rd September, 1996 and disclosed to him that the deceased had left the house in the morning and not returned since.The said constable then accompanied PW-1 to the house of the Appellant.They found the Appellant as well as A-According to PW-1, at around 5.30 to 6 am, the constable again came to Gali No.36 and asked PW-1 to accompany him to the PS.The brother of PW-1, PW-7, who had returned home by then, was also called.At around 10.50 am on 3 rd September, 1996 the FIR was registered.According to PW-1, the Appellant and A2 were also present in the PS at the time.According to PW-1, a disclosure statement of the Appellant was recorded at around 2 pm on the same day (Ex.They found the house locked.The Appellant claimed that he had lost the key.On the asking of the police, the Appellant then broke open the lock.On opening the door, a foul smell was coming from within.A cloth having blood stains and some papers were found lying in the rear portion of the room.One iron saria (rod) and one hammer were also found in the room.The police recovered the hammer.According to PW-1, the Appellant and A-2 supposedly admitted to having killed the deceased and pointed to a box where the dead body was lying.The box was opened and PW-1 was asked to identify the deceased.The body was found wrapped in a dari/kambal (blanket) and the hands were tied and some cloth was also present in the mouth.The money was supposed to have been recovered by the police, in a plastic bag kept in an alla in the wall in Crl.A. 649/2002 Page 3 of 9 the room of the Appellant.Among the other things recovered were a wooden phatta and a brick, apart from the hammer (Ex.P6).An iron pipe was also seized from the spot along with the plastic which was used to tie the body.A photo album (Ex.PW13) was seized.A bori was also seized along with a kambal/dari and other clothes found on the body of the deceased.The clothes of the Appellant and A-2 were also seized.Blood was lifted from the floor of the room and earth control was also lifted.A. 649/2002 Page 3 of 9According to PW-1, the deceased was wearing a gold chain and a gold kada weighing 3 tolas, a gold ring having pukhraj stone and these jewels were not on his body when it was found.In his cross-examination, PW-1 denied that any saria was recovered from the room and reiterated that what was recovered was a pipe.According to PW-1, the Appellant also disclosed to the police that he would get recovered the kada, chain and a ring.When they took him back to the premises at 3112/34, Beadan Pura, the gold chain and kada could not be traced.The Appellant is supposed to have pointed out that the ring was kept under the Laxmi Devi Idol.That ring with the pukhraj stone was recovered from there.Nothing much in favour of the Appellant could be elicited from PW-1 in his cross-examination.Basant Lal (PW-2) deposed to the effect that he used to run a committee of which the Appellant was a member.After paying instalments 3-4 times, the Appellant is stated to have defaulted.Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 28 th January, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), Delhi in Sessions Case No.71/97 arising out of an FIR No.522/1996 registered at Police Station ('PS') Karol Bagh convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and the order on sentence dated 29th January, 2002 sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.At the outset it requires to be noticed that the Appellant and the co- accused Satish (Accused No.2 - 'A2') (Proclaimed Offender - 'PO') were charged with conspiring to murder Ujjwal Dev Nath ('deceased') and Crl.A. 649/2002 Page 1 of 9 pursuant thereto committed his murder on 2nd September, 1996 at 10 to 11 am at Shop No.34/B-112, Second Floor, Beadan Pura and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120B IPC and 302 IPC.A. 649/2002 Page 1 of 9By the impugned judgment, the trial Court held that A-2 was entitled to the benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted him.On pressure from PW-2 with the Crl.A. 649/2002 Page 4 of 9 help of two other persons from the market, the Appellant gave his shop to PW-2 for Rs.3 lacs i.e. a shop at House No.3112, Gali No.34 and executed a sale deed with the understanding that the Appellant would vacate the shop after three years but in case he paid the money, PW-2 would return the shop to the Appellant.PW-2 clarified that the shop continued to be in the possession of the Appellant.Later PW-2 learnt that the Appellant had sold the same shop to some other person.PW-2 admitted that there were three portions in the second floor and one portion was owned by the Appellant, out of which one half had been sold to PW-2 and the other half to one Vimal.The portion sold to PW-2 was stated to have one door and two windows.PW-2 pointed out that there is a wall separating his portion and the adjoining second portion of the second floor and he could not say as to who the owner of the adjoining portion was but that some persons were living there.He maintained that there was an oral understanding between him and the Appellant about the return of the property.According to him, the Appellant had come to his taxi stand at 8 pm on 2 nd Crl.A. 649/2002 Page 5 of 9 September, 1996 and booked a taxi for the Sarai Rohilla Station.He was asked to come at 1 am to Gali No.34 at Beadan Pura.At around 1 am while he was trying to get his taxi started with the help of others at the taxi stand, the Appellant himself came there and asked him as to why he was delayed.PW-6 claims that after he had reached the Gali No.34 in front of one house and the Appellant had gone upstairs, Ct.Vijender along with another person came there and inquired from him why the taxi was standing there.When the said constable went upstairs in the presence of the taxi driver, the Appellant denied having called the taxi.This gave rise to some suspicion and therefore the Appellant was made to sit in the taxi and was taken to the PS.A. 649/2002 Page 5 of 9Rattan Devnath (PW-7) has also supported the deposition of his brother Swapan Devnath (PW-1).Nothing much has turned on his cross- examination as well.When these circumstances were put to the Appellant, he denied them.He claimed to be innocent and to have been falsely implicated.No defence evidence was led.The trial Court based its conclusions essentially on two factors.One was that the dead body was recovered from the house of the Appellant while he Crl.A. 649/2002 Page 6 of 9 was still in its possession.Therefore under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act ('IEA') it was for the Appellant to offer an explanation.The second factor was the Appellant's disclosure leading to the recovery of the dead body from a trunk kept inside the said house.The trial Court, however, did not believe the recovery of the ring from the same house on 12 th September, 1996 i.e. 9 days after the arrest of the Appellant.A. 649/2002 Page 6 of 9The above proved circumstances have to be seen along with the fact that the death was homicidal as was proved by the post-mortem report which was never challenged.It showed that the death was as a result of cranio cerebral damage consequent upon a blunt force impact on the left side of the skull which is due to a circular shaped object like hammer.There was also evidence of strangulation and gagging which along with the injury to the head was held to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,870,268 | Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State.Challenge in this revision preferred under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. is to the charges framed under Sections 304-B of I.P.C. in the alternative under Sections 3076,498-A of I.P.C. and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Present revision is filed by the petitioner Pawan Gupta who is said to be brother-in-law of the deceased, who died due to hanging after being subjected to cruelty by the husband and his relatives. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,871,308 | M.A. 28517/2018(exemption) Crl.M.A. 28523/2018(exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.CRL.M.C. 3666/2018 & 3670/2018 Page 1 of 3CRL.M.C. 3666/2018 & 3670/20181. Petitioners in Crl.M.C. 3666/2018 seek quashing of FIR No.187/2017 under Sections 341/354/506/34 at Police Station Kapashera, New Delhi and Petitioners in Crl.M.C. 3670/2018 seek quashing of FIR No.188/2017 under Sections 354/354B/509/451/34 of the IPC at Police Station Kapashera, New Delhi.The subject FIRs are cross FIRs registered consequent to a quarrel that took place between the parties, who are related to each other being the brother and sister and their respective families.The subject FIRs were registered consequent to a quarrel which took place on account of some misbehaviour with regard to taking care of their mother.Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have settled their disputes with the intervention of other relatives.Parties are present in court in person, represented by their respective counsels and identified by the Investigating Officers.They submit that they have settled the disputes with each other and they further undertake that they shall take care of their mother and will not quarrel over her.They submit that they have settled the dispute with a view to restore family peace and harmony and have assured that they shall not quarrel with each other in future.In view of the fact that the disputes between the petitioners and CRL.M.C. 3666/2018 & 3670/2018 Page 2 of 3 respondents have been settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.It would be expedient to quash the subject FIRs and the consequent proceedings emanating there from.CRL.M.C. 3666/2018 & 3670/2018 Page 2 of 3In view of the above, the petitions are allowed.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J JULY 26, 2018 rk CRL.M.C. 3666/2018 & 3670/2018 Page 3 of 3CRL.M.C. 3666/2018 & 3670/2018 Page 3 of 3 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,588,790 | JUDGMENT U.L. Bhat, C.J.The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The substance of charge against the appellant is that he committed the murder of his wife, Razda Begum.They were married a few months before the occurrence.The appellant was always finding fault with his wife for not bringing enough dowry and uttering abuses at her and even assaulting her.On 10-6-1986, the appellant took his wife from his house telling her that he would take her to Begum-gunj where her parents were residing and thereafter take her to Bhopal for a change.They had to reach Begum Gunj by walking through forest area.At about 9 p.m., when they were inside the forest, he started abusing his wife and when she protested, he assaulted her with a farsa, a sharp edged weapon and ran away.She fell down unconscious.Regaining consciousness the next morning, she slowly walked to Begumgunj and reached her uncle's place at about 4 p.m.. She informed her father PW 1, brother PW 2, sister PW 3 and others about the incident.She was taken to Begum Gunj Police station where she got Ex. P-20, F.I. statement prepared by a police constable.Charge witness No. 15, S.I. Police, Begum Gunj received Ex. P-20, but did not prepare F.I.R. since the scene of occurrence was outside the jurisdiction of the police station.Meanwhile the injured was taken to Begum Gunj hospital where she was treated by PW 9 and thereafter taken to Raisen hospital.Appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 498A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively.PW 10 conducted autopsy on the dead body.PW 12, S.I., Rahatgarh police station held inquest over the dead body.He and PW 11 conducted investigation.On the appellant pleading not guilty, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked the relevant documents.Defence examined one witness.Appellant, when questioned, stated that PW 4 and Akhtar were not happy with his marriage with Razda Begum and they had threatened him.It was suggested in cross-examination of some of the witnesses that PW 4 and the deceased were visiting each other and on the day in question, the deceased left the house without his knowledge.The trial court accepted the prosecution evidence and held the appellant guilty of the charge.Evidence of PW 9 shows that the deceased had 2 incised injuries, one on the left occipital region and the other on the right arm.They were found to be simple injuries by clinical examination.After sustaining the injuries, the injured lived for 13 days.PW 10 who held autopsy on the dead body, found only one injury, viz. incised gaping wound over the anterior mastoid process on the base midline, measuring 10cm x 3cm.The infection led to tetanus.1 to 3;Therefore, the statement of the deceased made to PWs 1 to 3 cannot be said to be a statement as to cause of death or as to any of the circumstances which resulted in her death.According to the prosecution case, appellant's wife regained consciousness on 11-7-1986 and somehow managed to walk to Begum Gunj and met her family members.She narrated the occurrence to them.PWs 1 to 3 deposed that she stated that she was assaulted by her husband in the forest.The S.I. Police did not prepare the F.I.R. or register the case against the appellant since the occurrence took place outside his jurisdiction.PW 2 did not depose that the deceased gave introductions for preparing Ex. P. 20 or that it was read over to her or that she affixed her signature to it.At another stage, in his evidence, he deposed that this was done when he had gone out to purchase medicines.The police constable who wrote Ex. P-20, was not even cited as a charge witness.The S.I. Police who received Ex. P-20 alleged from the deceased, was cited as a witness.Every attempt was made from 3-2-1992 till the closure of the evidence in August 1993 to summon the S.I. Police, but no summons was served on him.It is for the prosecution to produce evidence on the date or dates so fixed.Such evidence as may be produced, shall be taken.The spirit and letter of the provision are observed more in the breach in Sessions Courts.The co-operation of police administration, the prosecutor and the accused is absolutely essential for the speedy conduct of trial.One serious bottleneck that is noticed is the non-service of processes on witnesses.This is particularly so in regard to official witnesses such as Medical Officers or Police Officers.When confronted with this situation, it was certainly the duty of the learned Sessions Judge to have made an attempt to get the original.Learned Sessions Judge failed to discharge his duty.The dying declaration is not available and necessary conditions for reception of secondary evidence have not been established.The copy does not bear the copy of signature of the declarant.It may be that the original contains the signature, we do not know.We have already indicated that prosecution has failed to prove causal connection between the injury and death.The Investigating Agency has not been effective in investigating the case.According to the prosecution, the appellant took his wife from their house and assaulted her while in the forest.No attempt appears to be made to trace witnesses who would have seen the appellant and his wife going from their house on the evening towards Begum Gunj. | ['Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,588,819 | Similarly, present applicants are Directors of the Chetak Construction Limited, a registered company having its Head Office at Chetak Chamber, R. N. T. Mark, Indore and applicant /accused No. 3 is the Secretary of that company.It is alleged that in the year 1988-89 applicants/ accused approach the complainant company for obtaining lease of Tata dumpers and light commercial vehicles for a specific period on monthly lease rent basis.Applicants /accused assured complainant company that as per the agreement they will pay monthly lease rent without any default and to support their claim, they will also furnish bank guarantee for due performance of the condition of the contract.In view of that proposal, one agreement has been executed in between the parties on 13-5-1988, on 14-11-1988 and on 25-3-1989 for delivery of the 25 dumpers, 10 dumpers, 20 dumpers and 4 light commercial vehicles and from the complainant, accused persons took the delivery of the aforesaid vehicles and also agreed for payment of the monthly lease rent for 36 months.For the due performance of agreement, necessary documents were executed by the applicants/accused persons in favour of the complainant.It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that admittedly in between both the parties an agreement has been executed for supply of vehicles on the part of complainant and payment of rent on the part of the accused persons.In compliance of that agreement, applicants/accused have paid the necessary rent timely to the complainant.ORDER S.S. Dwivedi, J.They also gave collateral security in favour of the complainant of the property belonging to the M/s. Choudhary Builders Private Limited and also produced board resolution dated 6-2-1990 to the complainant.Complainant unable to get any rent in time from the accused persons and also found that applicants/accused in violation of the condition of the agreement have illegally sold eight vehicles to other parties with ulterior motive, thus, committed criminal breach of trust also and also cheated the complainant.On the allegations, complainant through its Manager has filed this complaint under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants/ accused.Before the trial Court, learned trial Magistrate after taking the cognizance against the applicants recorded before charge evidence and on consideration of the before charge evidence by impugned order dated 14-8-2006 ordered for framing of the charge under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants /accused.Feeling aggrieved by which, the applicants have preferred this revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.I have heard the learned senior counsel for the applicants Shri A.S. Garg and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of complainant Shri Vinay Saraf and perused the documents produced by the parties.Whatever vehicles they have sold that had been sold with the consent of the complainant and for that sale proceed has been deposited in the account of the complainant, which they have admitted receipt and thus, on the basis of these facts, if any, breach has been committed by the accused persons, then it will not be a cause for criminal action against the applicants.Only civil liability can be fasten against them and complainant has also approached arbitrator for non-compliance of the conditions of the agreement concerned and arbitrator has also passed an award in favour of the complaint against the applicants for payment of due amount of near about Rs. 85,00,000/- therefore, learned trial Court has overlooked the aforesaid facts and the circumstances of the case that this case has been filed only to pressurize the accused persons for payment of remaining amount or sale proceed of the so-called rent.No prima facie charge under Sections 420 or 406 the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicants and learned trial Court has wrongly ordered for framing of the aforesaid charges against the applicants, therefore, learned senior counsel for the applicants prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and for discharge of the applicants.In reply, learned Counsel for the complainant/ non-applicant supported the impugned order and submits that it is proved by the complainant by appropriate evidence that accused persons have committed criminal breach of trust by selling vehicles without prior consent of the complainant, which were entrusted to them for use on rental basis only.Similarly, it is also proved by the complainant that the accused persons have also not paid rent as per the condition of the agreement and by this act they have willfully cheated the complainant, also submitted forged security of the property which were already mortgaged with the bank concerned and willfully concealed the aforesaid facts that whatever properly they have sub-milled for security is already mortgaged with the bank.Thus, they have also committed offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC and thus, the aforesaid charges are prima facie made out.against the applicants and learned trial Court has rightly ordered for framing of the charges against the applicants, therefore, no substantial or legal grounds are available for any interference in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, therefore, learned Counsel for the non-applicant complainant prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.On perusal of the entire documentary evidence on record, it is apparent that admittedly one agreement has been executed in between the parties for supply of the vehicles dumpers and light commercial vehicles by the complainant to the accused persons for which necessary lease rent has been fixed which the applicants/accused ought to be deposited regularly to the complainant.It is alleged that up to 25-3-1989 accused persons have regularly deposited the lease rent to the complainant party, but after 25-3-1989 accused persons have stopped their payment of the aforesaid lease rent to the complainant.Four agreements were executed in between the parties.At the time of filing of this complaint, 13 vehicles were in possession of the accused persons, which they have not returned as per the condition of the agreement; out of which 6 vehicles they have sold to other parties and not deposited the sale price to the complainant and thus committed criminal breach of trust.On the basis of this statement, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants/accused submits that actually agreement which has been executed in between the parties are the agreement of hire purchase agreement and not one as lease agreement. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
15,888,452 | Shri Mayank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.This is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.80/2016 registered at Police Station- Kanhiwada District Seoni (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 294, 448, 506, 354-D of the IPC and section 11 (4)/12 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent.Prosecutrix have love affairs with him and presently she is residing with him and she is major and false report has been lodged under the influence of his parents.Applicant's custodial interrogation is not required for the purpose of investigation.Hence applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail.On behalf of the complainant, learned counsel has expressed that the complainant has no objection to grant of bail to the applicant.In this regard along with affidavit of complainant adhar card and mark sheet of high school has also been filed.Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.If he failed to do so, the effect of this order shall be vacated automatically.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tarun | ['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
259,250 | 2.The epitome of the prosecution case is that the complainant by nameMurugan is a resident of Vallanadu and now he is the union chairman of theKarungulam and at the time of occurrence, he served as maestri in M.K.M. Chamberand he knows all the accused.The primary work of the complainant is to getsoil from other places to the said chamber.The second accused viz., MaruthVinayagam has been known to the complainant with regard to selling of soil.On21.01.1996 at about 8.00 a.m. the complainant has gone to Chennalpatti Villagefor taking soil through the lorries bearing Registration No.The accused 1 & 2 have toldthat the complainant and others should not take soil.The complainant has toldthem that already an agreement has been entered into with regard to taking ofsoil.The accused 1 & 2 have directed the accused 3 to 5 to murder thecomplainant.The third accused by name Viswanathan has attacked on the leftheel of the complainant by using an aruval.The fourth accused by name SelvaVinayagam has tried to attack on the head of the complainant, but the saidattack has caused injury on his backside.The fifth accused viz., Murugan hasattacked on the right upper thigh of the complainant twice.3.On receipt of Ex.The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions,Tuticorin Division and subsequently transferred to the file of the trial Court.4.The trial Court, after considering the alleged culpability of all theaccused and other connected documents has framed first charge against theaccused 1 to 5 under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, second charge againstthe accused 1 to 5 under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, third chargeagainst the accused 3 to 5 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and fourthcharge against the accused 1 & 2 under Sections 307 read with 149 of the IndianPenal Code and the same have been read over and explained to them.The accusedhave denied the charges and claimed to be tried.5.On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 17 have been examined andExs.P1 to P10 and MOs.1 to 4 have been marked.6.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing inevidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crimes.The conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.278 of 1999 by theAdditional Sessions cum Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin are now under challengein the present criminal appeal.The second accused is the owner of the Manikandan Rice Mill.Near thesaid Rice Mill, all the accused with deadly weapons have deterred the saidlorries.The complainant has questioned the accused.However nooral and documentary evidence have been let in on their side.7.The trial Court, after perpending the evidence available on record hasfound the accused 1 to 5 guilty under Sections 148 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced them to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed afine of Rs.500/- upon each of them with default clause.The accused 1 to 5 arealso found guilty under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced toundergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/-upon each of them with default clause.The accused 1 & 2 are found guilty underSections 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo twoyears rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1500/- upon each ofthem with default clause.The accused 3 to 5 are found guilty under Section 307of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years rigorousimprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- upon each of them withdefault clause.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court,the present criminal appeal has been filed at the instance of the accused asappellants.8.The crux of the prosecution case is that on the date of occurrence, thecomplainant by name Murugan has served as Maestri in K.K.M.Chanmber andproceeded to Chennalpatti Village so as to take soil through the lorries bearingRegistration Nos.TN-72-9732 and MDD.9732 and an agreement has been in existencewith regard to taking of soil from the place of the second accused viz., MaruthaVinayagam and near his Rice Mill all the accused have deterred the said lorrieswith deadly weapons.The complainant has questioned them and the accused 1 & 2have directed the other accused to murder the complainant and in pursuance oftheir direction, the accused 3 to 5 have attacked the complainant and therebycaused injuries on his person.9.The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon Ex.P1, complaint, whereinit has been clearly stated that in the place of occurrence, the accused 1 & 2have directed the remaining accused to attack the complainant and the remainingaccused have attacked the complainant by using deadly weapons.10.Before considering the argument advanced by the learned counselappearing for the appellants/accused, the Court has to analyse as to whether theprosecution has established the guilt of the accused as alleged on its side.11.The author of Ex.He hasclearly stated in his evidence that on 21.01.1995 at about 8.00 a.m. he andothers have proceeded to Chennalpatti Village for taking soil through thelorries bearing Registration Nos.TN-72-9732, MDD.9732 and near the Rice Mill ofthe second accused all the accused have deterred the said lorries with deadlyweapons and the accused 1 & 2 have directed the accused 3 to 5 to murder him andaccordingly the third accused has attacked on his left heel by using an aruvaland the fourth accused has tried to attack on his head by using an aruval, butthe said attack has caused injury on his backside and the fifth accused hasattacked on his right thigh twice by using an aruval.Hewould say in his evidence that on 21.01.1996 at about 8.00 a.m. he and othershave proceeded to Chennalpatti village for taking soil and he has heard a queernoise and subsequently found the complainant with injuries.He would say in hisevidence that on 21.01.1996 while he has been in his tea shop, the accused 3 to5 have attacked the complainant in the place of occurrence.Hewould say in his evidence that in the place of occurrence, the accused 3 to 5have attacked the complainant by using aruvals.He has also stated in his evidence that on 21.01.1996 at about 9.15 a.m.he examined the complainant and he reported to him that on the same day, atabout 8.10 a.m. in Chennalpatti village he has been attacked by 5 known personsby using aruvals and sticks, and he found four injuries on his person.16.From the evidence of PW1 and other eyewitnesses coupled with theevidence of PW15, the Court can safely come to a conclusion that in the place ofoccurrence, the accused 1 & 2 have directed the accused 3 to 5 to murder thecomplainant and in pursuance of their direction, the third accused has attackedon the left heel of the complainant by using an aruval and the fourth accusedhas attacked on his backside by using an aruval and the fifth accused hasattacked on his right thigh twice and due to overtacts alleged to have beencommitted by the accused 3 to 5, PW1 has sustained injuries on his person.17.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused has attackedthe conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court on the basis of thefollowing grounds;a)In Ex.Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Courtto convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found tobe deficient, or to be not wholly credible.20.In the instant case, as rightly pointed out on the side of theappellants/accused, in Ex.24.The third ground urged on the side of the appellants/accused is thatPW4, one of the eyewitnesses has stated in his evidence that he is having motivewith regard to election against the accused and therefore, his evidence cannotbe believed in.25.Of-course, it is true that PW4 has clearly admitted in his evidencethat he is having motive with regard to election against the accused.It is aneverlasting principle of law that the evidence of a witness who is having motiveagainst the accused should be looked into very cautiously and if his evidence iscorroborated by other witnesses, his evidence can be relied upon.26.In the instant case, apart from the evidence of PW4, the prosecutionhas adduced reliable evidence through PW8, one of the eyewitnesses.Therefore,simply on the basis of alleged motive, the evidence of PW4 cannot bedisbelieved.Under the said circumstances, the third ground urged on the sideof the appellants/accused goes out without merit.27.The fourth point urged on the side of the appellants/accused is thateven assuming without conceding that in the place of occurrence the accused 1 &2 have directed the remaining accused to attack the complainant, since noagreement has been produced with regard to taking of soil from the place of thesecond accused, the second accused is entitled to get private defence withregard to his property.Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by PW1, lenient viewcan be taken in awarding sentence against the accused and under the saidcircumstances, the accused 1 & 2 can be sentenced to undergo six months rigorousimprisonment under Sections 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and theaccused 3 to 5 can be sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment underSection 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the same would be sufficient to meetthe ends of justice.With the above modification, the present criminal appealcan be allowed in part.41.In fine, this criminal appeal is allowed in part.The conviction andsentence passed against the accused 1 to 5 under Sections 148 & 341 of theIndian Penal Code are confirmed.The conviction passed by the trial Courtagainst the accused 1 & 2 under Sections 307 read with 149 of the Indian PenalCode and against the accused 3 to 5 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Codeis also confirmed.But the sentences imposed against them are modified asfollows;The accused 1 & 2 are sentenced to undergo six months rigorousimprisonment under Sections 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code andlikewise, the accused 3 to 5 are sentenced to undergo one year rigorousimprisonment under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.42.If the appellants/accused are not in duress, the trial court isdirected to take proper steps to incarcerate them in prison to serve out theremainder of sentence.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.I, Tuticorin.2.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.3.The Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, Tuticorin.4.V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,929,121 | No.5/State.According to the case put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 05.11.2011 at about 10:30 p.m. a written report was made against respondent Nos.1 to 4 to the effect that the wife of the petitioner Mrs. Sadhna Jain who was a candidate for the post of President in the Municipal Council election, was engaged in the process of counting, when the respondents are stated to have entered the house numbering about 8-10 persons and abused the petitioner and respondent No.2 is alleged to have pulled out a revolver and held it against the petitioner upon which petitioner ran inside the house.At that point of time, respondent No.2 allegedly fired from the revolver which missed the petitioner but destroyed the glass door.The police after investigation stated to have filed the charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506 and 120-B of I.P.C. The police did not charge the respondents for an offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. However, the learned committal court took cognizance u/s 307 of I.P.C. based upon the statement of the complainant who has specifically stated that the firearm was used but it was only fortunate that it missed the petitioner.Against the said order, the respondents are stated to have approached the revisional Court which vide order dated 27.7.2012 struck off the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C.Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that at the stage of taking cognizance the Court taking cognizance has to only go through the evidence on record and assess the prima facie case made out by the witnesses and not to assess whether the intention of the respondent No.2 was borne out beyond reasonable doubt.Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner herein was not heard by the revisional Court.Interim order passed vide order dated 10.10.2012 shall continue till the next date of hearing.List immediately thereafter.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE psm | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,929,338 | This is a Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') filed against the judgment dated 09.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 9001/2016 arising out of case FIR No. 129/2014 registered at Police Station - Sagar Pur whereby the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').Before the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties are considered, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the brief facts of the case as noticed by the learned Trial Court, which reads as under:On 01.04.2014 on receipt of DD no. 14A ASI Yaad Ram along with constable Dheeraj reached at shop No. 28A CRL.A 963/2018 Page 1 of 12 Nasirpur Sabzi Mandi, where they saw that near the counter of shop blood was lying on the floor.After inquiry, they came to know that injured had been taken to Bhagat Chandra Hospital.ASI Yaad Ram informed the crime team.Constable Jasbir was called at the spot and after leaving him at the spot, ASI Yaad Ram and constable Dheeraj reached Bhagat Chandra Hospital.However, he was not fit for statement.In the hospital they also met with one eye witness namely Dharmender Singh, whose statement was recorded by ASI Yaad Ram.In his statement Dharmender Singh stated that injured Purushottam was his partner and that on 01.04.2014, injured Purushottam had opened their shop at about 5.00 am and he along with Narottam and servant Sonu were present and that at about 11 am accused Ram Niwas came to the shop and from one hand caught hold of neck of injured and with the other hand slit his throat with the knife and that blood started oozing out of the neck and that injured was taken to Bhagat Chandra Hospital..."A 963/2018 Page 1 of 12After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and 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 12 witnesses including an eye witness PW-10, Sonu (servant to Purushottam).Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he reiterated his innocence and claimed to be falsely implicated in the instant case by the injured, who owed CRL.A 963/2018 Page 2 of 12 him Rs.60,000/-.In his examination, he stated that the injuries on PW-2 are self inflicted which accidently became grievous (as per the MLC).The accused chose not to lead any witnesses in his defence.A 963/2018 Page 2 of 12After hearing both the sides and evaluating the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court recorded the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.He further contended that the Trial Court has erred in laying a lot of emphasis on minor variations and discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses led by the prosecution, however, there are no material contradictions or improvements in the testimonies of the injured (PW-2 Purushottam), Dr. M.C. Sarmah (PW-3), the IO (PW-12), Constable (PW-6).Learned APP stated that minor contradictions or embellishments of trival nature which do not affect the core of the prosecution case should not be taken to be the ground to reject the evidence in its entirety.Learned counsel also submitted that the Trial Court discarded the medical evidence led by Dr. M.C. Sarmah from Bhagat Chandra Hospital, who had examined the victim vide MLC No. 586 dated 01.04.2014 and had opined the nature of the injury as grievous.A 963/2018 Page 3 of 12A 963/2018 Page 5 of 12(3) Thyroid cartilage was exposed.I opined the nature of injuries as grievous.The cloths of the injured and blood had been seized and handed over to IO.Detailed MLC is now Ex.PW3/A bearing my signatures at points 'A'.Now, we have to consider whether the respondent was responsible for causing injuries to the victim.The case rests upon the direct evidence being the injured eye-witness PW-2 Purushottam and another eye- witness PW-10 Sonu, servant of the injured.The prosecution examined the victim as PW-2, who has testified as under:"...On 01.04.2014, I was sitting on my shop with my partner Mr. Dharmender Singh.At about 11.00 a.m, the accused Ram Niwas (correctly identified CRL.A 963/2018 Page 6 of 12 as present in the court) came to my shop, from one had caught hold of my neck and with the other hand slit my throat with a knife.I have financial transactions with the accused.A 963/2018 Page 6 of 12On 21.2.2006, the accused has taken Rs. 2 lacs in cash from me on the understanding that he would sell the vegetables through my shop but he did not sell the vegetables through my shop.On 31.03.2014, the accused further asked for Rs. One lakh from me but I refused, thereafter, the accused had left my shop after threatening me that he will not leave me (main tujhe chorunga nahin.) On 01.04.2014, at about 11.00 a.m, at my above said shop after slitting my throat with a knife, the accused tried to run away from the shop but was caught by the public persons.My statement was recorded by the police on 09.04.2014 at the PS as earlier while in the hospital, I was not in a position to give the statement as the doctor had medically advised me not to give statement..."Another eye-witness to the incident PW-10 Sonu, servant to the victim/Purushottam was examined by the prosecution but he denied that he had witnessed any such incident.Even though he was extensively cross-examined, he did not budge from his position.When he was declared hostile, the prosecution was not able to bring forward any other substantial witness/evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, in order to corroborate the portion of PW-10/Sonu's CRL.A 963/2018 Page 7 of 12 testimony which could have been admitted.A 963/2018 Page 7 of 12Interestingly, another eye-witness to the incident i.e. Dharmender Singh, partner of the injured, who witnessed the incident and removed the injured to the hospital was not examined by the prosecution.Had the assailant/respondent been present at the relevant time, place and date, the complainant must have stated the name of the assailant/respondent to the doctor examining the injured, but the complainant failed to give the name of the assailant to the doctor preparing the MLC.Non-examination of the complainant and another eye-witness stated to be present at the time of incident namely Munim Narottam, accountant of the injured, casts doubt on the story set up by the prosecution.Dheeraj tendered different version during his examination before the Court.At once instance, he deposed that "IO also found one knife which was lying near the counter of the above said shop and he after measuring the same prepared its sketch." When a leading question was put to this witness by learned Prosecutor, he stated that "It is wrong to suggest that the knife was recovered from the possession of the accused Ram Niwas at the time of his arrest or that the said knife was not recovered from near the counter of the above said shop." However, the cross examination of this witness was deferred after lunch time and he was again cross CRL.A 963/2018 Page 8 of 12 examined by the learned Prosecutor wherein he admitted his signatures seizure memo of knife Ex.PW6/D and stated that the knife was recovered from the possession of the respondent and that he failed to state the same in the earlier deposition.These contradictions have been noticed by the learned Trial Court and observed in the judgment that the witness might have changed his statement under the pressure.A 963/2018 Page 8 of 12The arrest of the accused appears to be doubtful, dubious and questionable.Apparently the accused was apprehended by the public when he tried to flee from the spot after committing the crime at 11:00 a.m. but the arrest memo shows that the Police arrested him at 3:10 p.m. the prosecution was unable to answer the delay and gap in the arrest on the accused.Dheeraj in his cross examination categorically stated that "No public witness was associated in the arrest of the accused.I did not request any public person to join the investigation proceedings and the IO also did not make any such request in my presence." Investigation Officer PW-12 SI Yaad Ram has categorically stated that "Public persons had already apprehended the accused Ram Niwas with knife and handed over to Ct.Jasbir handed over the custody of accused Ram Niwas and knife to me" and admitted in his cross examination that "It is correct that so many people gathered at the spot.No public person was made a witness while making the arrest of the accused." PW-12 Yaad Ram failed to tender any plausible reason for not introducing any independent witness from the public despite their availability.A 963/2018 Page 9 of 12The CRL.A 963/2018 Page 10 of 12The prosecution was unable to prove any evidence or document in support of the money transactions which took place between the parties except that the victim/Purushottam had denied giving 1 lakh to the accused, because of the refusal the accused had threatened the victim and then on 01.04.2014 slit his throat.It is also pertinent to note that the complainant, being an eye witness also, had made no mention regarding any such money transaction in his complaint, nor had he mentioned the name of the accused.The prosecution has miserably failed to prove motive, if any, on the part of accused to inflict injury on the body of injured. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,941,773 | Arguments heard.This first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of bail.The accused / applicant is arrested by the Police- Khategaon, District-Dewas (M.P.) in Crime No.596/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 354-A, 294, 323, 506-B, 190 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7/8 read with Section 11(1)(4) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (For short 'POCSO' Act 2012).According to the prosecution story, on 12.08.2015 the prosecutrix was studying in the Government Higher Secondary School, Ajnas, the present applicant entered into the Class room got caught hold her hand and when she tried to release herself he used the abusive language and also threatened her.Learned counsel for the respondent - State opposes the bail application.In such circumstances, the present applicant prays for grant of regular bail.The application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing, as may be, directed in this regard during trial.He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, meticulously.Certified copy, as per Rules.(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Arun/- | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
2,594,625 | a hy None for the complainant, though served.ad This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants M under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)The appellants are in custody since 29.8.2017 in connection of with Crime No.324/2017 registered at Police Station Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) for the offence punishable under rt Sections 452, 294, 506/34 of IPC & Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) v(a) ou of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. C Allegedly, appellants are not the member of Scheduled Caste or h Scheduled Tribe while the complainant is a member of Scheduled ig Caste.On 9.7.2017, appellants and other co-accused armed with axe H and spear entered into the house of complainant and threatened to kill him.Thereafter, on the report of the complainant, case has been registered.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.No injury has been caused by the appellants on the person of complainant or any of his family members.On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants prays for grant of bail to the appellants.Per-contra, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the bail application.After hearing arguments of the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to release the appellants on bail, therefore without commenting on merits of the sh case, appeal of the appellants filed under Section 14-A(2) of e Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)ad seems to be acceptable.Pr It is directed that appellants-Vinod and Arvind be released on bail on their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees a Thirty Thousand) each with one surety of the same amount each, to hy the satisfaction of the trial Court.ad Certified copy as per rules M (H.P. SINGH) ASHWA Digitally signed by ASHWANI of PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=High Court of JUDGE Madhya Pradesh, NI ou=Administration, postalCode=482004, st=Madhya rt Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=aa8f72857f3bf78e15d95 PRAJAPA 74562da856998b54d5fd5155003 ab17dbda73f06859, ou serialNumber=f487d5a64403484 95cfc3dec95a81237144a3514db9 TI c5688195627b992f5dc04, cn=ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2017.11.01 11:35:55 +05'30' C A.Praj.h ig H | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,454,201 | (Delivered on the 31st day of July, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 24.9.2004 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T.No.257/2002, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 23.5.2002 at about 10 p.m. in the night, the complainant Bhagwat (P.W.1) was sitting in his house at village Chhindali, Police Station Maharajpur, District Sagar.Thereafter, the appellants came in his house.The appellants were armed with various weapons.The appellant Shivram had a Katarna and other appellants had sticks in their hands.They started abusing him and thereafter, they started assaulting the complainant.The appellant Shivram assaulted the complainant Bhagwat by Katarna causing him an injury on his head.Remaining appellants had assaulted him by sticks causing him injuries on his shoulder, left hand, left foot and right hand.Sunil (P.W.3), son of the complainant and Vinod (P.W.9) nephew of the complainant Bhagwat tried to save the complainant then, the appellants assaulted them also.They left the spot with threatening that they would kill the victim in future.After the incident, the victim Bhagwat was taken to the Government hospital, Deori where ASI Shri Choubey recorded the Dehati Nalshi, Ex.P/1 from the information given by the complainant.Injured persons were sent to the hospital for their medico legal examination and treatment.P.C.Shakya (P.W.2) examined the victims Sunil, Vinod and Bhagwat Singh and gave his reports Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/4 respectively.He found two simple injuries to the victim-:- 3 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1749 of 2004 Sunil on his left hand and left shoulder, whereas one simple injury on left hand was found to the victim Vinod.On the other hand, he found three injuries to the victim Bhagwat Singh situated on his head, left knee and left shoulder.Out of them, injury caused on his head was referred for radiological examination.Jinesh Diwakar (P.W.4) examined the victim Bhagwat Singh radiologically and he found that there was a linear fracture on the parietal bone of the victim.He gave his report, Ex.After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deori, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Sagar and ultimately, it was transferred to the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar.The appellants abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea in general but, the appellant Kailash has stated that he was the counsel against the victims and since he had moved an application for enhancement of the charges in that case, the victims were annoyed with the appellant Kailash and therefore, a false case has been lodged against him.In this connection, affidavits of Gaya Prasad, Bahadur Singh and application submitted by the appellant Kailash were placed before the trial Court in defence.Also Hareram (D.W.1), Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari (D.W.2), Kanchhedilal (D.W.3), Ram Kumar (D.W.4), Rajkumar-:- 4 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1749 of 2004 Chouhan (D.W.5), Kanchhedi S/o Saligram (D.W.6) and Kailash Patel (D.W.7) were examined in defence.After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.I.A.No.8527/2012 is to be decided in the present judgment and therefore, it was kept pending.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants has submitted that offence committed against the victim Sunil Kumar and Vinod Kumar is compoundable and therefore, compromise may be accepted and the appellants be acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under section 323 of IPC.It is further submitted that offence against the complainant Bhagwat comes to the purview of section 325 of IPC because neither any deadly weapon nor any sharp cutting weapon was used in the assault.On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the judgment passed by the trial Court appears to be correct and no alteration can be done in the conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court.Compromise application can be accepted only for compoundable offences.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the offence under section 326 of IPC can be converted to the offence punishable under section 325 of IPC? And if yes, then, as to whether the offence under section 450 of IPC is not made out? And whether the sentence can be reduced?Bhagwat (P.W.1), Sunil Kumar (P.W.3), Gaya Prasad (P.W.7), Bahadur Singh (P.W.8) and Vinod Kumar-:- 6 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1749 of 2004 (P.W.9) were examined as eye witnesses and they narrated the entire incident done with the victim Bhagwat.The appellants have adduced so many defence witnesses to prove the enmity between the parties.Enmity is a double edged weapon and due to enmity, assault could be directed.Under such circumstances, after perusal of the defence evidence, it would be apparent that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly held that the appellants are not falsely implicated in the case.Looking to the injuries and fracture to the victim Bhagwat, it is apparent that he was beaten in a very bad manner.Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants did not assault the victim Bhagwat.By testimony of eye witnesses, Dehati Nalshi Ex.P/1 and by MLC report and x-ray report of the victim Bhagwat, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellants had assaulted the victim Bhagwat and caused him injuries.Shakya (P.W.2) found that the injuries caused to the victim Bhagwat were caused by hard and blunt objects and therefore, it cannot be said that the weapon used for assault made on his head was a sharp cutting weapon.If an edged weapon is used from that side which has no edge then, by character of that weapon, it cannot be said that a sharp cutting weapon is used.Basically Katarna is a sharp cutting weapon but, if its edges are not sharp then, it cannot-:- 7 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1749 of 2004 be said to a sharp cutting weapon.Learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellants for offence punishable under section 326 of IPC though, they could be convicted for offence punishable under section 325 of IPC.The appellant Shivram had assaulted the victim Bhagwat by a Katarna on his head but, no second stroke was given on his head and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants entered in the house with-:- 8 -:-Under such circumstances, I.A.No.8527/ 2012 filed by the parties can be accepted.Registrar Judicial has given his report that all the complainants were willing to do compromise with their free consent and offence punishable under sections 325 and 323 of IPC are compoundable therefore, not only the permission is granted to compound the offence but, compromise filed by the parties is hereby accepted for offence punishable under sections 325 and 323 of IPC and the result would be that they would be acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under sections 325 and 323 of IPC.So far as the sentence is concerned, after the compromise only offence punishable under section 452 of-:- 9 -:-The appellants faced the trial and appeal for the last 10 years.Under such circumstances, it would be proper to impose a token fine upon the appellants for offence punishable under section 452 of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed.Conviction as well as sentence for offence punishable under sections 326 or 326 read with section 34, 450 and 323 of IPC is hereby set aside.The appellants are acquitted from all the charges appended against them except of offence punishable under section 452 of IPC.They are convicted for offence punishable under section 452 of IPC and each is sentenced with a fine of Rs.1,000/-.Since the appellants have deposited the fine amount as per the judgment passed by the trial Court therefore, there is no need to provide any default sentence in the case.The appellants would be entitled to get the remaining fine amount back from the trial Court.Presence of the appellants is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged.-:- 10 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1749 of 2004Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court with its record for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 31/7/2012 Pushpendra | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
204,597 | The stage was set by the monetary boom in the wake of World War II.It was also the eve of independence, which was then almost round the corner.Judging by the response that the entrepreneurs of industry or leaders in business and financial fields could get from the public.who were to invest their surplus moneys, earned as a result of the boom produced by the war, on shares in Limited liability companies.national economy even after the World War Ii was over.On account of the above-said restrictive provision it became necessary for R. Dalmia, who was himself with his relations and friends controlling several companies, to apply through R. K, Jain, cousin of his son-in-law, S. P. Jain, for permission for issue of Rs. 40 lakhs in order to form the Dalmia Jain Airways Limited.Judging by the earlier response to the Bharat Airways ( a Birla concern) it was not difficult for R. Dalmia and his collaborators to anticipate that the public would subscribe heavily; they seem to have plans ready for using, for their own private profit, such over-subscribed capital.The obvious plan was that the surplus proceeds of the issue of capital sanctioned for the Airways should be utilised by applying for sanction for using the said surplus proceeds for yet another venture as well.Advantage was also taken of the Government's need to dispose of the U.S. Army etc. vehicles.There was yet another application on the same day by S P Jain to the Dg S&D, for purchasing the American Repair Plant (R3A plant) valued by him at Rs. 15 lakhs.(26) On 9-4-1952 the Managing Agents resolved that they should resign their managing agency even though there was a period of 15 years more to run.This was made to appear as the resuit of what had been undertaken at the time of the disruption of the joint venture to persuade the Managing Agency Co. to resign their managing agency of the Airways.the process of drawing moneys in favor of both the A.B.C. and D.C.P.M. had started as early as 24-7-1946 in the case of the former, and 27-7-1946 in the case of the latter, and by the date of said joint agreement Rs. 1.35,50,000 and Rs. 73,63,656 had been handed over to A.B.C. and D.C.P.M. respectively: by 7-10-1946 the amounts swelled up to Rs. 1,85,45,000 and Rs. 1,42,85,218.13, respectively.Ram Sahai Bahal had stated that he had instructed Bharat Bank Ltd., Daryaganj Delhi not only to issue the above-said two Drafts by debiting Account No. 716 to the said extent but also another Draft of Rs. 13 lakhs by debiting the Sundry Debtors Account at the instance of R. Dalmia.Ram Sahai Bahal had instructed that all these Drafts be sent to No. 9, Man Singh Road, one of the residences of R. Dalmia, and hand over the same to Sriyans Parshad Jain, elder brother of S. P. Jain.A sizeable profit was made by D.C.P.M. 42(a).With the money of the Airways applications were made from various individuals including V. H. Dalmia and M. R. Jain.It is seen that the entire share money came from the Airways but the shares were allotted in the names of private persons.Among, them we find that 2.42,500 ordinary shares had been allotted to S. P. Jain.(48) The accounts for the period ending 13-6-1952 i.e. up to the date of liquidation not having been prepared, they had a copy of the trial balance of the Head Office Accounts as well as of the Air Section Accounts of Airways, up to the date of liquidation, a perusal of which revealed that all the inter-connected companies which were showing debit balances previously had been closed by transfer to D.C.P.M. account The entire balance of the investment in shares of joint stock companies representing the investment in various companies had also been transferred to D.C.P.M., which account showed a debit balance of Rs. 3,42,78,923-13, which was stated to be.As already noticed the said agreement was against the interests of the share-holders since there was no real and effective chance of recovering those amounts which were spread out as payable over a period of 10 to 15 years by Installments and coupled with many conditions.(49) It is necessary at this stage to notice the scheme of amalgamation that had been put to the liquidator and which he in turn submitted to court.On behalf of Aviation, 5 persons (P. K. Roy, S. N. Dudani, R. P. Gurha, M. R. Jain and L. R. Sharma) wrote to the Liquidator on 16-11-1952 that Aviation had agreed to take over the entire assets and liabilities of Airways provided their scheme, which was enclosed therewith, was sanctioned by the court with such modifications as may be acceptable to them and stating that the proposed scheme was in the best interests of the joint body of the share-holders.Aviation was to pay to Airways a sum of Re. l.00 per share of Rs. 10.00 each, within two weeks of the notice served by the members of the Airways on the Aviation, in the manner described in that scheme; Aviation was to pay to the members of the Airways in full and final settlement of all their rights and interests in 11 yearly Installments at As.12 each per share, the first Installment being payable one year after the payment of above said Re. l.00 and the final Installment of Re. l.00 should be paid after the last of the 11 yearly Installments.Each member of Airways may at his discretion agree to accept cash payment of Rs. 4/8.00 per share within two weeks of the said notice or a sum of Rs. 6.00 to be paid in six yearly Installments of Re. l.00 each.It was stated in the scheme itself that 15 lakh shares of the Airways (out of 35 lakh shares) were held by persons or companies associated directly or indirectly with R. Dalmia.R. Dalmia guaranteed the payment of all the amounts due to the members as undertaken to be paid by Aviation.The Liquidator applied accordingly under sections 153 and 153-A to the District Judge certifying that he had carefully examined the proposed scheme of arrangement and that it deserved consideration by the court and general body of the members.The prayer was that the court may direct a meeting of the members of Airways to be called and if the scheme was agreed to, with or without modifications, by the requisite majority of the members the same may be sanctioned.Three separate meetings of the share-holders were directed to be held on the same day at 10 A.M., 3 P.M. and 4 P.M.; Shri Charan Das Puri was appointed Chairman of all the three meetings, or in his absence Bakshi Gurcharan Singh, Advocate.(51) At the meeting of the share-holders certain modifications were suggested.The District Judge felt that the scheme as modified was in the interest of the members and that it should be substituted for ordinary winding up.At the suggestion of Shri Daphtary, R. Dalmia furnished a guarantee by a formal deed which was filed in the court.By the order approving the scheme the District Judge had omitted to pass a formal direction that the entire assets of the Airways stood transferred to Aviation which he made good on 13-2-1953 when his attention was drawn to it by the Liquidator by means of an application.On the same day the records of Airways were handed over by C. P. Lal and they were resolved on 25-3-1953 to be destroyed.(53) After the Government of India had appointed Shri Pettigara as a Public Prosecutor, who advised the filing of a complaint, the Registrar of Companies addressed a letter to the Inspector General of Police, Special Police Establishment on 18-11-1953, which was registered as F.I.R. on 19-11-1953, on the basis of the Registrar's report.On 11-12-1956 the Central Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952 to look into the affairs of the 9 companies of the Dalmia Jain Group, among which were Airways, A.B.C.. D.C.P.M. and Aviatiota."TO establish, maintain and work lines of aerial conveyance between one place to another as may from time to time be selected by the company and to manufacture, buy, sell, prepare let on hire and deal in air conveyance of all kinds and component parts etc."Not only the purchases but the entire assets were, as noticed above, passed on to A.B.C. A sale letter was 562 issued by D.G.S.& D. (Document Nos. 701 and 702) on 11-7-1946 in the joint names of A.B.C. and Airways regarding vehicles at Moran for Rs. 1,80,000,00 and jeeps and Dodge cars at Calcutta for Rs. 62 lakhs, making a total of Rs. 2.42,00,000, as on 10-7-1946 (later raised to Rs. 2,71,32,500).A letter was signed by R. K. Jain on 11th itself requesting for a certificate to commence business and forwarding a Statement in lieu of Prospectus containing a declaration but yet concealing the fact that Army disposal goods worth Rs. 2.42 crores had been purchased in the joint account of A.B.C. and Airways.On the same day, S.P. Jain wrote to the D.G.S.&D. (Document No. 703) that it was essential to acquire the American Repair Plant (hereafter called R3-A plant) without which it would not be possible to recondition nearly 20,000 vehicles which had been acquired; a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was offered for this purpose.(68) One of the conditions of the consent given for the issue of Rs. 40 lakhs was "that all amounts raised by this issue" in excess of the free money should be deposited in the bank and that without the further permission of the Central Government "the proceeds of this issue" must not be used for any other object of expenditure than those described in the application.He promoted D.C.P.M., signing its Memorandum and Articles of Association along with his wife and some others; he was also the deputy managing director of the company for a time.He had himself written two letters on 2-11-1952 and 16-11-1952 to Airways suggesting the transfer of its assets to Aviation.He was also present at the general meeting of the share-holders on 13-6-1952 when a resolution winding up Airways was passed.The prosecution seeks to draw an inference of guilty participation against all those connected at least with Airways and Aviation from acts, such as, the proposal of amalgamation between Airways and Aviation.(121) C. P. Lal:I have relegated to the concluding portion of the judgment where details pertaining to the winding up of Airways, the appointment of C. P. Lal as Liquidator, the efforts to resist the liquidation of Airways ' through court and the manner in which the scheme of amalgamation of Airways an Aviation had been proposed in order to gain access to the records of Airways (some details pertaining to amalgamation have been already noticed), and ultimately to put them out of reach of any one seeking to probe further into the affairs of Airways.(122) By a letter dated 15-6-1952 C. P. Lal wrote to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies that he had been informed orally about his being appointed as liquidator of Airways and that a letter from the inspectors to Airways had been brought to his notice, to which the company had already replied that no intimation had been received by them about his appointment from the Registrar.C. P. Lal also informed the Registrar that he was going out of town for 10 days on personal work and asked to be informed about the position.On 2-7-1952 the Inspectors wrote to the Registrar stating that even though C. P. Lal had returned before 30-6-1952 he was not available and that when they met him he informed them he wanted to meet the Registrar and discuss the implication of the order for investigation in view of the fact that the company had gone into liquidation.It was further stated that C. P. Lal had informed him that he would not show the books or give any information unless the legal position was clarified.The Registrar wrote on 3-7-1952 that the Inspectors informed him about his evading to show the books needed in connection with the investigation of the affairs of Airways and that if he did not do so action would be taken under the Indian Companies Act. On the same day C. P. Lal wrote to the Registrar that the order of investigation had become infructuous on account of voluntary winding up and his being appointed liquidator, for the company was no longer in existence except for its beneficial winding up.He ended by saying that the legal position should be appreciated and necessary instructions cancelling the investigation may be issued.By a letter dated 4-7-1952 the Registrar wrote to C. P. Lal that the legal contentions had been discussed with him personally and that he was informed about these contentions not being tenable.He was requested to make the books available to the Inspectors who had been advised to contact him again.The Inspectors wrote to the Registrar on the same day informing him about the steps taken by them to contact the Liquidator and expressing apprehension that even the books may be removed from the Registered Office of the company.He suggested serious action, like applying for a search warrant, for securing the books.On 7-7-1952 the Registrar forwarded a copy of the Inspectors' letter to the Secretary (Development) Delhi State Government and suggested that the books of the company may be seized.On the same day C. P. Lal wrote to the Registrar denying the allegation that he was evading and informed him that two petitions -one under S. 162 and another under S. 153(c) of the Companies Act were pending before the District Judge, Delhi and that when he had appeared court on 4-7-1952 and that certain restrictions had been imposed on him.He also stated that he was re-examining the legal position; in the light of such advice he proposed to make a representation to the Government and.if necessary, to apply to the court for directions.He wanted the Registrar to advise the Inspectors not to press or investigation in the meantime.He also stated that he would offer the necessary cooperation once the legal position was clarified.But the Registrar by his letter dated 8-7-1952 pressed him to produce the books by 10th July, 1952 on pain of legal action.M.(M) 14 of 1970, Criminal Revisions No. 106, 113, 200, 204 and 228 of 1970 also.These are applications to quash the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Delhi dated 20-9-1969 committing 22 accused (out of whom I has since died) including the above petitioners to the Court of Session for all of them being tried for the offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; the petitioners in Cr. Rev. 263 of 1970 (S. P. Jain) and Cr. Rev. 106 of 1970 (V. H. Dalmia) and Cr.This sum was withdrawn by 30-3-1946: a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs odd is seen to have been over-drawn.An application was made on 3-5-1946 by R. K. Jain (A-5-a cousin of S. P. Jain) for issue of capital of Rs. 40 lakhs for running the Airways.Along side the proposal to float the Airways, negotiations had been carried on by S. P. Jain on behalf of A.B.C. (which was already concerned with automobiles) with the Director General of Supplies and Disposals (DG S&D) for purchasing among disposal vehicles at the Moran Vehicles Depot for Rs. 1.8 crores, Rs. 5 lakh worth of jeeps (200 from Calcutta plus 200 auto cars and white tractors) at a price to be negotiated and Dodge trucks not committed to other parties (approx.600) at Rs 7.500.00 each.On the following day the sale letters for Rs. 1.8 crores and Rs. 62 lakhs.thus making a total of Rs. 2.42 crores.were issued by the Dg S&D in the name not only of A.B.C. but also Airways.On the same day application was made for a certificate to commence business : a Statement in lieu of Prospectus was also forwarded on behalf of the Airways.In addition to these, profits were also made by the A.B.C. from out of the said business, A.B.C. (not Airways) having physical control of the entire stocks as well as the R3A plant purchased from the Dg S&D. A further agreement was entered into on 31-7-1946 between R. Dalmia, on behalf of both the A.B.C. and the Airways with Dg S&D for the purchase of remaining U.S.A. surplus vehicles in the Depot at Jodhpur etc. for Rs. 2.50 crores.While enormous profits were made by A.B.C. no part of it was transferred to the Airways even though the device of a joint venture agreement between the A.B.C. and the Airways was adopted.Many questionable and even illegal devices were adopted to enrich the A.B.C. at the expense of the Airways.D.C.P.M., even according to the reports of its Directors, is seen to have been a losing concern, the losses each year being carried over to subsequent year (this is seen to be the position according to the reports of the Directors for the years 1945 and 1946 as well as subsequently).(9) It is further made to appear that the above joint venture agreement was itself terminated on 30-6-1948 (this is suggested to have been thought of much later) by an agreement which is seen to be wholly unfavorable to Airways and favorable to A.B.C. The entire stock-in-trade was passed on to A.B.C. exclusively in return for the liability in respect of half the cost price; even this liability was got rid of by the device of D.C.P.M. taking over all the losses for no quid pro quo.D.C.P.M. seems to have been the dumping ground for all the losses suffered by other concerns controlled by the Dalmia Group as well.When there was mounting pressure on Government for investigating the affairs of the Airways it was wound up and attempts to wind it up through court were resisted by means which appear dubious.It is seen from the letter which the inspectors wrote (Document No. 192) to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, on 29-11-1952 that the Chief Commissioner, Delhi had appointed Messrs Vaidyanath Aiyar & Co.. Chartered Accountants, Delhi as Inspectors and Messrs S. P. Chopra & Co. had been asked to hand over to them all the books of accounts and documents relating to the Investigation.The letter was received by the inspectors on 27-11-1952; they informed the Secretary on telephone as well as by letter on the same date that their report was ready; it was delivered to the Secretary the next day.In the said letter the inspectors protested against the change of auditors.The Prospectus of the Airways is dated 26-8-1946 on which date itself a joint venture agreement between the Airways and A.B.C. was executed, yet even the Prospectus is seen to be shorn of the necessary details which could put the participating shareholders on notice of the real state of affairs.The reports for the period ending 30-6-1947, 30-6-1948 and 30-6-1949 gave high hopes of profits for the future while in fact the position of Airways was being progressively undermined in the manner noticed above.Certain calculation slips, which alone were produced before the inspectors, were unsigned and bore corrections.(16) Aviation was floated in 1947 with a capital of Rupees One crore sanctioned by the E.C.I. The major portion of the capital of that concern was noticed by the auditors to be financed by the Airways, although the shares were taken in the name of different individuals and companies.Among other instances, there was an entry in the investment account of the Airways for the year ending 30-6-1949 showing a sum of Rs. 70,25.000 as being share application money in the name of various persons, including Mr. S. P. Jain (whether it is Mr. Shanti Prasad Jain, A-3. or Shital Pershad Jain, A-10, is a question to which I shall revert later).(17) On 11th July, 1946, S. P. Jain had submitted a proposal for buying Rs. 2,42,00,000 worth of army vehicles in respect of which a sale letter was issued by the Director General, Supplies and Disposals (DG S&D) on 11-7-1946 in the joint names of A.B.C. and the Airways.On the same day S. P. Jain had also given a proposal to the Dg S&D for the purchase of an American Repair Plant known as R3A plant so that the army vehicles which had been thus purchased could be put into shape.(18) Up to 7-10-1946, Rs. 1,85,45,000 had been paid to A.B.C. from Account No, 716 by various cheques; up to 26-9-1946 various payments by cheques, amounting to Rs. 91,50,00,000 were made to D.C.P.M., Rs. 51 lakhs odd having been previously transferred as debit to D.C.P.M.(19) The Prospectus of the Airways was issued on 26-8-1946, on which date a joint venture agreement was executed between the Airways and A.B.C. It is worth recalling that the process of drawing moneys from the Airways, as noticed earlier, had started as early as 24-7-1946, by which date Rs. 1,35,50,000 had been made over to A.B.C. and Rs. 73,63,656 to D.C.P.M.; by 7-10-1946 the amounts paid were Rs. 1,85,45,000 and Rs. 1,42,35,218.13, respectively.(20) In respect of the above R3A plant the sale letter had been issued in the name of both A.B.C. and Airways on 28-8-1946 for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs.On 14-7-1949 the account of A.B.C. was credited with the sum of Rs. 30 lakhs in respect of Hundi in favor of D.C.P.M. debiting the account of D.C.P.M. correspondingly.On 30-7-1949 A.B.C. was credited with Rs, 10 lakhs and D.C.P.M. was debited correspondingly.Thus the first Installment was paid to A.B.C. only by means of book entries.A. sum of Rs. 13,01,035-15-1 was shown to have been paid as interest by A.B.C. to Airways on 28-2-1950 only by means of adjustment entries.The second Installment seems to have been adjusted in the 547 following manner : Rs. 74 lakhs was credited to the accounts of the Airways on 29-6-1950 by a Hundi for the amount drawn on by A.B.C. On the same day the liability of D.C.P.M. was discharged by showing purchase of shares of the said value from concerns whose names were not even mentioned in the entries.The balance of Rs. 1,35,25,417 is stated to have been transferred to the D.C.P.M. under an ante-dated forged agreement.Forged minutes are said to have been brought about at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Airways containing the said ante-dated agreement bearing date 5-8-1951 and also a forged agreement bearing the same date transferring to D.C.P.M. the liability of A.B.C. due to Airways.dated 30-11-1951 (Document No. 1099) which shows that Rs, 3.11,092-2-9 was given credit by A.B.C. to Airways as interest due from the former to the latter.The cancellation is in the handwriting of R.P. Gurha (A-16).The statement was transmitted by telex to R. Sharma (since dead) (Document No. 1097).(23) The above agreement is said to have been brought about with an ante-date (3-8-1951) transferring to D.C.P.M. nearly the entire assets of Airways.The complaint by Dr. Nigam (Document No. 99).(25) On 24-3-1952 the Aviation had resolved to convert itself into a private company.On 27-3-1952 the Registrar, on receipt of the letter of M. R. Jain, asked for a copy of the agreement between the Airways and A.B.C., particulars of interest charged and the amount due from the A.B.C., together with names and details of the companies in which the shares of the value of Rs. 1 , had been purchased.A copy of the said letter was also dispatched on 1-4-1952 by the Registrar to the Managing Agents by registered post.but even to this letter no reply appears to have been sent for a period of two or three months thereafter.It was at this juncture (on 15-4-1952) that S. Chandra had filed an application before the District Judge, Delhi for compulsory winding up the company.On 23-4-1952 R. Dalmia issued a press communique (Document No. 111) assuring the shareholders that they would get back their share capital in full and giving his personal guarantee for the same.The above-said application of S. Chandra was followed by another application of M. C. Podder on 8-5-1952) in the District Court for compulsory winding up of the Airways.(28) On 7-6-1952 Messrs S. P. Chopra & Co. were appointed inspectors; on 13-6-1952 by a general resolution at an extraordinary general meeting of the Airways, the Airways was would up and C. P. Lal (R. 26) was appointed Liquidator.What C. P. Lal did will be noticed later.(31) All the present petitioners.Handling charges at the rate of Rs. 300 per vehicle from long distances would themselves amount to Rs. 60 lakhs.Other details were also mentioned in order to make out a case for giving consent, and that too early.(34) Having thus acquired the highly rated R3A plant for Rs. 15 lakhs the same was released exclusively in favor of A.B.C. for the same consideration of Rs. 15 lakhs, by way of book adjustment alone.(35) On 31-7-1946, R. Dalmia agreed to buy, on behalf of A.B.C. and Airways, remaining U.S.A. surplus vehicles in the depot of Jodhpur etc. .(Document No. 706) for Rs. 250 lakhs.When examined under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code .Sriyans Parshad Jain was negotiating on behalf of Messrs Dalmia Investment Co. with the Provident Fund Investment Co. Ltd., the managing agents of Sir Shampurji Barocha Mills and Madhoji Dharmsi Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (controlled by the Dalmia Group) for the purchase of the Shares of the two companies.Rs. 30 lakhs was to be paid by Sriyans Parshad Jain by way of earnest money for the purchase of these shares of Shampurji Barocha Mills and Rs. 20 lakhs for the purchase of shares of Madhoji Dharamsi Manufacturing Co, On 30-9-1946 Sriyans Parshad Jain addressed a letter to the Provident Fund Investment Co. Ltd. enclosing a draft of Rs. 30 lakhs for the purchase of shares of Shampurji Barocha Mills Ltd. and Drafts of the value of Rs. 20,00,000 for the purpose of shares of Madhoji Dharamsi Manufacturing Co. on behalf of Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. It is thus seen that the funds of Airways were diverted for the above-said purposes in order to enable the members of the Dalmia Jain Group to acquire control and ownership of other companies.(40) Subsequently a third application for further capital issue of Rs. 3 crores was made; this is stated to have been rejected, (41) The statutory report of the Airways for the period up to 7th December, 1946 shows allotment of 35 lakh shares against payment and receipt of Rs. 3" crores in cash, in respect of 35 lakh shares.Rs. 2.47 crores was shown as payments made to DGS&D through A.B.C. and Rs. 24 lakhs as fixed deposit in the Universal Bank Ltd. made by A.B.C. in favor of Airways.In respect of Rs. 1,42.85.218.13 which had been paid to 552 thw D.C.P.M. an entry was passed on 7-12-1946 transferring the same from D.C.P.M. to the debit of A.B.C.(42) On 28-2-1947, 2323 disposal vehicles were transferred to the D.C.P.M. at cost price for Rs. 47,19,800; it is seen that they were.The above letter can be taken into consideration under S. 10 of the Evidence Act against S. P. Jain 43 (a).Another company by the name Dalmia Jain Aviation was floated by Dalmia Jain Group on 11-3-1948 and the 7 subscribers to the Memorandum & Articles of Association included V, H. Dalmia, J. M. Gupta and M. P. Modi, who were the first Directors.The prosecution suggested that the reference was to A-3, but it is seen from Document Nos. 857, 840 and 841 that it was Shital Prasad Jain who had applied for those shares; Document No. 553 948 shows that an.allotment of the said shares for the identical amount (Rs. 2,42,500) was made only in pursuance of two applications for preference shares (Document Nos. 840 and 841 for Rs. 1.42 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh, respectively).But it is seen from the statutory report of Aviation for the year ending 30-6-1946 that Rs. 7,42,500 wax disclosed as the amount having been utilised for applying for shares in Aviation in the names of certain individuals including "Mr. S. P. Jain".(52) By order dated 10-2-1953, Shri S. S. Dulat, District Judge (as he then was) approved the scheme in the main transferring the assets of Airways to Aviation.Shri Daphtary appeared on behalf of the, three share-holders who filed objections to the scheme.Shri Daphtary stated to the District Judge that the proposed arrangement was better than 10-iosiHCD/71 556 the ordinary winding up but felt that there was room for certain modifications which were finally agreed upon.The scheme as finally agreed was as follows :(1) Rs. 5/4.00 per share to be paid immediately to those who wish to avail of the option.This was itself preceded by a meeting of Williamson.It was he who entered into an agreement with the Dg S&D for the purchase of disposal vehicles for Rs. 2.42 crores and it was he who made the application to the Examiner of Capital Issues for further issue of Rs. 3.10 crores on behalf of Airways.Out of the large amount of moneys which were transferred from Airways to D.C.P.M., it is seen that Rs. 29 lakhs were deposited in his personal over-draft account with the Eastern Bank Ltd. and Allahabad Bank Ltd., Calcutta.He was also the managing director of the Bharat Bank where the funds of Airways were deposited and from which they were diverted.Even the partnership agreement was executed later.S. P. Jain was the person who initiated the deal on both.This aspect only bears of the substantive charge framed against him under S. 408 I.P.C. and the would have to be appreciated only at the trial as to what inference is possible against him by reason of his not only having cashed the cheque himself and which was dealt with in the accounts in the aforesaid manner having regard to the fact that he wa.s himself an Assistant Accountant at the time, though not an Assistant Secretary or Secretary, as the learned Magistrate erroneously thought.The learned Magistrate also thought that Mangat Ram Jain had been a party to the joint venture agreement but it is seen that he had merely attested the agreement; at the time he attested it he was an Assistant Secretary.This indicates that the attestation was made by him later and that he was not himself a party to the agreement.Despite these errors in the committal order, I do not.find sufficient reason to interfere with the commitment of Mangat Ram Jain in the view that he had himself been one of those who had suggested the amalgamation.Similarly yet another voucher dated 5-2-1949, also of Aviation, debiting Airways with a sum of Rs. 74.75 lakhs on account of share application money for the allotment of shares of Aviation to certain individuals had been prepared by him; he had also credited the share application money account of Aviation accordingly.The committing Magistrate also referred to yet another voucher dated 5-2-1949 of Aviation prepared by him, for Rs. 90,000 on account of the balance of shares call money at the rate of Rs. 9.00 per ordinary share and Rs. 90.00 per preference share issued in the name of other persons.He had also signed the advice on 29-6-1951 as Secy.On the same day he also filed a complaint for an offence under S. 140(5) of the Companies Act against C. P. Lal.(123) On 10-7-1952, C. P. Lal informed the Registrar that he had applied to the District Judge on 9-7-1952 as to whether he should allow inspection, that the matter was sub Judice and that he would abide by the directions of the court.The Registrar asked the Inspectors to furnish an interim report, by a separate letter and Registrar also addressed the Government to make arrangements for getting a search warrant to seize the books.C. P. Lal wrote to the Registrar on 16-7-1952 that his petition before the District Judge was fixed for hearing on 22-7-1952, that he was collecting the account books of Airways but was requesting that Inspectors may stay their hands till the petition was decided.Subsequently, however, the account books and other documents were produced before the Inspectors, and in some of their letters, to which specific reference need not be made at this stage, the Inspectors thanked C. P. Lal for his cooperation.(125) It is necessary to note in this context that C. P. Lal filed an application under Ss. 153 and 153-A of the Companies Act before the District Judge, Delhi on 3-12-1952 praying for permission to amalgamate Airways which had gone into voluntary liquidation with Messrs Dalmia Jain Aviation Limited since it was represented to him that the scheme of amalgamation of the two companies was likely to be approved by a majority of the members of Airways.The said application was based on a letter to the official Liquidator written by P. K. Roy, S. N. Dudani, R. P. Gurha, M. R. Jain and L. R. Sharma stating that they had negotiated with Aviation who had agreed to take over the entire existing assets and liabilities of Airways (in liquidation).It was thus not difficult to put though am scheme they wished.Aviation was only a company on paper with no real assets, the share application money for which shares were allotted to individuals or companies belonging to the Dalmia Group had been mostly advanced from the funds of Airways.(127) On 3-12-1952 the District Judge dismissed the petition for winding up filed by Chandra who by that time had gone to England.Even earlier, on 20-11-1952 Shri A. K Khanna, learned counsel for Chandra, had stated to the court that his client had gone away to England and asked for permission to deliver interrogatories by post.Therefore, Shri Khanna had no more evidence to produce.Oil that day only three witnesses had been summoned for Chandra, two of whom were examined; a clerk was left over.Shri Khanna subsequently applied for summoning 9 more witnesses to which Shri Ved Vyas appearing for some of the Directors, objected saying that they were not included in any of the lists filed earlier.Shri Khanna, therefore.wanted to summon J. Dalmia.as a new witness, J. Dalmia himself was present in the court then.The clerk who had been left over as well as J. Dalmia were immediately examined and orders were pronounced (later) on 3-12-1952, dismissing the application for winding up.Earlier on 13-1-1953 Shri Rajinder Narain, counsel for Poddar, had stated to the court that he was unable to find anything about Poddar and that as far as he knew he was "really out of mind".There was one more petitioner, Mr. Nagori, who was desirous of proceeding with the petition; but his counsel Shri Rajinder Narain had stated to the Distt.Judge that the petition may be adjourned pending the determination of the petition sanctioning the scheme for amalgamation and that if that was ordered there would be no point in proceeding further with the petition for compulsory winding up.The scheme of amalgamation was approved by the District Judge by his order dated 10-2-1953, on the same day the application of Poddar also was dismissed.(129) On 12-2-1953 C. P. Lal, who was at least aware of the way the proceedings were conducted, made an application to the District Judge through Shri Ved Vyasa for transferring the assets and liabilities of Airways to Aviation.then, as the learned Magistrate thought) that the records of Airways were sought to be destroyed.(4) C. P. Lal endeavored to resist the Inspectors having: access to the account books and documents of Airways for a fairly long period-this dilatoriness on his part is contrasted with the hurry with which he had handed over the records of Airways to Aviation finally.(5) He had not brought the heavy indebtedness of D.C.P.M. to Airways to the notice of the court.(6) His refusal to look into the allegations made pertaining to the management of Airways. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,463,333 | The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Gowri @ Prabhavathi was originally married to one Rajan and later on she deserted him and thereafter married the Appellant viz, Thomas @ Rajan and both were residing at Pillaiayar Koil Street, Venniesamy Nagar, G.H.N.Palayam, Villiyanur.The deceased Gowri @ Prabhavathi through her 1st husband gave birth to Jenifer @ Vimala (PW3) and through the Appellant the said deceased Gowri @ Peabhavathi had got one son namely Prabakaran.On the date of occurrence i.e. on 14.10.2005 the said Prabakaran was away at Madras and the accused had gone to attend his work and at that time after returning to her house, the said Gowri @ Prabhavathi had taken drinks in the evening and she was in an unconscious state lying on her bed.PW1 Daisi Rani is the younger sister of the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi and PW2http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Premanandh is the younger brother of the said Gowri @ Prabavathi and they were residing at nearby places.On the date of occurrence at about 6.00 pm, PW5 Jenifer @ Vimala went to the house of PW1 Daisi Rani and informed her about the state of her mother and asked her to come to her house and PW1 Daisi Rani came to the house of the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi along with PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala.At about 8.00 pm both of them were sitting outside the house and at that time the accused is alleged to have returned from his work and asked them as to why they were sitting outside and for that she replied that the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi was lying on her bed in the state of intoxication and that the appellant got angry regarding the state of the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi and PW1 Daisi Rani is said to have pacified and informed the appellant that the matter would be discussed in the next day morning and thereafter she returned to her house and gave food for PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala and the accused from her house through PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala.The next day morning PW1 is said to have know that her sister deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi has expired and then she went to the house of the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi and in the mean time after knowing the death of the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi PW2 Premanandh came there and PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala is said to have informed them that in the night at about 10.00 pmhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 there was a wordy quarrel between her mother and the Appellant and in that quarrel the said Gowri @ Prabavathi scolded the Appellant in filthy language and hence the appellant is alleged to have taken a fire- wood stick M.O.1 from the house and attacked the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi repeatedly including on her head which is said to have cause bleeding injury to her and that when PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala intervened the appellant is alleged to have attacked her also, causing injury.Thereafter the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi was lying on the bed and in the morning at about 04.00 am the appellant along with PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala tried to wake up the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi from her bed and that they came to know that she was dead.Thereafter, at about 10.30 am on 15.10.2005 PW1 Daisi Rani accompanying with PW2 Premanandh went to Villianur Police Station and gave an oral complaint Exhibit P1 against the appellant for causing death of the said Gowri @ Prabavathi.3.Based on the complaint Exhibit P1 PW 10 Sub Inspector of Police, Villianaur Police Station registered this case under section 304 of IPC and went to the occurrence place and noted the surroundings and at about 12.30 pm he prepared Observation Mahazar Exhibit P17 and rough sketch Exhibit P 18 in the presence of PW5 Thirumuruganhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 and PW6 Natarajan and at about 01.45 p.m. he recovered one blood stained blanket M.O.2 one blood stained pillow M.O.3 and one blood stained gunny bag from the bed room of the house where the said Gowri @ Prabavathi was dead and he also collected blood stained cement pieces MO.5 and controlled cement pieces M.O.6 from the place of occurrence under Exhibit P19 seizure mahazar in the presence of the above said two witnesses.In the said two documents namely Exhibit P17 Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P19 Seizure Mahazar PW5 and PW6 have put their signatures which are marked as Exhibits P3 and P5 and P4 and P6 respectively.At about 02.00 pm he conducted inquest enquiry over the dead body of the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi in the presence of the witnesses and prepared inquest Report Exhibit P26 and thereafter examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and sent the dead body to Government General Hospital Puducherry for postmortem examination and also sent PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala to the Primary Health Centre at Villianur for treatment to the injuries.Thilagam PW4 gave treatment to PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala and thereafter issued Exhibit P2 wound certificate.PW9 Chief Medical Officer Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital Puducherry conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi on 16.10.2005 between 10.30 am and 11`.30 am and thereafter issued Postmortem Examination Report Exhibit P12 regarding viscera of the dead body of the deceased and issued final report Exhibit P13 and also entrusted the blood stained saree M.O.7 petticoat M.O.8 Jacket M.O.9 and sample blood of the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi collected in a filter paper M.O.10 to PW10 under cover of the Seizure Mahazars Exhibits P14 and P15 respectively.Thereafter PW10 examined the remaining witnesses and recorded their statements and sent a requisition Exhibit P22 to the Judicial Magistrate for forwarding the material objects to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad to get a report and accordingly, the material objects were sent to the C.F.S.L at Hyderabad from the Court under covering letter Exhibit P23 and thereafter the reports Exhibits P23 andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 P24 were received from the CFSL and after completing investigation.PW10 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 304 of IPC.4.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and was therefore tried by the session’s court, wherein the respondent police examined 10 prosecution witnesses and marked 26 Exhibits and 10 material objects in support of the prosecution case.5.The learned Trial Judge after due trial found the accused guilty and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of imprisonment to undergo seven years rigourous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs,2,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 304 part 1 of IPC.6.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Judge erred in basing the conviction of the Appellant on the statement of PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala being the lone eye witness to the case, even though she was treated hostile at the time of trial and had not implicated the Appellant to the commission of offence.Merely because the said PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala allegedly admitted in herhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 confession statement before the police during investigation that the Appellant hit the deceased and admitted to the fact that the wooden log produce in the court was the same with which the deceased was hit cannot be conclusive proof for basing the conviction on the Appellant.7.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the evidence let in the cross examination of PW4 Dr.Though the treatment of PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala and issuance of wound certificate Exhibit P2 is not denied, it is vital that in the evidence of PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala she has categorically stated that the said wound was sustained by her when she went running to the house of her aunt PW1 Daisi Rani for informing her about the state of intoxication of her deceased mother Gowri @ Prabavathi.From the evidence of PW4 Dr.Thialgam suggestions have been put to the effect that the injures could also have been sustained by PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala by falling on a rough surface, which was answered in affirmative.Further, all these aspects raised in favour of the defense have not been taken note of while passing the judgment.http://www.judis.nic.in 9Exhibit P4 had not supported the case of the prosecution and were treated hostile by the trial Court.Such being the case, the evidence of the prosecution with regard to the Exhibit P3 observation mahazar and Exhibit P4 property seizure mahazar cannot be relied upon against the Appellant as the same lacks corroboration from independent witness.Further, when the said mahazar witnesses had not supported the prosecution case with respect to the seizure of the property, then in such circumstances, the weapon allegedly used for assault, itself become dubious and cannot be caused to implicate the Appellant.9.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Sessions Judge also erred in noting that the confession statement of the Appellant is recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. which cannot be made use of against the Appellant, unless recorded in evidence before the Trial Court.Further, the said confession statement of the Appellant is said to have been recorded in the presence of PW7 Olivet and PW8 Devasaghayam, who also have not supported the casehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 of the prosecution and were treated hostile.Such being the case, the confession statement of the accused and the statements of the said witnesses PW7 and PW8 cannot be made use of by the prosecution, for coming to a conclusion against the Appellant.10.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Sessions Judge also failed to note that the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi was found in a completely intoxicated stage in her bed even prior to the arrival of the Appellant to the house.This fact is well borne and supported by the evidence of PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala.Further it is also the case of the prosecution that despite efforts of the Appellant and PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala, they could not wake up the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi on 14.10.2005 due to her complete intoxicated state.Further, it also cannot be ruled out that the said deceased could have died due to over dosage of alcohol and could also have sustained injury and abrasions by repeatedly falling on the ground due to intoxication, which suggestion has also not been noted by the Learned Session Judge in favour of the Appellant.11.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Judge has wrongly come to the conclusion in convicting the appellant,http://www.judis.nic.in 11 basing the evidence of PW1 Daisi Rani and PW2 Premanand who are none other than the younger sister and younger brother of the deceased respectively.Further, there is every reason for them to have deposed against the appellant since the appellant was closely related to them; as such the Learned Judge should have viewed their evidence with an eye of caution as they happened to be interested witnesses.Further it may also be seen that the said witness PW1 and PW2 are not the eye witnesses to the case and have merely deposed on the basis of hear say evidence said to have been narrated by PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala, who had not supported the case of the prosecution and was treated hostile.It is relevant to point out and note that when PW3 herself has not supported the case of the prosecution being the sole eye-witness then in such circumstances, the evidence of the PW1 an d PW2 on the basis of events narrated by PW3 who had disowned the said statement also should not have been relief.12.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Hon’ble Sessions Judge failed to consider the inherent contradictions in the evidence of every single witness who deposed on behalf of the prosecution in this case and ought to have rejected their evidence as not proved.Further, the Hon’ble Judge has in fact gone on the premisehttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 that the appellant is liable to prove his innocence rather than the prosecution proving the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.None of the charges as framed against the appellant in this case entails a burden on the appellant to prove his innocence and the trial Judge has lost sight of this fundamental proposition of law while holding the appellant guilty in this case.14.In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the submissions made on both sides, points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are:(1).Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 304 part I of IPC? If so, whether the sentence of imprisonment and fine is harsh or excessive?"15.I have heard Mr.V.Santharam for M/s.N.Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, learnedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 Government Pleader (Pudhucherry) for the respondent and perused the records secured from the trial Court.16.According to the case of the prosecution and also from the evidences adduced by the Prosecution witnesses, the deceased Gowri @ Prabavathi was found in a completely intoxicated stage in her bed even prior to the arrival of the Appellant to the house.20.From the evidence of PW 3 narrated above, it appears that quarrel arose between the appellant and the deceased.PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala being the lone eye witness to the case, even though she was treated hostile at the time of trial had not implicated the Appellant to the commission of offence.Merely because the said PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala allegedly admitted in her confession statement before the police during investigation that the Appellant hit the deceased and admitted to the fact that the wooden log produce in the court was the same with which the deceased was hit cannot be taken as conclusivehttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 proof for basing the conviction against the Appellant.Further PW4 Dr.Thilagam who is said to have treated PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala for injures sustained on her and issuance of wound certificate Exhibit P2 categorically stated that the said wound was sustained by her when she went running to the house of her aunt PW1 Daisi Rani for informing her about the state of intoxication of her deceased mother Gowri @ Prabavathi.From the evidence of PW4 Dr.Thialgam suggestions have been put to the effect that the injures could also have been sustained by PW3 Jenifer @ Vimala by falling on a rough surface, which was answered in affirmative.PW5 and PW6, who were the mahazar witnesses to the observation mahazar Exhibit P3 and property seizure mahazar dated 15.10.2005 not supported the case of the prosecution and were treated hostile by the trial Court.Such being the case, the evidence of the prosecution with regard to the Exhibit P3 observation mahazar and Exhibit P4 property seizure mahazar cannot be relied against the Appellant as the same lacks corroboration from independent witness.Further, when the said mahazar witnesses had not supported the prosecution case with respect to the seizure of the property, then in such circumstances, the weapon allegedly used for assault itself become doubtful.21.Thus, the evidence given by the alleged sole eyewitness, PW3, cannot be considered at all since she was declared as hostile witness and replete with inconsistencies.It is, therefore, very difficult to treat the said witness as wholly reliable so as to uphold the conviction of the accused on the basis of such evidence as held by the learned trail court.22.The prosecution has also failed to prove other circumstances in this case because of the missing chain of link since the material witnesses did not support the prosecution case. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,476,270 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.This application under Section 438 (1) Cr.P.C. has been moved by Smt. Reshma and Smt. Sana against State of U.P. in Case Crime No. 477 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 354, 427, 506, I.P.C., P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Agra.Learned counsel for the applicant argued that both of the applicants are lady and they havw been falsely implicated.A general allegation is levelled against seven accused persons.It is an implication on the basis of enmity.Hence, anticipatory bail has been prayed for.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.Having heard learned counsels for both sides, gone through the rival contentions and First Information Report, it is apparent that both sides are next door neighbours and some quarrel took place in between the applicants.Applicants being lady and are of no criminal antecedents, sufficient ground for grant of anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(1) Cr.P.C. is made out.In the event of arrest of the applicants Smt. Reshma and Smt. Sana, involved in Case Crime No. 477 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 354, 427, 506, I.P.C., P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Agra, shall be released on bail till the submission of police report if any under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;(ii) the applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.The applicants are directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.The present Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application is, accordingly, allowed.Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Kamarjahan | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
204,803 | 1. Sh.Chander Prakash and others are aggrieved by the registration of FIR No. 204/94 under S. 406/498-A, I.P.C. against them by the Police of Police Station, Paharganj.They want the FIR registered against them to be quashed.Quashing of the FIR has been sought on the grounds that (i) Delhi Police has no jurisdiction to register this case; (2) that complaint under S. 406/498-A, IPC is barred by limitation; (3) on the basis of contents of FIR no case under S. 406/498-A, IPC has been made out and finally; (4) no mention of demand of dowry had been made in the petition for divorce filed by respondent No. 2, therefore, the present complaint is an afterthought.Moreover, before leaving the matrimonial home she did not lodge any police report.Briefly the facts of the case are that complainant Smt. Rekha Thakur was married to petitioner No. 1 at Nazibabad, District Bijnaur, U.P. After marriage the parties resided at their matrimonial home at Mohalla Singhan, Kashipur, Distt.However, within a few days respondent No. 2 filed a petition under S. 12 read with S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage null and void alternatively for dissolution of the marriage in the Court of Civil Judge at Bijnaur, U.P. Thereafter on 15th March, 1993 respondent No. 2 withdrew that petition.It is the case of petitioners that after coming to Delhi to the house of her brother complainant she has filed the present complaint with the Crime Against Women Cell on the basis of which the present FIR No. 204/94 was registered under S. 406/498-A, IPC.Now adverting to the first objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction taken by petitioners, we must keep in mind that marriage was solemnised at Nazibabad (U.P.).The articles of dowry i.e. stridhan was also given at Nazibabad where marriage took place. | ['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. |
204,886 | In Cri.In the latter transport permit Om Prakash is said to have received tobacco from one Ram Sarup.In this permit also false entries of sale notes were recorded.JUDGMENT S. Zafar Imam, J.These two appeals have been heard together as the question for consideration is the same in both of them.In Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1957 the appellant is R. N. Tyagi who was also a Supervisor in the Central Excise Department.They were both posted at Aliganj in the District of Etah in the State of Uttar Pradesh.These two appellants were tried separately and one Om Prakash was a co-accused with them respectively in each of the cases.Om Prakash was the proprietor of the firm M/s. Torhi Lal Om Prakash which carries on business in tobacco at Aliganj.According to the prosecution, tobacco is an excisable article and licences are issued by the Central Excise Department to certain dealers in tobacco.Dealers in tobacco can enter into transactions only up to the quantity stated in their licences.If they sell or transport a larger quantity they have to obtain special transport permits on which they have to pay excise duty.In October, 1950 it was discovered that on account of a conspiracy between the appellants and Om Prakash the Government was being defrauded of large sums of money as there was evasion to pay the necessary excise duty by the issuing of fictitious transport permits by the appellants.A general outline, without mentioning details, of the method adopted by the appellants and Om Prakash to evade the payment of excise duty may be now stated.The former transport permit showed that tobacco had been received by Om Prakash from a tobacco dealer by the name of Harbans Lal and a number of sale notes were recorded in it.Harbans Lal was not a dealer of tobacco.He lived with Om Prakash and could not and did not issue any sale note.According to Ram Sarup, he had never applied for such a transport permit and certainly had not supplied the tobacco.On the same date transport permits were issued to Om Prakash for the sale and transport of his tobacco to other persons.In those permits it was mentioned that the excise duty had been paid on permits No. 670953 dated 20-8-1950 and No. 670832 dated 12-5-1950 issued to Harbans Lal and Ram Sarup respectively.As the result of the issue of fictitious transport permits in the name of Harbans Lal and Ram Sarup, Om Prakash was able to transport a large quantity of tobacco to other persons without paying the requisite excise duty on the tobacco covered by those transport permits and to that extent the Government had been deprived of the excise duty payable on the tobacco transported.The Additional Sessions Judge of Etah convicted the appellant Sharma under Section 467 and sentenced him to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.Om Prakash was convicted under Section 467/471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for nine months.The appellant Tyagi was convicted by the same Judge under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.His co-accused Om Prakash was convicted under Section 467/471, I. P. C., and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine, of Rs. 500, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months.The Additional Sessions Judge directed the sentence of imprisonment passed on Om Prakash in the two cases to run concurrently.The appellants and Om Prakash appealed to the High Court of Allahabad.In all, four appeals were filed in the High Court.Criminal Appeals Nos. 1181 and 1205 of 1952 were with respect to the appellant Tyagi and Om Prakash and Criminal Appeals Nos. 1206 and 1207 of 1952 were with respect to the appellant Sharma and Om Prakash.The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and Om Prakash and directed their retrial.The learned Judge of the High Court directed that at the retrial a charge in the alternative under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code should be framed against Sharma and Tyagi and a charge of abetment in the alternative of offences under Section 467 and Section 477A should be framed against Om Prakash. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,491,722 | 1 .2018 9 KB CRM No. 6944 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 29th August, 2018 in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 435 of 2018 dated 19.10.2008 under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Uttam Halder ... Petitioner Mr. Asraf Mandal ... for the petitioner Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mr. S. Das ...for the State The State is represented and says that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed nearly a decade ago.The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.((Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,492,464 | W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 1 of 17After investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet against twelve accused person including the present Petitioner, a public servant of the Joint Secretary level.Facts, as far as the same are relevant for the disposal of the present petition, are that receipt of applications for new UAS licenses in DOT has been a continuous process; the applications were processed in the order in which they were received.However after A. Raja took over as Minister of Communication & Information Technology in May 2007, there was manipulation in the processing of these applications for UAS licenses by DOT.It is alleged that during this period the Petitioner, was PS to Minister of Communication & Information Technology and was an active participant in the alleged criminal conspiracy hatched by A. Raja, MOC&IT.He had been continuously monitoring the status of the receipt of the applications in Access Services (AS) Cell of DOT.He was continuously updating himself with the status of the applications and W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 2 of 17 names of applicant companies.On 24/09/2007, he enquired from the concerned officer of AS Cell if the application of Unitech Ltd. for new UAS licences has been received and directed that no application should be accepted after the receipt of the application from M/s Unitech Ltd., which were expected to be received on the same day.When informed that receipt of application should be stopped arbitrarily, the DDG (AS-I) was asked to put up a note in this regard.A note dated 24/09/2007 was put up by the AS Cell mentioning that if the receipt of applications is to be discontinued, the public should be informed by way of a press release and proposed that 10/10/2007 as the date till which applications may be received.W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 2 of 17It is further alleged that even though the cut off date was announced in the press release as 01/10/2007, accused A. Raja in conspiracy with other accused persons, had already taken a view to keep the cut off as 25/09/2007, as earlier conveyed to the AS cell by the Petitioner.This was also manifest when he approved an amended draft letter to be sent to the ministry of Law & Justice, wherein the alternatives proposed mentioned that only the application received up to 25/09/2007 would be considered to wrongly benefit the other accused W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 3 of 17 persons/companies.Accused A. Raja approved the issue of this letter, even though, his attention was drawn by the DOT officials to para 3.1.1 of NTP 99 which mandates adequate availability of spectrum for allocating new licenses and TRAI's repeated recommendations about giving new licenses subject to availability of spectrum for existing operators and for new operators.Accused A. Raja, however, decided to send this letter to the ministry of Law & Justice for its opinion on the various options indicated for allocation of new licenses.W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 3 of 17Accused A.Raja in conspiracy with the Petitioner wrongly benefited accused Sanjay Chandra, MD, M/s Unitech Ltd, M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt. Ltd. (representing all the 8 Unitech companies later merged into it), accused Shahid Balwa, accused Vinod Goenka, M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd by accommodating applications of M/s Unitech group of companies and M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd into consideration zone for all circles applied for, despite inadequate availability of spectrum in many circles including Delhi ( one of the most lucrative) ahead of the other companies standing in queue for these UAS licenses.It is alleged that, accused A. Raja received a letter dated 02/11/2007 from the office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister in late evening.The response to this letter was drafted by accused A. Raja and the Petitioner, his PS at accused A. Raja's camp office at his residence on the intervening night of 02/11/2007 itself.However the aforesaid letter W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 4 of 17 received from the PMO was concealed by the accused A. Raja which is evident from the fact that, the aforesaid letter which required serious consideration by the DOT in terms of policy issues, was not even dealt with in the files of the DOT.W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 4 of 17It is further alleged that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy, procedure was manipulated by accused A. Raja in conspiracy with accused Sidharth Behura (Telecom Secretary w.e.f. 01/01/2008) and the Petitioner and was redefined to benefit the aforementioned accused persons/ companies which is manifest in the letter dated 26/10/2007 sent by DOT to Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice.This letter mentioned that, "In the present scenario the number of applications are very large and spectrum is limited and it may not be possible for the government to provide LOI/License/Spectrum to all applicants at all if the existing procedure is followed.Moreover the existing procedure of sequential processing will also lead to inordinate delays depriving the general public of the benefits which more competition will bring out."It is alleged that in furtherance of the conspiracy, the Petitioner, in conspiracy with the accused Sidharth Behura, designed a scheme and directed the DOT officials to implement it in which the LOIs were to be distributed so as to favour their desired companies as contrary to the practice of first-come first-served basis.Accused Sidharth Behura approved the scheme.This ill-conceived design included establishing 4 W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 5 of 17 counters to distribute LOIs, in the committee room of Sanchar Bhawan, 2nd Floor, subverting the system of first-come first-served in letter as well as spirit.In this design, the accused persons deliberately did not ensure that only after the first batch of 4 applicants had been issued LOIs, the second batch be called.The manner in which the counters were placed, priority of the applicants as per date of application and the number of LOIs/ Letters that were to be distributed at each counter, is as mentioned below:W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 5 of 17W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 6 of 17It is alleged that accused A. Raja in conspiracy with accused Sidharth behura, and the Petitioner and other accused persons allocated spectrum to M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. in Delhi circle unreasonably depriving M/s Tata Teleservices Ltd. and M/s Spice Communications, which were having priority over M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd., in terms of the Dual Technology approvals and seniority of new applicants as per date of application, respectively.Also M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt. Ltd. (representing all the 8 Unitech group companies later merged into one) got spectrum in many circles ahead of M/s Loop Telecom, M/s Tata Teleservices (dual technology), M/s S. Tel and M/s Swan Telecom.In some circles M/s Unitech group got spectrum in full and in some circles got partial spectrum ahead of other companies which had applied for UAS licenses prior to M/s Unitech group.The allocation of new UAS licenses and spectrum, in this manner, was in stark violation of the TRAI recommendations dated 20/02/2003 and 27/10/2003 and NTP-99, which mandated that applications for CMTS/ UAS licenses could be considered only if sufficient spectrum was available for existing operators as well as new applicants.Had this principle been followed, in most of the aforementioned telecom circles M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt. Ltd. (representing all the 8 Unitech group companies later merged into one) would not have got any license at all and M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd would not have got UAS license for Delhi service area.After accused A. Raj demitted the office of MOC&IT, DOT has now admitted W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 7 of 17 the case of priority of TTSL/TTML for spectrum over new UAS licensees.W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 7 of 17It is alleged that during the said conspiracy, A. Raja, in conspiracy with Sidharth Behura also forged his own note dated 07/01/2008 and used the same to wrongly project & justify that the proposed amendment in press release had the concurrence of the Law officer, with an intent to fraudulently allocate UAS licenses and valuable spectrum to the accused private companies on priority.It is alleged that thus the aforementioned public servant, accused A. Raja MOC&IT, accused Sidharth Behura, then Secretary (Telecom) and the Petitioner, PS to the then MOC&IT in abuse of their official position and in connivance with other accused persons/companies have caused wrongful loss to the government of India and wrongfull gain to themselves constituting commission of offences, during 2007-2009, punishable u/s 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and also punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 against accused persons, viz. A. Raja, then MOC⁢ Sidharth Behura, then Secretary (Telecom); R.K. Chandolia, then PS to MOC⁢ Shahid Usman Balwa, Director M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd; M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (now Etisalat DB Telecom Pvt. Ltd) through its director; Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director of M/s Unitech Ltd; M/s Unitech wireless (Tamilnadu) Private Ltd through its director; Sh.Gautam Doshi, Group Managing Director, W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 8 of 17 Reliance ADA Group, Sh.Hari Nair, Senior Vice-President of Reliance ADA Group; Sh.Surendra Pipara, Senior Vice President of Reliance ADA Group and M/s Reliance Telecom Ltd. Through its director.W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 8 of 17It is alleged that based on growth in Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) per MHz per year during the years 2002-03 to 2007, which grew by 3.5 times during this time, additional revenue of around Rs. 22, 535.6 crores in respect of entry fee of new UAS licenses granted by accused A. Raja to various applicants and Rs. 8, 448.95 Crores in respect of Fee paid by Dual Technology users, totaling to Rs. 30, 984.55 Crores could have accrued to the government exchequer.The present petition is against the order of the trial court dated 29/07/2011 whereby the trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner for dropping of proceeding on the ground that the sanction accorded was illegal and without application of mind.The instant case was registered on 21/10/2009 against unknown officials of Department of telecommunication (hereinafter referred to as "DOT"), government of India, unknown private persons/companies and others for W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 1 of 17 the offences punishable under section 120-B IPC read with 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act"), on the allegations of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct, in respect of allotment of Letters of Intent, Unified Access Services (UAS) Licenses and spectrum by the DOT.The challenge to the impugned order is mainly on three counts.Firstly, the sanction order under Section 19 of PC Act shows non-application of mind as the sanctioning authority did not consider the role of the applicant, documents, statement of witnesses etc. Secondly, no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution of the petitioner was obtained and thirdly, the investigation was bad as it was without permission under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police EstablishmentAs regards the first submission regarding the non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire material, which was voluminous was not placed before the sanctioning authority and if at all, it was placed before W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 9 of 17 him, it was extremely impossible for him to have gone through and apply his mind in a short duration of one to two days.W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 9 of 17I have gone through the sanction order, which runs into three pages and the competent authority has referred there the documents considered by it. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,707,676 | Samrat Ct. No. 34 CRR 683 of 2006 In the matter of : Julfikar Ali None appears for the petitioner.No accommodation is sought for.The revisional application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Hooghly Sadar wherein the learned Magistrate was pleased to hold the accused persons not guilty of the offences and acquitted them of the charges under Sections 148, 448, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Ali Hossain.The prosecution case in short is that at about 1 PM on 30.05.1995 when the Defacto Complainant was going to his field for cultivation the accused namely Elias Ali teased him to which, the Defacto Complainant raised objection and the accused Elias Ali being furious started abusing the Defacto Complainant in filthy languages.Over this incident, the accused persons being armed with deadly weapons trespassed into the house of the Defacto Complainant and after breaking the door and window of the said house by lathi and tangi assaulted the Defacto Complainant, his father and his brother by fists and blows, lathi and tangi.The Defacto Complainant further alleged that the accused persons forcibly took him away from his house and detained him in front of the shop of Kalam wherefrom he was rescued by the local gram panchayat.On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint, Dadpur Police Station Case No. 43 dated 30.05.1995 was started for investigation and the case was endorsed to S.I. N.I. Mehedi for investigation.After transfer of the said Sub Inspector, S.I. A. Mukherjee was endorsed the case.On completion of investigation, the second Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 427 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons.The learned Magistrate in course of the proceedings was pleased to frame charge under Sections 148, 448, 323 of the Indian Penal Code against Elias Ali, Abdul Rezzak, Lakai Ray, Sk.Khalil, Sk.Najrul Islam and Ali Hossain @ Manglu.A further charge under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was framed only against Ali Hossain @ Manglu.The charge was, thereafter, read over to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon ten witnesses while the defence examined none.However, the defence denied the case of the prosecution and took the plea of false implication after examination of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Magistrate examined the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and fixed date for arguments of the case as the defence did not examine any witness in support of its case.The learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties on conclusion of argument by a judgment and order dated 17.11.2005 was pleased to hold the accused persons not guilty and acquitted them from all the charges.It is reflected from the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate that the learned Magistrate scanned the evidence of the prosecution witnesses being P.W. 1 Julfikar Ali, 3 P.W. 2 Tajuddin Ahme, P.W. 4 Naju Sarkar @ Najrul Islam, P.W. 5 Md. Nasiruddin, P.W. 6 Ranadhir Mal, P.W. 7 Balai Malick, P.W. 8 Tehra Khatun, P.W. 9 Md. Ajjuddin and P.W. 10 Abdul Rasid and came to the finding that the investigating agency failed to collect any broken piece of windows and doors, evidence of Kalam in front of whose shop the Defacto Complainant was detained and no case of wrongful confinement as such has been made out, the neighbours to the house of the Defacto Complainant were also not examined and there was contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses amongst themselves.After scrutiny of such evidence the learned Magistrate observed that prima facie there may be a suspicion that such an incident occurred at the time and place as alleged by the Defacto Complainant but suspicion cannot take the place of proof, as the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.The substantial charges so framed against the accused persons could not be sustained and it would not be safe to hold the accused persons guilty on the basis of the evidence so produced before the Court.The learned Court, thereafter, granted benefit of doubt to the accused persons and acquitted them of the charges leveled against them. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,724,944 | Heard Yogesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 103 of 2019, under Sections 376, 452, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.Tundla, District Firozabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR of the incident was got registered under Section 376D IPC, 452, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Tundla, District Firozabad.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both of them applicant and the girl have got married and their marriage was solemnized on 10.04.2019 and applied for registration for marriage.Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit which was sworn by victim herself in which she has clearly stated that the deponent is wife of the applicant.The victim is presently residing as legally wedded wife of applicant at his residence.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 20.05.2019 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Shivam Alias Subham be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 103 of 2019, under Sections 376, 452, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.Tundla, District Firozabad with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
207,258 | Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1982, State v. Daya Shanker and Ors., under sections 302/34 and 201/34, I.P.C. of police station Karchhana district Allahabad.The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 8.10.1980 at about 8.30 A.M. Chhotey Lal Pandey lodged F.I.R. at police station Karchhana district Allahabad with these allegations that he is resident of village Tikri police station Karchhana district Allahabad.Accused Bhagawati, Ayodhya and Kanhaiya Lal had enmity with his brother Mani Lal.On 7.10.1980 Mani Lal had gone to the shop of Bhagawat to take betel leaves.He left that place at 10 A.M. but did not return back to his house upto evening.Then Chhotey Lal Pandey etc. started to search him but no trace of Mani Lal was found, hence, Chhotey Lal suspected that aforesaid Bhagawati Prasad etc. might have confined Mani Lal somewhere with an intention to kill him and prayed that necessary action should be taken in the matter.On the basis of the above report, the police registered the above case against the said three persons under section 364, I.P.C. Dead body of Mani Lal was found in the field of Satya Narain on 9.10.1980 at 2 P.M. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination.The postmortem examination was conducted on 10.10.1980 at 4.20 P.M. and in the opinion of the doctor, death had taken place about 3 - 4 days ago and the entire body had been decomposed , and eyes, ears, nose, lips and tongue of the body were missing.There were maggots and insects in the body and cause of death could not be ascertained due to decomposition, hence, viscera was preserved.He stated that 21-22 months ago at about 10A.M. he was coming from village Barsabal to his village Gidhora and he reached village Tikri at 10 A.M. Mustaq Ahmad alias Khatkhat was accompanying him.He passed infront of the house of Chhotey Lal Pandey and saw that all the four accused persons were dragging Mani Lal into the house of Sarju Prasad.Thereafter he came to know that Mani Lal alias Mani Shanker had disappeared.Lala Singh alias Rajeshwari Prasad was examined as P.W.3.He stated that 21-22 months ago at about 10.30 A.M. witness Shashi Singh came to his house and told him that he had come from Jari bazar and he had seen the accused at Sehra-Mohra.Thereafter he had given information at the police station Karchhana on 9.10.1980 at 2 P.M. that he had seen dead body of Mani Lal in the field of Satya Narain.He stated that 21-22 months ago he was coming from Jari bazar and at Sehra Mohra accused Nachkau @ Bhjagwati Prasad Ayodhya Prasad, Sarju and Daya Shanker met him at about 9 - 10 A.M. They stopped him and stated that he was Thakur and Zamindar and they had murdered Mani Shanker two days' ago and had thrown his dead body in the field of Satya Narain and that he should protect them.Then in reply he stated that he would not say any thing to any one.Thereafter he told Lala Singh and Mustaq of his village that the accused had murdered Mani Lal and his dead body was lying in the field of Satya Narain.Then he, Lala Singh and Mustaq went to the field of Satya Narain where the dead body was lying.He stated that Mani Lal was his brother and he was acquainted with accused Bhagawati Prasad, Ayodhya, Kanhaiya Lal.Bhagawati Prasad's son-in-law Mangla, who was resident of village Panasa, had disappeared about 1 ? years before the incident of murder of Mani Lal.Bhagawati Prasad, Ayodhya and Kanhaiya Lal had suspicion that Mani Lal had murdered Mangla and had disposed of his dead body, so they were on inimical terms with Mani Lal and so they had murdered Mani Lal.He further stated that when Mani Lal's whereabouts could not be known, he had gone to the police station and had lodged the report Ex.he was accompanying Vishwanath Prasad Pandey P.W.2 on 7.10.1980 at 10 A.M. and he had seen the accused persons dragging Mani Lal into the house of Sarju Prasad.He stated that he was acquainted with Mani Lal alias Mani Shanker and about 1? - 1? years ago he was standing at the door of Lala Singh ( P.W. 3 )and at that time Thakur Shashi Singh (P.W.4) reached there and told that he had seen Daya Shanker, Ayodhya Prasad, Sarju and Nankau at Sehra Mohra and then they went to that field where the dead body of Mani Lal was lying.Thereafter inquest report of the dead body was prepared in his presence on 9.10.1980 and he had signed this inquest report Ex.R.N.Sharma, who was examined as P.W. 8, had performed postmortem of the dead body of Mani Lal on 10.10.1980 and had prepared postmortem report, Ex.He had prepared chik report Ex.Ka 4 on the basis of F.I.R. and had made its endorsement in the G.D. Ex.He has further stated that on receipt of the dead body of Mani Lal he had registered a case under section 302 I.P.C. and had made an endorsement in the G.D., Ex.He stated that accused Sarju Prasad and Daya Shanker were arrested and were admitted to the police station at 4.30 P.M. on 15.10.1980 and this fact was noted in the G.D. at Rapat No. 27, which is Ex.Sri Paras Nath Singh, Sub Inspector, P.W. 10 had investigated the case.JUDGMENT R.K. Rastogi, J.This is an appeal by Daya Shanker, Sarju Prasad, Bhagwati @ Nachkau and Ayodhya against judgment and order dated 2.9.1982 passed by Sri Dinesh Chandra, then IVAddl.However, it is not clear whether viscera was sent for chemical examination or not, and no viscera report has been produced by the prosecution.After recovery of the dead body the case was converted under section 302/201, I.P.C. and the police after completion of the investigation submitted a charge sheet against the above named accused Bhagawati Prasad, and Ayodhya Prasad, named in the F.I.R. and against Daya Shanker and Sarju Prasad,whose names had come into light during investigation.No charge sheet was submitted against Kanhaiya Lal, named in the F.I.R.All the above named four accused persons were charged under sections 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.His statement was recorded on 4.8.1982 and he stated that about 21-22 months ago, he had gone to the grinding machine shop of Ram Kishan at village Tikri and was returning back to his village Gidhora at about 7 --8 P.M., and when he reached near the bridge towards west of Tikri he saw the accused Nachkau @ Bhagwati, Daya Shanker, Ayodhya and Sarju Prasad carrying a bag in their hands.He enquired from them about the contents of the bag and then Nachkau told that there was manure in that bag, then he proceeded to his house but on the third day he came to know that the dead body of Mani Lal was found near that place, then he visited that place and upon an inquiry made by the Investigating Officer he had told that he had seen all the four accused persons carrying the bag with them.Torch of Onkar Nath Pandey, in the light of which he had seen the bag in the hands of the accused persons, was produced before him and then he prepared its Supurdaginama, Ex.He further stated that thereafter this case was investigated by the Station Officer Sri Markandey Singh and after completion of the investigation Sri Markandey Singh had submitted charge sheet in the case, which is Ex.He also proved the site plan of the place of incident, which is Ex.Ka 10 and that of the place of recovery of the dead body, Ex.He had taken the dead body of Mani Shanker from Tikri to mortuary in sealed condition for post-mortem examination.This is the entire prosecution evidence on record.All the accused have denied the prosecution allegations in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Daya Shanker stated that he was grazing buffaloes at the time of incident and police arrested him in the village and his uncle Sarju Prasad was lying ill in his house but the police arrested and challaned Sarju Prasad also and falsely implicated them in this case.The same thing was stated by Sarju Prasad, accused.Accused, Bhagwati Prasad stated that on 8.10.1980 police arrested him, Ayodhya Prasad and Kanhaiya Lal and kept them at the police station for the entire night of 8.10.1980, and then released him on 9.10.1980 and arrested Sarju Prasad and then he surrendered before the court and obtained for bail.Accused, Ayodhya Prasad stated that he had been arrested by the police on 8.10.1980 but the police released him on 9.10.1980 and then he surrendered before the court and obtained bail.The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge after hearing the case came to the conclusion that charges under sections 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. were sufficiently proved against the accused persons.He, therefore, convicted accused Daya Shanker, Sarju Prasad, Bhagwati Prasad and Ayodhya Prasad under section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to life imprisonment.They were also convicted under section 201/34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment.It was further provided that both the sentences shall run concurrently.Aggrieved, with the aforesaid judgment and order, accused, Daya Shanker, Sarju Prasad, Bhagwati Prasad and Ayodhya Prasad filed this appeal.The appellant Bhagwati Prasad died during pendency of this appeal, hence, the appeal in respect of Bhagwati Prasad abated.We have heard Sri P.N.Misra, learned Senior Counsel, for the remaining appellants, Daya Shanker, Sarju Prasad and Ayodhya Prasad, and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge has relied upon the following evidence for conviction of the accused persons:1. Evidence of Chhotey Lal P.W.5 regarding motive that Mangla son-in-law of Bhagwati Prasad had disappeared 1 ? years before the date of incident, so Bhagwati Prasad, Ayodhya and Kanhaiya Lal were on inimical terms with Mani Lal because they suspected that Mani Lal had murdered Mangla Prasad and this was the motive for the murder of Mani Lal.The statements of Vishwanath Prasad P.W.2, and Mukhtar Ahmad P.W.6, who have stated that on 7.10.1980 at about 10 A.M. they saw accused Sarju Prsad, Daya Shanker, Ayodhya Prasad and Bhagwati Prasad dragging Mani Lal into the house of Sarju Prasad.3. Statement of Onkar Nath Pandey P.W.1, who has stated that about 21-22 months ago when he reached near the well towards west of Tikri at about 7 to 8 P.M. he saw the accused persons carrying a bag with them and on inquiry they told that the bag contained manure, but on third day the dead body of Mani Lal was found near that place.The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence in support of the aforesaid circumstances is not trust worthy.He pointed out that Chhotey Lal P.W.5 had admitted in his cross examination that no report was lodged against him or Mani Lal regarding dis-appearance of Mangla and no case was filed against them in respect of so called murder of Mangla.He submitted that if the accused had any suspicion that Mani Lal had murdered Mangla, who was son-in-law of accused Bhagwati, they must have lodged report against Mani Lal and their omission to lodge any report against Mani Lal falsifies the allegation of prosecution that the accused had suspicion in their mind that Mani Lal had murdered Mangla.The learned Counsel for the accused appellant submitted that in this way the motive as propounded by the prosecution falls on the ground.As regards the allegation that Vishwanath Prasad P.W.2 and Mukhtar Ahmad P.W.6 saw Mani Lal being dragged by the accused persons into the house of Sarju Prasad on 7.10.1980 at about 10 A.M., he submitted that marriage of the daughter of Shiv Murat, real brother of Chhotey Lal and Mani Lal had taken place with the son of Vishwanath Prasad P.W.2, as admitted by P.W.1 Onkar Nath Pandey in his statement.He submitted that it is highly improbable that Vishwanath, who was a close relative of Mani Lal saw Mani Lal being dragged by four accused persons inside the house of Sarju Prasad, but he inspite of the fact that he was not alone and was accompanied by Mukhtar Ahmad P.W.6 did not take any action to rescue Mani Lal, nor did he inform Chhotey Lal etc. that Mani Lal was being forcibly dragged by the accused persons.The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that above conduct of Vishwanath Prasad is completely un-natural and it does not inspire any confidence and so the statements of Vishwanath Prasad P.W.2 and Mukhtar Ahmad P.W.6 that they saw Mani Lal being dragged by the accused persons cannot be believed.As regards the statement of Onkar Nath Pandey P.W.1 that he had seen the accused persons at about 7 to 8 P.M. in the night carrying a bag with them and that upon inquiry they told him that the bag contained manure, and that on third day after this incident the dead body of Mani Lal was found near that place., the learned Counsel for the accused appellant submitted that it cannot be concluded simply on the basis of recovery of the dead body of Mani Lal near that place, where the accused had been allegedly seen carrying the bag with them, that dead body of Mani Lal was being carried in that bag, when they had boldly replied that the bag contained manure.As regards the so called extra judicial confession of the accused persons before P.W.4 Shashi Singh, the learned Counsel for the accused appellant submitted that this story of extra judicial confession that the accused persons met Shashi Singh ( P.W. 4) who was coming from the market and that they stopped him at Sehra Mohra in the broad day light at 9 to 10 A.M. and said to him that they had murdered Mani Shanker two days ago and had thrown his dead body in the field of Satya Narain and since he was Thakur and Zamindar of the village, he should protect them is far away from belief.He further pointed out that according to the statement of Shashi Singh, he had told about the extra-judicial confession of accused persons to Lala Singh P.W.2 and Mukhtar Ahmad P.W.6, but both these witnesses have not stated even a single word about so called confession of the accused persons in their statements before the court; and in this way the statement of Shashi Singh (P.W.4) on the point does not create any confidence.The learned Counsel for the appellants in this way contended that all the circumstances which have been relied upon by the trial court for conviction of the accused do not inspire any confidence and so the accused appellant should be acquitted.It was a case of poisoning , the case was based on circumstantial evidence only, and the cause of death was not conclusively established, so the accused was acquitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court.In this case of murder, there was evidence of last seen only, and motive and place of occurrence were not proved, and death was not proved to be homicidal and so it was held that the accused could not be convicted for murder merely on the basis of suspicion and the evidence of last seen.He contended that in the present case also it is also not proved that there was homicidal death of Mani Lal, as the doctor conducting postmortem could not ascertain the cause of death, so he preserved viscera; but viscera report has not been produced and there is no sufficient circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with the crime, and so the accused should be acquitted.The trial court fell in error by convicting the accused for the offences under sections 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the conviction of the accused -appellants for the offences under sections 302/34 and 201/34 deserves to be set aside.The appeal is allowed and the conviction order passed by the learned IV Addl.Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1992, State v. Daya Shanker and Ors. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,725,852 | For Appellant in both Appeals : Mr. K.Doraisamy Senior Counsel assisted by K.Saravanan for A1 Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian for A2 For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.PUGALENDHI, J.] The Appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.453 of 2018 is the Accused No.2 and the Appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.454 of 2018 is the Accused No.1 in S.C.No.17 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District [Fast Track] Court, Theni.The brief facts of the case are as follows:The second accused is the wife of the deceased and they had two children, namely, Gokulapriya [PW3] and one Hariharan.The deceased was working in a Welding shop and the second accused was working in a Tiles shop.The first accused is also a relative of the deceased and the second accused.Rathinam [PW1] is also a close relative of the deceased and an office bearer of the Community Association.In their Community Association, they proposed to construct a Temple and for that, they arranged for a Meeting on 09.06.2015 at 09.00 p.m. PW1, PW2 and PW4 to PW6 participated in the said meeting and the meeting went upto 11.30 p.m. At about 11.45 p.m., Balamurugan [PW2], Treasurer of the Community Association, informed Rathinam [PW1] that the deceased, Muniyandi, is lying with injuries and hishttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 wife / the second accused informed them that at around 11.30 p.m., somebody came to their house, attacked her husband and caused injuries.PW1 and others arranged for an ambulance and the injured / deceased was taken to the Government Medical College Hospital, Theni, where, he was admitted as in-patient by the Doctor [PW15] on 10.06.2015 at 00.15 hrs.and the Accident Register issued by PW15 is marked as Ex.PW1 went to Allinagaram Police Station and lodged a complaint [Ex.P1].The printed copy of the FIR is marked as Ex.The same was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni on 10.06.2015 at about 04.00 p.m. PW18 has also informed about the registration of the case to his higher officials.Thiru Sakthivel [PW19], Inspector of Police, Allinagaram Police Station, on receipt of First Information Report in Cr.No.328 of 2015, went to the place of occurrence around 05.30 a.m. On 10.06.2015, prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P14] in the presence of PW10 and another.He also collected cement mortars with and without bloodstains [MOs.1 and 2 respectively] in the presence of the said witnesseshttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 and examined the witnesses, PW1, PW2, PW10 as well as the second accused and one Kabil Kumar, who were in the place of occurrence.The deceased was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, from Government Medical College and Hospital, Theni and while he was undergoing treatment at Government Rajaji Hosital, Madurai, he succumbed to the injuries on 11.06.2015 at about 01.00 p.m. On receipt of the information, the Investigation Officer [PW19] submitted an alteration report [Ex.P15] to the Judicial Magistrate, Theni, altering the offence to Section 302 IPC.He also conducted inquest at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, on 11.06.2015 at about 10.30 a.m. and the inquest report is marked as Ex.After completing the inquest, the Investigation Officer made a request for conducting postmortem through the Head Constable [PW13].Sadasivam [PW16] conducted the postmortem on 11.06.2015 at about 02.40 p.m. and the Postmortem Certificate is marked as Ex.The Doctor has noted down the antemortem injuries and also collected the viscera for examination.After collecting the chemical examination report, the Doctor [PW16] gave his final opinion in Ex.P12 that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury.The Investigation Officer [PW19] arrested the accused persons at Theni Bye-pass Road on 13.06.2015 at about 09.00 a.m. in the presence ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 the Village Administrative Officer [PW11] and the Village Assistant, Marichamy.The first accused gave a voluntary confession statement and pursuant to the same, a bloodstained Aruval [MO3], T-shirt [MO4] and a Track suit [MO5] were recovered under a cover of mahazar from the heap of stones near the cattle shed in the first accused's house.The recovered material objects were sent for chemical analysis through the concerned Judicial Magistrate through the Head Constable [PW13].The Biological Report is marked as Ex.P8 and the Serological Report is marked as Ex.P9 and they were marked through the Scientific Expert, Thiru Vijayendran [PW14].After collecting the postmortem certificate, Serological Report, Biological Report and after examining the witnesses, the Investigation Officer [PW19] filed the final report on 09.09.2015 as against the appellants / accused under Sections 302 r/w.34 IPC.The same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, in PRC No.47 of 2015 and committed to the Court of Sessions.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/24 Crl.But, when the first accused accompanied the deceased to the Hospital, he changedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 14/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 his cloth and he was in Dhoti.The deceased and the second accused are husband and wife and they had two children, namely, Gokilapriya [PW3] and one Hariharan.The first accused is the sister's son of the second accused and he used to visit the deceased's house often in the absence of the deceased and the same was witnessed by their daughter [PW3].The second accused insisted her daughter [PW3] not to disclose about the visit of the first accused to anyone.Even onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 16/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 the date of occurrence, i.e. on 09.06.2015, the first accused met the second accused and the second accused requested her daughter [PW3] not to disclose the same to anyone.As per the evidence of PW7, the deceased himself had witnessed the accused persons together and he also heard about their illegal relationship and therefore, there was a quarrel between the deceased and his wife / second accused on the date of occurrence and without bearing the same, the deceased consumed liquor while doing his work at welding shop and in the night hours, he was done to death with cut injuries.The occurrence was taken place on 09.06.2015 at about 11.15 p.m. in a village and on the information from the second accused, the villagers arranged 108 ambulance and took the injured / deceased to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Theni, where, he was admitted as in-patient on 10.06.2015 at 00.15 hrs., within a hour from the time of occurrence.From there, he was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where, he succumbed to injuries on 11.06.2015 at about 01.00 p.m. Dr.Sadhasivam [PW16], who conducted autopsy, noted down the cut injuries on the deceased and also gave his final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury.Further, PW16 in his evidence stated that the cut injuries found on the deceased would have caused through a weapon like Billhook [MO3], recovered from the first accused.According to the prosecution, the accused persons together were found at Theni Bye-pass Road and when they attempted to flee away to Kerala,http://www.judis.nic.in 20/24 Crl.Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the Judgment dated 10.09.2018 made in S.C.No.17 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional District (Fast Track) Judge, Theni.Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the Judgment dated 10.09.2018 made in S.C.No.17 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional District (Fast Track) Judge, Theni.Both the accused were tried for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC.The trial Court, by its Judgment dated 10.09.2018, found the appellants / accused guilty for the offence under Sections 302 r/w.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment.Aggrieved over the same, the appellants have been preferred the instant appeals.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018Since both the appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, both the appeals are taken up together for hearing.For the sake of brevity and clarity, the parties will be referred to as per rank before the trial Court.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018During the trial, on the side of prosecution, 19 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were marked besides six material objects.6.PWs. 1 and 2 are the close relatives of the deceased and also the residents of the same village.They arranged the ambulance for the injured / deceased and PW1 lodged the complaint [Ex.P1] on the date of occurrence.PW3 is the daughter of the deceased and the second accused and she speaks about the illegal intimacy between the accused persons.PW4, who is also the resident of the village, stated that the second accused informed him about the assault of her husband.PW5 is the brother of the deceased.PW6 is another villager, who witnessed the first accused in the Meeting at about 11.00 a.m. and also at about 11.50 p.m., when the first accused accompanied the deceased to the Hospital.According to PW6, at the time of meeting, the first accused was wearing a T-shirt and Track suit and while proceeding to the hospital, he was in Dhoti.PW7 is a co-worker of the deceased and on the previous day, the deceased, Muniyandi, lamented him about the illegal relationship between the first accused and his wife / second accused.PW8 and PW9, who are the residents of the village, are hearsay witnesses.PW10 is the witness for the recovery of MOs.1 and 2 and the observation mahazar [Ex.P2] and rough sketch [Ex.P14] from the place of occurrence.PW11 is the Village Administrative Officer in whose presence the accused persons were arrestedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 and the material objects, namely, MOs.3 to 6, were recovered.PW12 is the Head-Clerk, who sent the material objects to chemical examination.PW13 is the Head Constable, who sent the body for postmortem and produced the material objects for chemical analysis.PW14 is the Scientific Expert, working in the Forensic Science Department, Madurai and through him, the Serological report [Ex.P9] was marked.PW15 is the Doctor, who admitted the deceased on 10.06.2015 and issued the Accident Register [Ex.P10].PW16 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem and issued his report and final opinion on the cause of death in Exs.PW17 is the Head Constable, who submitted the alteration report to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni.PW18 is the Sub Inspector, who registered the case in Ex.P13 and PW19 is the Investigation Officer, who arrested the accused and filed the final report.After the prosecution evidence was closed, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but, the accused denied the same.Though the accused stated that there are witnesses on their side, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced.In conclusion of trial, the trial Court found the appellants / accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 r/w.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced them as stated supra.Aggrieved over the same, the present appeals are filed.http://www.judis.nic.in 8/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018Heard Mr.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that when the deceased was found with injuries on 09.06.2015 in the open terrace and it is the admitted case of the prosecution that there are two tenants residing in the same building in the ground floor, those tenants were not examined by the prosecution.Similarly, according to the prosecution, the deceased and the second accused had two children, namely, Gokilapriya [PW3] and another son Hariharan and at the time of occurrence, the deceased's son, Hariharan, was also present in the house of the deceased, but, the said Hariharan was neither cited nor examined as a witness.According to the prosecution witnesses, the said Ayyakalai and his wife (mother of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 deceased) were also residing in the same village near the deceased's house, but, both Ayyakalai and his wife were not examined.PW1, Rathinam, a close relative to the deceased, in his evidence, admitted the existence of a property dispute between the said Ayyakalai and the father of the first accused.Therefore, on the non-examination of the said Ayyakalai, an adverse inference can be drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act.In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following Judgments:(i) 1974 L.W. (Crl.) 190 (Karunakaran Jabamani Nadar In Re)A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 Thiruvidaimarudur);(iii) 2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 151 (DB) (Shanmugam vs. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station);(xii) 2004 (9) SCC 193 (Kunju Muhammed @ Khumani and another vs. State of Kerala)http://www.judis.nic.in 11/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018G.Karuppasamy Pandian, learned Counsel for the second accused, adopted the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the first accused and also made his further submission that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive has to be established, but, the motive has not been established in this case.The Investigation Officer [PW19] has clearly stated that there is no evidence for the illegal intimacy between the accused persons.Though a cell phone [MO6] was recovered from the second accused pursuant to her confession statement, the prosecution has not recovered any call details and not examined the service provider.Therefore, the learned counsel pleaded that the circumstances projected by the prosecution is not having any link which should form a chain to establish the guilt against the appellants/accused.In support of his contention, the learned counsel has also relied upon the following Judgments:(ii) 2019 (2) MWN (Cr.) 161 (DB) – (Kasthuri vs. State, through Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham Police Station, Vellore District)http://www.judis.nic.in 12/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018(iii) 2019 (2) MWN (Cr.) 487 (DB) – (Manickaraj vs. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Alwarthirunagari Police Station, Thoothukudi District).Per contra, Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the available circumstances made out a case as against the appellants / accused without any break and establishes the guilty against the accused without any doubt.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also pointed out the following circumstances available in the prosecution case:(i) The deceased / the second accused's husband was found with cut injuries in the open terrace of his house on 09.06.2015 at about 11.15 p.m. The second accused informed all others witnesses about the occurrence stating that an unknown person came to their house and attacked her husband.(ii) At the time of occurrence, the second accused was available in the place of occurrence and the occurrence took place in her house.Hence, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof is on the second accused to prove the fact that an unknown person attacked her husband and therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn as against the second accused.(iii) The first accused is a close relative of the deceased and the second accused.In fact, he is the sister's son of the accused No.2 and he usedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 to visit the house of the deceased often, particularly in the absence of the deceased.The first accused visited the house of the deceased on the date of occurrence.The second accused instructed her daughter [PW3] not to disclose the visit of the first accused to anybody.PW3, the daughter of the deceased and the second accused, has categorically stated in her evidence about the existence of illegal intimacy between the accused persons and the same is also corroborated through the evidence of PW7, a co-worker of the deceased.PW7, who was working with the deceased, in his evidence, has stated that on the previous date of occurrence, the deceased had consumed liquor while doing work and when he questioned the same, the deceased stated about the illegal relationship between his wife and the first accused.(iv) The accused persons were arrested on 13.06.2015 and pursuant to the confession statement of the first accused, a bloodstained billhook [MO3], T-Shirt [MO4] and a Track Suit [MO5] were recovered from the house of the first accused.The recovered material objects were also sent for chemical analysis and the Serological and Biological reports establish the presence of human blood (B group) in the cement mortars recovered from the place of occurrence and T-shirt [MO4].PW6 has witnessed the first accused in the Community Meeting held on the occurrence date, i.e., on 09.06.2015 and at that time, the first accused was wearing a T-shirt and a Track suit.On 09.06.2015 at about 11.15 p.m., the deceased was found lying with cut injuries in the open terrace of his house.On the information of the second accused, PWs.1 and 2 and other witnesses went to the place of occurrence, arranged for an ambulance and the deceased was taken to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Theni, on 10.06.2015 at 00.15 hrs.On the complaint of PW1, a case was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police [PW18].The deceased was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and died in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, on 11.06.2015 at about 01.00 a.m. The Doctor [PW16], who conducted the postmortem, in his postmortem report [Ex.P11], noted down the following ante mortem injuries:Horizontal cut injury measuring 13cm x 2cm x brain deep noted on mid frontal region.Horizontal cut injury 23cm x 4cm x brain deep noted on lower frontal region, 2cm below injury No.1, 3cm above both eyebrow through which portion of frontal lobe of brain found protruding out.Cut injury measuring 5cm x 2cm x bone deep noted on outer aspect of left eye.http://www.judis.nic.in 17/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 PW16 also gave his final opinion in Ex.P12 that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury.On 13.06.2015, the Inspector of Police [PW19] arrested both the accused, when they attempted to flee away to Kerala and recovered MOs.3 to 5 from the house of the first accused and sent the recovered material objects for chemical analysis.The Serological report [Ex.P9] reveals the presence of human blood (B Group) in cement mortars [MO1] recovered from the place of occurrence, Billhook [MO3] and T-shirt [MO4].The learned Senior Counsel for the first accused has pointed out that though there were two tenants residing in the ground floor of the deceased's house, the prosecution has not examined those tenants and the parents of the deceased to establish the illegal intimacy, if any, between the accused persons.But, as pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has examined the daughter of the deceased [PW3], who, in clear terms, stated about the visit of the first accused to their house often in the absence of her father and also the conduct of her mother in insisting her not to disclose the same to any one and on the date of occurrence also, the first accused visited the house of the deceased at about 06.00 p.m. and she also stated that her mother was having illegal intimacy with the first accused.In addition to the evidence of PW3, a co-worker of the deceasedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 18/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 [PW7] was also examined by the prosecution and he, in his evidence, has also stated that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 09.06.2015, the deceased attended the duty in the welding shop, at that time, the deceased also consumed liquor and when he questioned as to why he consumed liquor while working, the deceased stated that he witnessed that his wife / second accused and the first accused wandering at Theni market and there is a rumour that his wife is having intimacy with the the first accused and therefore, there was a quarrel with his wife and therefore, he consumed liquor.The Doctor [PW15], who admitted the deceased in the hospital, has noted down the smell of alcohol from the deceased.Therefore, the prosecution, through the evidence of PW3 and PW7, established the illegal and prohibited relationship between the accused persons and the quarrel between the deceased and his wife on the date of occurrence.Therefore, the non-examination of the tenants or the parents of the deceased is no way affecting the case of the prosecution.PW3 is the own daughter of the second accused and the deceased and she was aged about 16 years at the time of occurrence and she is also having one brother, Hariharan.When PW3 has stated about the illegal intimacy between the accused persons, there is no need for establishing the same by examining the another child witness, Hariharan.http://www.judis.nic.in 19/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 they were arrested by the Inspector of Police [PW19] in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer [PW11].The first accused gave a voluntary confession statement and pursuant to the same, MOs.3 to 5 were recovered from a heap of stones found near the cattle shed near his house under a cover of recovery mahazar (Ex.P3 and Ex.P5).The Investigation Officer recovered the cement mortars with bloodstains and without bloodstains from the place of occurrence and the recovered articles, namely, MOs.1 to 5 were sent for chemical analysis through the concerned Judicial Magistrate.The Biological report is marked as Ex.P8 and the Serological report is marked as Ex.As per the reports, human blood (B group) is detected in the cement mortars recovered from the place of occurrence [MO1], Billhook [MO3] and T-shirt [MO4] recovered from the first accused.Though human blood was deducted in the Track suit [MO5], it was found to be disintegrated.PW6, a resident of the same village, had also witnessed the first accused on the date of occurrence around 11.00 p.m. in the Community meeting and at that time, the first accused was wearing a black colour T-shirthttp://www.judis.nic.in 21/24 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.453 and 454 of 2018 and a Track suit.He also witnessed that the first accused accompanying the deceased to the Hospital in the ambulance and at that time, the first accused was wearing Dhoti and Shirt.The Lungi [MO5] worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence was also recovered with bloodstains and the same was also sent for chemical analysis.Though the human blood (B group) was deducted in the Lungi of the deceased, the same was not marked by the prosecution. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,737,819 | appeal filed an appeal on 25.09.2006 claiming death compensation of Rs. 1,66,290/-.Since the application was filed after nearly nine years from the date of death of her husband, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed seeking condonation of delay.For that the Learned Commissioner erred in law by passing the award dated 8th December, 2015 by not following the provisions as contained in Section-3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923;For that the Learned Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that admittedly the husband of the respondent was murdered after and/or outside the duty hours;"The appellant challenged the impugned judgment / order / award after a delay of 141 days and further filed an application for condonation of delay.The matter appeared before the Division Bench and a direction for service was passed but the claimants / respondent did not respond to the said notice and the application for condonation of delay was heard ex parte.Both the Hon'ble Judges constituting the Division Bench differed on the point of sufficient cause having made out by the appellant as a consequence whereof the matter is referred to me as a third Judge.The only point which this Court is required to answer is whether the grounds narrated and / or set forth in the application for condonation of delay constitute a sufficient cause within the meaning thereof under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Both the Hon'ble Judges have relied upon and in fact quoted the relevant statements made in the said application in separate judgment which this Court feels necessary to refer in toto in order to answer the point as framed herein above.Paragraph 7(a) to (o) of the application for condonation of delay are reproduced as under:-e) On 25th January, 2016 the concerned officer tried to contact their learned advocate on record in the court below to collect all the papers connecting to the said case but unfortunately the learned advocate was not available and consequently he was unable to collect the papers from the said learned advocate.f) On 2nd February, 2016 the concerned officer went to Calcutta in connection with other court cases pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and in between 4th February, 2016 to 16th February, 2016 he was very often went to Calcutta in connection with the different court cases pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and consequently he was unable to take any step in regard to the instant matter.h) After arranging all the papers the concerned officer on 18th March, 2016 placed the entire papers before the agent for necessary instruction and the agent after considering the said papers on 24th March, 2016 instructed the concerned officer to take to prefer an appeal and also advised the concerned officer to obtain necessary approval from the headquarters before taking steps against the said award.Be it mentioned here that due to the pre-occupation in other jobs in connection with mines the Agent could not take steps in regard to the appeal at an early date.i) The concerned officer in course of arranging all the papers before sending to the headquarters he found certain papers such as evidence of the parties adduced before the Learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation court was not forwarded by the learned advocate on record in the court below and as such he tried to contact him on 26th March, 2016 for collection of the said papers but he was unable to contact the said learned advocate.Subsequently, on 31st March, 2016 the concerned officer was able to collect the necessary papers from the learned advocate on record in the court below.j) The concerned officer after preparation of the notes relating to the case and also arranging all the papers on 6th April, 2016 forwarded the same to the headquarters for necessary instruction.k) The concerned officer on 12th April, 2016 received the instruction from the headquarters whereby they instructed the concerned officer to take steps to prefer an appeal.l) Accordingly, on 18th April, 2016 the concerned officer contacted their learned advocate in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and instructed him to take steps to prefer an appeal.m) The said learned advocate in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta fixed a conference on 24th April, 2016 and in course of conference the learned advocate in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta made it clear that the appeal has already been time barred.o) The learned advocate in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta of your petitioner prepared a memorandum of appeal, stay petition and connecting application for condonation of delay and the same were handed over to the concerned officer for their approval and the concerned officer handed over on the following day i.e., on 27th April, 2016 all the drafts with the approval."The gist of the aforesaid statements are that immediately upon passing the award by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, an instruction was given to the Advocate on Record to obtain certified copy of the impugned award so that appropriate steps may be taken.The said certified copy was then sent by the despatch department of the colliery to the appellant on 18th January, 2016, which was further forwarded to the concerned officer on 21st January, 2016 for taking necessary steps.The officer tried to contact the learned Advocate of the Compensation Court on 25th January, 2016 to collect all the papers and documents connected to the case but due to unavailability of the said advocate the relevant papers and documents could not be collected.Between the period from 2nd February, 2016 to 16th February, 2016 the officer frequently visited the city of Kolkata in connection with other Court cases pending before the Hon'ble High Court and was therefore unable to take any steps in the matter.The officer could contact with the advocate on 15th March, 2016 who handed over all the concerned documents relatable to the instant case to the said officer.After arranging all the papers, the concerned officer placed the same to the agent for necessary instructions on 18th March, 2016 and received the instruction on 24th March, 2016 to prefer an appeal after taking necessary approval and sanction from the headquarters.While arranging the papers for its onward transmission to the headquarter, the officer detected that the evidence of the parties adduced before the Compensation Court was not given by the advocate and attempted to contact the learned Advocate on 26th March, 2016 but he was unavailable.An instruction was received by the officer on 12th April, 2016 from the headquarter directing him to take steps for preferring an appeal before this Court.During the conference it was indicated by the said learned Advocate that the appeal is time barred and if filed should be preceded with an application of condonation of delay.Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that all precaution, care and steps were taken by the appellant for preferring the instant appeal against the impugned judgment / award and because of the procedures and formalities required to be performed in a government organization the delay occurred which cannot be said to be intentional and deliberate.In the event the learned Advocate for the appellant shows the payment of the costs to the respondent no.1, the office is directed to formally register the appeal and shall take all consequential steps required therefore. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,683,114 | The Accused No.1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased; accused No.2 is the father-in-law of the deceased; A-3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased; A-4 is the aunt of accused No.1; A-5 is the wife of the deceased.The brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are as follows: 4.1.The accused No.5 Viji is the wife of the deceased Murugaraj.Out of the wedlock, they have two female children, namely, P.W.-2 Atchaya Varshini and another.Due to misunderstanding between the deceased and A-5, A-5 went to her parents' house two days prior to the date of occurrence and was staying there along with her two children.On 10.11.2015, on the day ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Diwali, the deceased Murugaraj was worried that his family is away from home and requested his elder brother P.W.-1 Murugesan to accompany him to visit the house of his in-laws to bring back his wife and children.Accordingly, P.W.-1 and the deceased went in a motorcycle to the house of the accused.P.W.-1 refused to go inside the house and was waiting outside the house of the accused and the deceased alone went inside the house.After sometime, around 11.30 p.m., the deceased was coming out with a stab injury by alarming that they are killing him and all the accused came out of the house and even in the presence of P.W.-1, the accused No.1 stabbed the deceased on his neck and chest.P.W.-1 ran to his relative's house, who were residing in the same village and along with them, they went to the place of occurrence again and even before they reached, the deceased was taken to the Periyakulam Government Hospital by the accused persons and at about 00.30 hours on 11.11.2015, the Doctor (P.W.-22), who examined the deceased reported that he was brought dead.COMMON PRAYER: Appeals filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 22.08.2017 in S.C.No.98/2016 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.PUGALENDHI, J.) As against the order of acquittal passed in S.C.No.98/2016 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam, the de- facto complainant and the State have preferred these Appeals, ie., Crl.Nos. 48/2018 and 367/2018 respectively.The respondents/accused 1 to 5 have been charged for the offences as under:In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court acquitted all the accused from all the charges levelled against them and as against the same, the defacto complainant as well as the State have preferred the instant appeals.He also issued an Accident Register (Ex.P-14).After the death of the deceased, P.W.-1 lodged a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.-11) and the same was registered in Crimehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 No.706/2015 under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 506(II) IPC against the accused persons.On receipt of the intimation, P.W.-23 went to the place of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar and a rough sketch (Ex.P.-8 and Ex.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, 23 witnesses were examined and 18 documents have been marked besides 13 material objects.5.The available evidences from the prosecution witness are as follows:(i) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and he speaks about the lodging of the complaint.He is an eye witness to the occurrence and he speaks about the involvement of the accused in the occurrence.(ii) P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased and A-5 and she is also an eye witness to the occurrence.(iii) P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased and he speaks about the enmity prevailed between his brother and the accused persons.http://www.judis.nic.in 6(vi) P.W.6 is the witness to Observation Mahazar, but he turned hostile.(viii) P.W.8 is the then Head Constable, who delivered the express First Information Report before the Judicial Magistrate.(ix) P.W.9 is the then Constable, who handed over the material objects to Forensic Department and P.W.10 is the then Constable, who typed the statements of the witnesses.(x) P.W.11 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report.(xi) P.W.12 is the then Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate Court, who received the material objects.(xii) P.W.13 is the then Head Constable, who produced the body to the Doctor for postmortem.(xiii) P.W.14 is a witness to the Observation Mahazar.(xiv) P.W.15 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased.(xv)P.Ws.16, 17, 19 & 21 are neighbors and they are examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence, but, they turned hostile.(xvi)P.W.18 is the father of the deceased and he is a hearsay witness.(xvii)P.W.20 is the Deputy Director of Forensic Science Department and she speaks about the chemical analysis report.(xviii)P.W.22 is the Doctor, who declared the death of the deceased.(xix) P.W.23 is the then Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation and filed the final report.When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313(i)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same as false.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, having found that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubts, acquitted all the accused against the charges levelled against them.As against the said order of acquittal, the de-facto complainant/P.W.-1 and the State are before this Court with these appeals.J.Sulthan Basha, learned Counsel for the defacto complainant / Appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018; Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State / Respondent-1 in Crl.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018 and appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.376 of 2018; andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 Mr.S.Mahendrapathy, learned Counsel for the accused persons.The learned Counsel for the defacto complainant has raised the following grounds:(i) The evidence of PW2, the daughter is very clear to sustain the case of the prosecution.(iii) The evidence of PW1 and PW2 eye witnesses to the occurrence have not been scrutinized by the trial Court in a proper perspective.Further their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence Ex.(iv)Apart that the evidence of PW16, PW17, PW19, PW20 have supported the case of the prosecution.There may be minor contradictions in the evidence, but the same cannot be a fatal to the prosecution case.http://www.judis.nic.in 9She is a natural witness and she has clearly deposed about the occurrence.Further PW1 the brother of the deceased, accompanied him to the house of the accused.He has also deposed about the entire incident.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 are cogent, trustworthy and inspires confidence.But the trail Court has failed to consider the same.10.He further submitted that the evidence of PW16, PW17, PW19 and PW20 are cogent and trustworthy and corroborated by the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and they have narrated the incident and the place of occurrence.PW22 Dr.Swaminathan speaks about the Accident Register [ExP14], wherein it is mentioned that the accused have involved in the offence, which has not been considered by the trial Court.11.The deceased and PW1 went to the house of the accused to take A5 back to their house.As soon as the deceased entered the house of the accused, the accused [A1 to A4] attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and A5 had also instigated them and attacked.This fact has been narrated by PW2, who is a natural witness and the daughter of the deceased and A5.http://www.judis.nic.in 10 This evidence was not discussed in the manner known to law by the trial Court.Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused has made his submissions in the following lines:(i) Though the prosecution has examined 23 witnesses, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges.(ii) The presence of PW1 at the place of occurrence is doubtful.(iii) There are several infirmities in the evidence of PW2 and this has been rightly found by the trial Court.(iv) There are contradictions between the evidence of PW1, PW2 and the evidence of PW23, the investigating officer.P.W.1 waited outside the compound and the deceased only went inside and thereafter, the occurrence took place.18.The Doctor P.W.-15, who conducted the postmortem, has noted down the following injuries on the deceased:“1.An oblique stab injury measuring 2 cms x 0.5 cm x muscle deep noted on the left upper chest, 1 cm below left clavicle, 7 cms above the left nipple.2.An oblique stab injury measuring 5 cms x 2 cms x left chest cavity deep noted on the left upper chest, 1 cm below left clavicle, 7 cms above the left nipple.O/D. The wound passes obliquely downwards and inwards piercing the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves in 3rd intercostal space, piercing the underlying pleura measuring 2 cms x linear x through and through and upper lobe of left lung measuring 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm and ends as a point.3.An oblique stab injury measuring 3.5 cm x 1 cm x left chest cavity deep noted on the sides of left upper chest, 11 cms below left axilla.O/D. The wound passes obliquely inwards piercing the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves in 4th intercostal space, piercing the underlying pleura measuring 2 cm x linear x through and through and lower part of upper lobe of left lung measuring 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm and ends as a point.Left pleural cavity contain 650 ml of blood with clots.Right pleural cavity – empty.4.An oblique stab injury measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x peritoneal cavity deep noted on the side of left upper abdomen.O/D. The wound passes obliquely inward piercing thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 underlying muscles, vessels and nerves and the underlying spleen.Peritoneal cavity contains 500 ml of blood with clots.5.Abrasion measuring 3 cms x 2 cms noted in the left knee joint.Therefore, it is clear from the prosecution case that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him.The trial Court, at the very inception, raised doubt as to the case of the prosecution as there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR as well as the FIR reaching the Court.19.1The occurrence had taken place on 10.11.2015 at 11.30 p.m. and the deceased was taken to the hospital by the accused 1 to 3 and 5 on the same day and was admitted in the Periyakulam Government Hospital at about 00.30 hrs, which was also recorded in the Accident Register (Ex.P.14).Thereafter, the complaint was lodged on 11.11.2015 at about 5.00 a.m. Though the case has been registered at 5.00 a.m., the FIR reached the Courthttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 of Judicial Magistrate only at 4.45 p.m. with a considerable delay.This delay has been taken into account by the trial Court to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.19.2.The deceased was taken to the hospital immediate to the occurrence and was admitted in the hospital by the accused persons on 11.11.2015 at about 00.30 hrs.The case of the prosecution is that the occurrence has taken place in the house of the accused persons.However, when the accused were questioned, they have totally denied the same.But the fact remains that as per the Accident Register (Ex.P-14), the accused only took the deceased and admitted in the hospital.There is no explanation offered by the accused for the injuries found on the deceased at the time of admission.19.3.Admittedly, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 11.11.2015 at about 00.30 hrs and within 45 minutes, the deceased was taken to the hospital by the accused, which was referred to in the Accident Register.The Doctor, P.W.-22, who admitted/examined the deceased, was not cross-examined by the defence.http://www.judis.nic.in 17 19.4.Regarding the delay in registering the FIR and consequent reaching of the same to the Court, the Apex Court, in the case of Jafel Biswas and others v. State of West Bengal reported in (2019) 12 SCC 560, has held as follows:“19.The obligation is on the I.O to communicate the report to the Magistrate.22.The High Court has rightly noted this submissionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 and opined that to find out whether the FIR is genuine or not, and whether the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused or not, the entire evidence has to be looked into.” 19.5.In the present case on hand, the deceased is the brother-in-law of A-1 and son-in-law of A-2 and A-3 and that the occurrence took place inside the house of the accused.It is quite natural that the people in the same village would not take immediate steps to prosecute the family members.20.Finding of the trial Court:P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are interested witnesses and their presence in the place of occurrence is doubtful and therefore, they cannot be relied upon.Finding of this Court:20.1.The prosecution examined P.W.-1, who is the brother of the deceased as well as P.W.-2, daughter of the deceased.P.W.-1 as well ashttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 P.W.-2 have categorically narrated the occurrence that had taken place on the fateful day.20.2.According to P.W.-1, P.W.-1 and the deceased went to the place of occurrence in a motorcycle and they parked his motorcycle outside the compound wall of the house of the accused and he was waiting outside the house and deceased alone went inside the house to bring back his wife and children.According to her, she was staying along with her mother in her grandparents' house.On the date of occurrence, in fact, to bring back his wife and children, the deceased went to the accusedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 20 house and made a request to send his wife and children along with him.Therefore, the presence of P.W.-2 in the place of occurrence cannot be doubted.P.W.-2 in her evidence has clearly stated about the manner, in which, the occurrence had taken place as projected by the prosecution as well as by P.W.-1 and hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.-2 also.Though there are some minor contradictions with regard to the evidence adduced by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, the evidence of P.W.-2 is also trustworthy.20.4.In fact, the trial Judge, before taking the evidence of P.W.-2, has also ascertained her mental capacity to give evidence and recorded the evidence thereafter.Their evidence has not been contradicted by the defence.The evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 ought not to have been disbelieved merely on the ground they are interested witnesses.PW2 is a natural witness in this case, admittedly, she was staying with the accused at the time of the occurrence.The Doctor PW15, who conducted the postmortem has noted down four stab injuries on the vital parts.The knife MO1 was recovered from A1 in the presence of PW5 Village Administrative Officer and another.A Yamaha motorcycle bearing Registration No.The MO1 was also recovered pursuant to the confession statement of the accused No.1 from the house of the accused in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer [PW5].Though the prosecution has sufficiently established the case of the prosecution, the trial Court acquitted all the accused as discussed above, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law.The occurrence has taken place in the house of the accused, when the deceased came to the house of the accused to call his wife.The accused No.1 has caused fatal injury, pursuant to the same, the deceased died.There is no premeditation on the part of the accused No.1 to commit the offence.The occurrence had taken place in a spur of the moment, when the deceased came to the house and insisted his wife to come with him.Since the occurrence had taken place in a spur of a moment without any premeditation, the accused No.1 is found guilty of the offence under Section 304(i) I.P.C, instead of 302 IPC.24.Insofar as the other accused /respondents 3 to 6 is concerned, the respondent No.6/accused No.5 is reported to have died on 22.08.2019 pending these appeals and therefore, the charge made against her stands abated.With regard to the respondent Nos.2 to 4, no specific overt act is attributed and moreover, PW1 has witnessed only the subsequent incident took place out side the house.They have not caused any fatal injury to the deceased.Since these appeals are on an order of acquittal this Court is not inclined to reverse the finding as against the other accused and the finding rendered by the trial Court is confirmed insofar as the accused Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned.25.In view of the above, the appeals filed by P.W.1 as well as the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Theni @ Periyakulam in S.C.No.98 of 2016, dated 22.08.2017 is set aside insofar as accused No.1, but the appeals stand dismissed as against the other accused.Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed.[T.R.J.,] & [B.P.J.,] 07.02.2020 RR/gk To3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 25 T.RAJA, J. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,683,173 | The petitioners herein as well as the complainant were associated with each other in the running of one AL Housing Private Limited.Admittedly, the complainant had left the company.According to the petitioners herein, the complainant had resigned from the Directorship of the company.It was also taken on record.The petitioners herein caused a paper publication mentioning this fact.This, according to the complainant, has brought down his reputation in the eyes of the general public.According to him, even as late as 18.12.2013, he had executed a documenthttp://www.judis.nic.inin the capacity as the Director of the said company and the 3 same was attested by one of the petitioners herein.He apprehends that the persons who had purchased the property under such sale deeds will question him.That was the reason for filling this complaint.I suggested to learned Senior Counsel on either side that if the transactions, to which, the complainant was a party, were to be sustained and not impeached by the petitioners herein, the issue can be given quietus.The suggestion putforth by this Court was acceptable to both the learned Senior Counsel.I am happy to record that they have prevailed upon the respective clients to bury the hatchet.To this effect, the petitioners herein have filed an affidavit before this Court.The same is taken on record.The details of the sale transactions which were executed by the complainant are as follows:-Sale Deed Date Property Doc.1. 6677/2013 25.09.2013 Sy.No.74/4 admeasuring to an extent of 0.26 Acres in Maruthandakurichi Village, Trichy in favour of Mrs.S.Jothimani W/o.3980/2018 25.09.2013 Plot No.167 at Sy.22/1 admeasuring to an extent of 1200 sq. Ft.in Gundur Village, Trichy in favour of Mrs.S.Jothimani W/o.6198/2013 25.09.2013 Survey No.437/2B admeasuring to an extent of 43 cents in P.K.Agaram, Trichy in favour of Mrs.Jothimani W/o.5252/2013 18.12.2013 Survey No.21/2B admeasuring to an extent of 1.34 ½ Acres in Gundur, Trichy, in favour of P.lakshmi5251/2013 18.12.2013 Survey No.21/2C admeasuring to an extent of 1.04 Acres in Gundur, Trichy in favour of P.Lakshmi.The petitioners have filed an affidavit before this court that the above transactions will not be impeached or doubted or challenged in any manner.A copy of the said affidavit has also been served on the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.7.This criminal original petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.27.09.2019 rmi To The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirappali, Tiruchirappali District. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
556,928 | JUDGMENT R.C. Chopra, J.This Revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" only) is directed against an order dated 26.5.2001 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge had directed framing of charges under Sections 306/498-A read with Section 34, IPC against the petitioners.On 20.5.2000, she suffered burn injuries in her matrimonial home.While making a statement before the doctor at the time of admission as well as in her dying declaration recorded by the Investing Officer on 21.5.2000, she had stated that the burn injuries suffered by her were accidental.However, on 1.6.2000 Padam Sharma, brother of the deceased lodged an FIR alleging that since her marriage the deceased Ritu Sharma was being harassed and tortured by the petitioners and they used to raise various demands.It was also stated by him that while her sister was making a dying declaration on 21.5.2000, which was attested by him also as a witness, he had not made any allegations against the petitioners nor had objected to the statement being made by his sister as he believed that in case his sister survived, the petitioners would harass her further.Smt. Bimla Sharma, the sister of the deceased also made a statement on 1.6.2000 making allegations of harassment and cruelty against the petitioners saying that they used to make demands or cash as well as articles and used to maltreat her and give beatings even to her.She also stated that they had not made any statements against the petitioners in the hospital as they believed that Ritu Sharma would survive.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.I have gone through the records.Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order framing charges against the petitioners, mainly on the ground that the earlier statement made by the deceased as well as her dying declaration dated 21.5.2000, which was attested even by the maker of the FIR, clearly indicated that the death of the deceased Ritu Sharma was accidental only and as such, the subsequent statements of the brother of the deceased and her sister could not be relied upon for framing charges under Section 306 or 498-A IPC against the petitioners.It is also submitted that had there been any truth in the allegations that the petitioners used to harass, beat or make demands from the deceased, the deceased as well as her relatives ought to have made these allegations immediately after the incident and not after such a long delay.It is pointed out that in the discharge summary as well as inquest report, nothing was stated to indicate that the death of the deceased was on account of suicide.It is argued that the post-mortem report did not show smell of kerosene or petrol on the person of the deceased and as such, the death of the deceased could not be even prima facie held to be suicidal.In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, in which the Apex Court while examining the parameters for exercise of discretion under Section 227 of the Code had held that a Judge is not to act merely as, a post-office or mouth-piece of the prosecution and he has to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out as to whether a prima facie case has been made out or not.It was held that where two views were equally possible and evidence gave rise to some suspicion, but not grave suspicion, the accused should be discharged.The petition stands dismissed.M. No/794/2001 Dismissed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,693,048 | I.A. No.9628/2019, an application filed under Section 301(2) for assisting the Public Prosecutor.For the reason mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.Shri L.K. Mishra, Advocate for the complainant is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor during hearing of the matter.Case diary perused.The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 438, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, who apprehend his arrest in connection with Crime No.257/2019, registered at Police Station Mahila Police Thana Padav, District Gwalior (M.P.), for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 377, 506, 509 and 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter.He has not committed the offence in any manner.It is alleged by learned counsel for the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-48629-2019 (DR.There is no complaint made with respect to commission of offence u/S.377 of IPC.From perusal of complaint dated 19.6.2019, there is no specific allegations for commission of offence u/S.377 of IPC.He has further alleged that the applicant is having two daughters aged about 14 year and 10 years respectively.It is submitted that the commission of offence u/S.377 of IPC is an afterthought just to create undue pressure on the applicant.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State as well complainant opposed the prayer and has submitted that the applicant has actively participated in the commission of offence.There is specific allegations for commission of offence u/S.377 of IPC.He has read over the impugned order passed by learned trial, wherein THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-48629-2019 (DR.RANJEET ARYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) learned trial has considered the offence punishable u/S.377 of IPC.Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the bail application.On a specific query made to complainant that why she has not made any averments in complaint made by her on 19.6.2019 regarding commission of offence u/S.377 of IPC.Counsel for the complainant could not answer the same.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.The complaint was totally silent about the aforesaid aspects.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishal Mishra) JUDGE vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2019.11.30 10:32:30 +05'30' | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,694,718 | The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the District Magistrate, Kaushambi dated 30.7.2003 and also the order dated 10.8.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division Allahabad.The show cause notice dated 22.6.2002 has been issued upon the petitioner on the report of Superintendent of Police Kaushambi dated 1.6.2002, wherein it was stated that petitioner is a man of criminal tendency and is in habit of demonstrating his firearms to threaten the poor people.There are four cases registered against him, which are case crime no. 204 of 1984 under sections 307/302 I.P.C., case crime no. 265 of 1996, under sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504, 506, 325, 427 I.P.C., case crime no. 30 of 2000 under sections 325, 323, 504, I.P.C. and case crime no. 148 of 2002 under sections 302, 506 I.P.C. In view of the fact that criminal cases are registered against him, petitioner's firearm licence was suspended and he was asked to deposit the same.He was further required to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled.However, conclusion has been drawn by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, that total four criminal cases registered against the petitioner, out of these cases, two cases are serious in nature.The petitioner is a man of criminal tendency and he used to indulge in criminal activities.He is not fit to retain firearms licence granted to him and there is an apprehension of misuse of the firearm licence by the petitioner.In view of that the firearms licence of the petitioner is to be cancelled for the security of public peace and public safety.Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the District Magistrate, Kaushambi.The appellate authority concurred with District Magistrate, Kaushambi, and dismissed the appeal.In the supplementary affidavit filed in compliance of the order of this court dated 25.11.2005,petitioner has filed the copy of the judgements passed in four criminal cases registered against him.This court has directed the petitioner to file his reply specifically to the averments made in supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.4 in reply to the supplementary affidavit dated 16.1.2007, however, till date no supplementary rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.The writ petition is dismissed.Dated: 24.5.2012 Aks. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,703,691 | Ms. Kalpana Chauhan, learned counsel for respondents No.2 toThis petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.228/2013 registered by Police Station- Mahila Police Thana, Padav, Gwalior.It is undisputed fact that on the basis of the FIR lodged by the applicant, respondents No.2 to 4 are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 294 read with Section 34 of IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior.During pendency of the criminal trial, the parties have reached to a compromise and, therefore, they filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. for compounding the offences before the trial Court.By order dated 28.07.2016, the trial Court partly allowed the said application and the offences under Sections 294 and 506 part-II of IPC were compounded and the respondents No. 2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 294, 506 part-II of IPC.However, since the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable, therefore, the said application was rejected in respect of the above mentioned aspects.On 09.11.2016, the applicant as well as respondents No. 2 to 4 appeared before this Court and they were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise.The parties appeared before the Principal Registrar and got their statements recorded.Principal M.Cr.C. No.10718/2016 (Smt. Parwindar Kaur Vs.No order as to costs. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,711,929 | Considering the averments made in the petition and the fact that the petitioner was prosecuted for an offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. | ['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. |
55,715,829 | (Passed on 18th March, 2019) This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the applicants invoking the inherent powers of the 2 MCRC No. 7339/2017 Varun Pratap Jat @ Atul and Ors.vs. State of MP & Anr.2 MCRC No. 7339/2017In the marriage, the father of the complainant had given dowry and other domestic articles.After one year of marriage, the applicants started to harass the complainant for dowry and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and due to non-fulfillment of the demand applicant No.1 committed marpeet with the complainant.In the year 2011 one girl child was born out of wedlock of applicant No.1 and complainant and the applicants had come to her maternal home situated at Munshipura and demanded dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- where they also committed marpeet with her and left her in her maternal house.On these allegation, FIR has been registered at Crime No. 659/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC against the present applicants.After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Magistrate.It is also mentioned in the application that prior to 3 MCRC No. 7339/2017 Varun Pratap Jat @ Atul and Ors.vs. State of MP & Anr.lodging of the present FIR, the applicant No.1 had preferred a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce, which is pending before the Family Court, Sagar and notice has also been issued to the non-applicant No.2/complainant.3 MCRC No. 7339/20172. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submits that the FIR in question is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law.The non-applicant No.2/complainant has failed to perform her conjugal liability and she herself left her matrimonial house and against his aggressive acts the applicant No.1 had complaint to Superintendent of Police Sagar.It is further submitted that after issuance of notice by the Family Court in a petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, the non- applicant No.2 has filed this false report with a view to put a pressure on them.Therefore, prayed for quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings.Leaned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Y. Abrahim Ajith and others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai [2004 (2) SCC (Cri) 2134]; Geeta Malhota vs. State of UP [2012(10) SCC 741]; Chandralekha and others vs. State of Rajasthan [2013 (3) CrLJ 3644]; Preeti Gupta and others vs. State of Jharkhand and another [2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 473]; Sonu @ Dinesh vs. State of MP and another [2013 (2) MPLJ (Cri) 621], Ravikant Dubey vs. State of MP and another [2014 (1) MPLJ 4 MCRC No. 7339/2017 Varun Pratap Jat @ Atul and Ors.vs. State of MP & Anr.(Cri) 282; and, Sandeep Singh Bais @ Anshu and others vs. State of MP and another [2017(3) MPLJ(Cri) 121].4 MCRC No. 7339/2017Per contra, learned counsel for the State and the victim have submitted that the FIR reveals harassment and demand made to the prosecutrix since after one year of the marriage till the filing of the FIR and therefore, it is not a fit case for quashment of the FIR.Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.Section 498-A of IPC reads as under:-The first is willful conduct of such nature which is 5 MCRC No. 7339/2017 Varun Pratap Jat @ Atul and Ors.vs. State of MP & Anr.likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger of life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman whereas the second category is harassment with a view to coerce her or any of her relative to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.5 MCRC No. 7339/2017On the anvil of the aforesaid provision, if the FIR lodged by the complainant is seen, it is evident that there is general and omnibus allegation against the applicant No.1-husband and his family members and are not sufficient to compel them to fce the ordeal of trial.For the allegation of cruelty to qualify the test of section 498A, it is necessary that cruelty alleged is of such nature which is likely to drive the prosecutrix to commit suicide or to cause grave danger of her life, limb or health (mental or physical) or such harassment is meted out to the prosecutrix with a view to coerce her or any of her relative to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security.The allegations as reflected in the FIR do not, in the considered opinion of this court, satisfy the stringent definition of cruelty contained in Explanation (a) to section 498 A of IPC.The State of Telangana & Ors.in Cr.A. No. 1045/18 6 MCRC No. 7339/2017 Varun Pratap Jat @ Atul and Ors.vs. State of MP & Anr.(decided on 21/8/18) Division Bench of the Apex Court while quashing the prosecution of maternal uncle of the husband has cautioned the court to be careful in proceedings against distant relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.Relevant paragraphs 5,6 and 7 of the said judgment is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-6 MCRC No. 7339/2017The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors.(2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Anr.Bhajanlal & ors.[1992 (1) SCC 335], this court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR bearing crime No. 659/2016 registered at Police Station Guna alleging offences punishable u/S. 498-A of IPC, along with all consequential criminal proceedings including charge sheet against the present applicants.Resultantly, the application filed under Section 482 of CrPC is hereby allowed and the FIR bearing crime No. 659/2016 registered at Police Station Guna alleging offences punishable u/S. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,717,151 | PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,to call for the records pertaining to the Crime No.36 of 2013 under Sections406, 420 and 506(i) of I.P.C., pending on the file of the second respondentpolice and quash the same.For 2nd Respondent :Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha :Order This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the accused No.1 toquash the F.I.R., in Crime No.36 of 2013 for the offences punishable underSections 406, 420 and 506 (i) of I.P.C on the file of the second respondentpolice.R.Aravind Raj, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first and second respondents and Mr.S.M.S.JohnyBasha, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the first andsecond respondents has submitted that during pendency of the present petitioncharge sheet has been filed and the case has been taken on file in C.C.No.44of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram.4.Recording the aforesaid submissions, this Criminal Original Petitionis dismissed as infructuous.Consequently, connected MP(MD)No.1 of 2014, is closed.1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
115,090,573 | Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.It is seen from paragraph No.5 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail by this High Court in Crl.O.P.No.25955/2012 dated 19.11.2012 in respect of Crime No.246/2012 on the file of Salem Town Crime Police Station for the offence under sections 341, 392 r/w. 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC and by the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem, in C.M.P.No.3027/2014 dated 2.6.2014 in respect of Crime No.231/2014 on the file of Hasthampatty Police station for the offence under section 379 IPC. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
11,509,062 | And In the matter of:- Goutam Kuiry & Anr.Appellants Mr. Asraf Ali, Mr. Sankar Banerjee For the appellants Mr. Manjit Singh, Ld.Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for life and under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and to pay fine with default clause preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence and after the appeal being admitted they have approached this court for suspension of sentence and their release on bail.The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that immediately after the alleged incident, the victim was removed to Purulia Sadar Hospital but no doctor was examined.Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned judgement and the depositions of the witnesses.We do not find any prima facie materials from the evidence of those two witnesses, which may justify us to reject their testimony.Now, we find from the medical evidence that the victim sustained gun shot injury on the left side of his chest and left leg.It is true that the Doctor has not given any opinion whether the injury found in the body of the victim was sufficient or not to cause his death in ordinary course of nature but that the court going through the nature of injury can very well conclude as regards to the same.Having regard to above, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence stands rejected.As per office report, lower court records have already been received.We, therefore, direct the office to complete the preparation of paper book within next four months and as soon as the preparation of paper book is complete and the appeal is made ready for hearing, the same shall be listed before the appropriate bench.It goes without saying whatsoever we have observed hereinabove must not be construed as to our opinion on the merits of the case and we make it clear such 4 observation was called for due to the various points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.We further make it clear, this observation shall have no bearing on final hearing of the appeal.Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the learned counsel for the parties on their usual undertakings.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
115,101 | The facts leading to the conviction of the two appellants need narration.The appellants will henceforth the referred to as A1 and A2 respectively.A1 at the relevant time was the Junior Engineer, Madras Telephone, Mambalam External.A2 was the Phone Inspector, Madras Telephones, attached to the same office.P.W. 2, Murugesan, a resident of West Jones Road, Saidapet, was a finance broker, carrying on his business under the name and style of "Sivasankar Agencies" Sivakami, the daughter of P.W. 2, was suffering from several ailments inclusive of skin disease, throat infection and ulcer in her stomach.In view of the sickness of his daughter, P.W. 2 wanted to have a casual telephone connection for a period of 60 days.The need for the request of a casual telephone connection was to facilitate emergency calls being made to the Doctor as and when necessary.P.W. 2, therefore, sent his application Ex. P. 2, dated 11-9-1984 to the Deputy Area Manager (South), Madras Telephones.Along with Ex. P. 2, P.W. 2 enclosed a medical certificate Ex. P. 3 - issued by the Skin Specialist, affirming the need for frequent medical advice and medical care either in person or over the telephone.He was then directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 920/ within 15 days.A demand notice was also issued to him.On 21-9-1984 P.W. 2 deposited Rs. 920/ in cash, as advised.Even after such deposit, the casual telephone was not installed.Hence, on 29-9-1984 P.W. 2 got in touch with the Office of the Deputy Manager (South) over the Telephone.He was also directed to got in touch with the Assistant Engineer, Telephone Exchange, Mambalam, for further details.Thereafter at or about 12 noon on 29-9-1984 P.W. 2 contacted the Office of the Assistant Engineer, Telephone Exchange, Mambalam, over the telephone.His call was answered by P.W. 6 V. J. Niyasudeen, the Assistant Engineer, P.W. 6 informed P.W. 2 that no communication had been received from the Office of the Deputy Area Manager.Again P.W. 2 contacted P.W. 6 over the telephone and furnished this information.P.W. 6 promised to look into the records and in case an advice note had been received, he would direct further action.P.W. 6 thereafter contacted A1, the Junior Engineer, at or about 2 p.m. over the telephone and directed him to provide a casual telephone connection immediately at the residence of P.W. 2, in view of the sanction accorded by the Deputy Area Manager.It is the further case of P.W. 2 that on 29-9-1984 at or about 4 p.m., A2 contacted him at his residence and introduced himself as the Telephone Inspector.He told P.W. 2 that a telephone connection had been sanctioned to him and his visit was to inspect the place and fix the location of the telephone to be installed.A2 also informed P.W. 2 that there were complications in immediately providing a telephone connection which could be overcome, if P.W. 2 agreed to pay Rs. 300/- as bribe.In the event of the payment of the bribe amount intended for both the accused, it was possible to install the telephone even on Monday (1-10-1984).In the event of non-payment of bribe as demanded, there was bound to be delay installing the casual telephone connection.A2 also informed P.W. 2 that both he and A1 intended to meet P.W. 2 at his residence at 12 noon on 1-10-1984 when the telephone connection would be given and that P.W. 2 should keep Rs. 300/- ready for payment as demanded.The evidence of P.W. 2 does not indicate his re-action to the deemed made by A2 and his part of the conversation with the latter.P.W. 2 was unwilling to pay any bribe to the accused as demanded and, therefore, at 9.15 a.m. on 1-10-1984 he went to the C.B.I. Office and met the Superintendent of Police (not examined).The Superintendent of Police directed P.W. 5 Y. Chelladurai, Inspector of Police S.P.E., C.B.I., Madras, to take necessary action forthwith.P.W. 5 questioned P.W. 2 with regard to Ex. P. 4, the complaint preferred by him.On being questioned by P.W. 5, P.W. 2 agreed to co-operate with the investigation.P.W. 5 directed P.W. 2 to get Rs. 300/- and come back to his office within 20 or 25 minutes.After P.W. 2 left, P.W. 5 made arrangement to get at P.W. 3, a lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Director of Inspection, situated at Shastri Bhavan and Raman (not examined) a cashier in the Office of the Joint Director of Field Publicity, situated in Shastri Bhavan.P.W. 5 contacted his informants over the telephone and enquired about the antecedents of the accused.At or about 10 a.m. P.W. 3 and Raman met P.W. 5 at his Office.Sometime later P.W. 2 also joined them.P.W. 5 introduced P.W. 2 to P.W. 3 and Raman.The sum of Rs. 300/- was in the denomination of two hundred rupee notes, one fifty rupee note, one twenty rupee note and three ten rupee notes.P.W. 5 noted the number of the currency, which are M.Os.P.W. 5 smeared phenolpthelin powder on both sides of the currency notes and gave them to Raman (not examined) and asked him to count the notes.P.W. 5 asked Raman to dip his fingers in the Sodium Carbonate solution kept ready in a glass tumbler.When Raman did so, the liquid which was colourless, turned pink.P.W. 3 was directed to accompany P.W. 2 and observe all the happenings.A mahazar Ex. P. 5 was prepared incorporating all these details and the number of the currency notes M.Os.On the directions of P.W. 5, P.Ws. 2 and 3 went in advance on motor cycle to the house of the former.A little later P.W. 5 along with other Officers and Raman went over to the house of P.W. 2 in a police van.When P.Ws. 2 and 3 reached the residence of P.W. 2 at or about 11.30 a.m. they found 4 or 5 lineman already engaged in the work of providing a telephone connection.P.W. 5 and others hid themselves at some distance.By about 12 noon the linemen had finished their job.A1 went over to the toilet and A2 started reading the newspaper.A little later A1 returned to the hall.A1 had a handkerchief in his hand.A1 asked P.W. 2 to give the money.P.W. 2 told A1 that A2 had asked for Rs. 300/- and that A1 must accept Rs. 200/-.After counting, A1 kept the currency notes in his right hand along with kerchief, M.O.B. P.W. 2 after passing off the currency notes to A1, gave the pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with his kerchief.Immediately P.W. 5 and his party entered the hall.P.W. 5 introduced himself as well as Raman to both the accused.He questioned the first accused as to whether he had received "the money".On hearing this question, A1 appeared to shiver out of panic.P.W. 2 was sent out of the hall.P.W. 5 then prepared Sodium Carbonate solution and directed A-1 to dip his right hand fingers in it.A-1 on doing so, the colourless solution turned pink.The change in colouration was pointed out to the witnesses and the accused and the liquid was poured into two clean glass bottles which were closed, sealed and stamped.The signatures of the witnesses were also taken on the bottles.P.W. 5 asked A-1 to produce the money to which he replied that the money was on the table.P.W. 5 seized M.Os.For a third time Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared in which M.O. 8 the kercheef of A-1 was dipped.The solution turned pink and the liquid was poured into two clean bottles, as done earlier, and were closed, scaled and stamped.P. 7 and P. 8 contain the specimen impression of the seal used, in which the signatures of the witnesses were also obtained.Later A-1 was searched.He had in his possession a railway season ticket, a bunch of keys and Rs. 265.45 in cash.These articles were returned to A-1. A-2 was then searched.He had in his possession an identification card a key bunch, a money purse, a comb and Rs. 232/- in cash, which were all returned to him.P.W. 2 was later directed to come inside the hall.He was searched and sent away.Copies of P. 9 were given to both the accused and their acknowledgments were obtained.P.W. 5 contacted P.W. 6, the Assistant Engineer and directed him to keep certain documents in safe custody.The House search of both the accused did not yield anything incriminating.Later the accused were left in their respective houses.P.W. 3 K. G. Ramachandran, who accompanied P.W. 2 and who is an attestor to Exs.P. 5 and P. 9 has deposed about all the events in detail.He scrutinised the documents and on 19-10-1984 gave a requisition Ex. P. 15 to the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras for sending M.Os.9, 11 and 13 for chemical analysis.On 24-10-1984 he visited the house of P.W. 2 and examined him.He inspected the spot where the trap was laid.On 16-11-1984 he examined P.W. 5 and another.On 2-1-1985 he examined P.W. 6 and collected from him certain documents including Exs.On 3-1-1985 P.W. 7 examined the persons mentioned in Ex. P. 16 and learnt that they did not attend to that particular work.P.W. 7 scrutinised Ex. P. 6 and found that Venkatesan did not attend to the work mentioned in the slip.He was also directed to get in touch with the Assistant Engineer, Mambalam Exchange External, for further details.P.W. 6 has deposed that at or about 1 p.m. on 29-9-1984 one Murugesan (P.W. 2) contacted him over the telephone and enquired him about the allotment of a casual telephone connection in his favour.He promised to verify the records and take action, if allotment had been made.P.W. 6 has made a note of his conversation with P.W. 2 on 29-9-1984 in Ex. P. 13, which is his scribbling pad.On verification of records P.W. 6 noticed, that even on 27-9-1984 advice with regard to the temporary telephone connection for P.W. 2 had been received by his Office.The details in the advice note, Ex.When the telephone connection would be given, at which time, P.W. 2 must keep Rs. 300/- ready for payment to them, as demanded".The evidence of P.W. 2 discloses that he did not desire to give a bribe, though he has not specifically stated that he informed A-1 of his unwillingness.Ex. P. 4 narrates all details from the stage of P.W. 2 sending an application to the Deputy Area Manager, Telephones, for a casual telephone connection, leading to his contacting P.W. 6 over the telephone on the afternoon of 29-9-1984 and culminating in the visit of A-2 to his house at or about 4 p.m. when the demand for a bribe of Rs. 300/- was made on behalf of both A-2 and A-2 coupled with the promise of giving the phone connection at 12 Noon on Monday (1-10-1984) when they would go over to his house to receive the demanded bribe amount, as well.The facts plainly and crisply stated in Ex. P. 4 by P.W. 2, certainly lands assurance to his present version in Court.In the entire fabric of the version of P.W. 2, there appears to be no underlying current of truth.The evidence of P.W. 6, a responsible officer of the Mambalam Exchange External fully confirm the truth of P.W. 2's version.The next stage relates to all that had happened at the residence of P.W. 2 on the fateful morning.P.W. 2, in the company of P.W. 3, an independent witness, working as an Assistant in the Office of Director, of Inspection, Madras, reached his residence at 11-30 a.m. Four or Five linemen were engaged in giving the telephone connection.Exactly at 12 Noon, both the appellants came to the house of P.W. 2 and reached the main hall where P.Ws. 2 and 3 were seated.A-2 introduced A-1 to P.W. 2. A-1 went over to the toilet, while A-2 started perusing the newspaper.A-1 was having a kerchief in his hand.A-1 asked P.W. 2 to give the money.Soon thereafter, P.W. 2 took out Rs. 300/- from his shirt pocket and handed it over to the first appellant.A-2 suggested counting of the notes by A-1, which the latter did and kept the currency along with his kerchief in his right hand.P.W. 5 questioned A. 1 as to whether he had received money.This question of P.W. 5 shocked and stunned P.W. 2 was directed to go out and was called in again only after about an hour.The investigating officer went away latter with the accused and the witnesses.P.W. 2 has identified M.Os.1 to 7 as the currency notes handed over by him to A-1 and M.O. 8, as the kerchief possessed by A-1 at that point of time.P.W. 3 was called by P.W. 5, on the morning of 1-10-1984 to be a witness for the trap along with another Raman, not examined.He sat along with P.W. 2 in the hall.Both P.Ws. 2 and 5 have deposed about the phenolphthalein test administered on A-1, proving positive; but, as stated earlier, the receipt of money having been accepted, this test may be of no consequence in this case.He had noticed A-1 receiving currency from P.W. 2 and retaining it in his right hand along with the handkerchief.He has also deposed about the state of shock in which A-1 was found on being questioned.The currency notes were recovered from the nearby table where A-1 told, that the money had been placed.D.W. 3 is a Mazdoor working in the Mambalam Exchange External.He went along with five workmen to the house of P.W. 2 to give connection.At or about 12 Noon both the accused came there.The work was in progress.He had also audaciously stated that he went out of the Office, without informing anyone else and he was not aware as to who was deputed to attend to this work, in his absence.He learnt only on the next day that D.W. 3 was deputed.He has conceded that he was depositing about all that had happened on the morning of 29-9-1984 for the first time in Court.According to his evidence, each ticket book would contain 5 leaves.Further, in view of the human hand not being a printing machine, allowances should have been given by the expert on the features like pen pressure, pen score, pen lifts, hesitation, quality of paper etc. As I have discussed earlier, the expert has been cross-examined and I am satisfied, that he has offered his opinion, in the background of these features and the variations pointed out by the defence between the admitted and the disputed signatures, were only natural.Mehta in his book on "Handwriting Identification and Finger prints" has stated at page 38 that the pen pressure of a forged writing is usually not smooth and it shows a varying density due to the constant interruptions in movement and speed.At pages 47, 48, 49, 51 and 52 the Author refers to the writing habits viz., (1) The movement of writing;(2) The Pen position;(3) The pen pressure;(4) The shading;(5) The relative positions of the letters;(6) The formation of the letters;(7) The alignment;(8) The spacing;(9) The variations;(10) The slant;(11) The arrangement;(12) The style;(13) The condition of the strokes;(14) The size and proportions; and (15) The general execution.Though the expert has been questioned in general on these aspects, specific passages from the Authors had not been brought to his notice to furnish him an opportunity to explain his opinion on that basis.The expert has stated in his evidence that the characteristics in the handwriting in Exs. D-3 to D-5 differed significantly from the standard handwriting, which included among other things the five categories suggested by the defence.The expert has also answered that he had noticed all the characteristics, though he had not specified them in the report.The appellants Palania Pillai and K. Rasheed Ahmed were tried in C.C. No. 11 of 1985 on the fire of the IX Additional Special Judge, Madras, for offences punishable under S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 161, I.P.C. The second appellant was charged with the aid of S. 109, I.P.C. Both the appellants were found guilty as charged and both of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. No separate sentence was imposed in respect of the offence under S. 161, I.P.C.Ex. P. 4 the complaint preferred by P.W. 2 to the Superintendent of Police C.B.I. on 1-10-1984 bears the endorsement of the Superintendent, directing P.W. 5 to register a case and take necessary action.On doing so, the liquid became pink.11 and 12 are the two bottles which contained the solution which turned pink on the second occasion.As requested by P.W. 7, M.Os. 9, 11 and 13 were sent for chemical analysis.Ex. P. 11 the report of the Chemical Examiner shows that the liquids in these bottles were phenolpthelin and sodium carbonate.P.W. 1 the Area Manager (South) Madras Telephones who is competent to remove the accused from service, on receiving a report from the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Madras after perusing the relevant documents and satisfying himself accorded sanction to prosecute both the accused.P.W. 4 is the Scientific Assistant, Grade I, Attached to the Forensic Science Department, who has deposed about Ex. P. 11, the report Analyst, having been forwarded to the Special Court.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the trial court, to afford them an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against them in evidence, they denied a major portion of the prosecution version.They stated that even on 29-9-1984 at their officer P.W. 2 agreed to give Rs. 300/- as donation to the Union Conference and in pursuance thereof on 1-10-1984, P.W. 2 himself gave the amount as donation, at his residence.They stated that they did not demand any bribe and they did not accept any money as bribe.A-1 also filed certain documents to be read as part and parcel of his statement.The accused examined D.Ws.It is his evidence that at or about 9 a.m. on 29-9-1984 P.W. 2 came to his office and was seen in conversion with A. 1 on his pointing out the latter P.W. 2 asked A. 1 if the telephone connection could be given immediately, to which A. 1 replied that if orders had been received, connection could be given forthwith.P.W. 2 insisted, that telephone connection should be given, on the same day.At that stage A. 2 who was near A. 1 asked P.W. 2 to donate to the Conference.P.W. 2 stated that he did not have funds them and accused to pay Rs. 300/- as donation, when A. 2 would go over to his house, to give telephone connection.Thereafter P.W. 2 took three donation receipts of Rs. 100/- denomination each and signed in the counter-foils.He has also deposed about A-1 having instructed him to collect from P.W. 2 the donation amount promised, in the event of the latter giving It to him.The trial court, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed before it by the prosecution and the defence, accepted the prosecution case, rejected the defence version and convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated earlier.D. 3 to D. 5 the onus was on the prosecution to disprove that possibility by examining a Handwriting Expert.He would also point out that P.W. 3 had not deposed about the demand made by A. 2 on 1-10-1984 and this coupled with non-recovery of any money from A-2 would be sufficient to exculpate him from the crime.Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai, submitted that the installation of the telephone was done and the work completed even before the money was paid and the last act of giving connection alone remained and for all practical purposes, the work had reached a point beyond recall and, therefore, the ingredients of the offence were not attracted.1 to 3 are Government servants and their evidence cannot be discarded merely because they worked in the same Department, as the appellants.The appellants having gone to the house of P.W. 2 at or about 12 Noon on 1-10-1984, was a powerful circumstance, which strongly corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2 since in Ex.P. 4, the earliest document.P.W. 2 has stated that A. 2 had informed him that he in the company of A. 1 would go over to his residence at or about 12 Noon on Monday (1-10-1984) to receive the demanded amount and simultaneously give the phone connection.He pleaded for rejection of Exs. D. 1 to D. 5, since they had not been proved by the persons, who had maintained them, while supporting the reasons given by the trial Judge, for rejection of those documents, as sustainable.Both the counsel referred to the Law laid down by the Supreme Court, which will be referred to at the relevant context.After the arguments were concluded on 6-10-1989 and judgment was reserved, on my careful comparison of the signatures of P.W. 2 found in Exs.D. 3 to D. 5 (disputed) and his admitted signatures in Exs.On 13-12-1989 the Expert was examined in Court and both the parties were afforded an opportunity to question the Expert.The disputed signatures in Exs. D-3 to D-5 were marked by him as Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3 respectively.The deposition itself was marked as Ex. C-1 before this Court.Accordingly, at 12 Noon on 29-9-1984, P.W. 2 got in touch with P.W. 6 over the telephone.The workmen, after finishing their work, went out of the house of P.W. 2 at or about 12 Noon.P.W. 5 was seated in the outer verandah near the window.At or about 12 Noon both the appellants came inside of the house of P.W. 2 and sat in the hall.A-2 introduced A-1 to P.W. 2 and started perusing the newspaper, while A-1 went to the toilet.A. 1, when he returned from the toilet, had with him a kerchief.P.W. 2 served tea.Till this portion the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 fully tally.However, according to P.W. 3, both the accused asked P.W. 2 to hand over the money P.W. 2 bargained for the reduction of the demand from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 200/- A-1 replied as follows : "the quantum had already been decided.We will share this amount.We have to leave the place soon after getting the amount from you".At the instance of A-2, A-1 counted the money and kept it along with his kerchief.On the signal made by P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and Raman came inside and questioned the accused.On being questioned, the first appellant was in a state of shock.While according to P.W. 2, A-1 made the demand and when questioned about the quantum he wanted to be paid as suggested by A-2 and further the bargain to reduce, not having fructified, in that A-1 told P.W. 2 that the amount stipulated by A-2 had to be paid, P.W. 2 offered the bribe amount of Rs. 300/-.It is obvious that there is divergence in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 with regard to the actual words spoken as well as the demand being unilateral or joint.It is seen from the cross-examination of P.Ws. 3 and 7 that the former had not stated during investigation that both the accused demanded money from P.W. 2 and that A-1 asked P.W. 2 to give money, as already agreed, since he and A-2 would share the said money.Human memory being frail, these minute details, which do not strike at the root of the prosecution case, will not be sufficient to throw out the version of P.W. 2, as incredible.As I have observed earlier, since payment had been accepted by the accused, all that needs consideration is, whether the payment was a bribe made on demand, or a mere passing of money by P.W. 2 as a donation.I am satisfied that the main facet of the prosecution case that in pursuance of the demand made by A-2 on 29-9-1984, both the accused had reached the house of P.W. 2 at or about 12 Noon on 1-10-1984, must be true and be it by A-1 or A-2, a demand had been made from P.W. 2 for the payment of bribe, in pursuance of a prior understanding between both the accused.P.W. 2 served tea for all of them.D.W. 3 was standing near the compound at that time, and noticed the aforesaid payment from there.He was only asked to take the money in the event of P.W. 2 offering it.He has frankly admitted that he was deposing about this fact for the first time in Court on 25-9-1985, more than a year after the occurrence.It is patent from the evidence of P.W. 7 that D.W. 3 was examined during investigation and the investigation disclosed that D.W. 3 was not present in the hall when the money was tendered.Further the admission of D.W. 3 that he was deposing about the happenings inside the hall of P.W. 2's house, for the first time in Court would certainly show that he was trotting out a story, which he did not choose of divulge during investigation.I reject the evidence of D.W. 3, as an absolute afterthought.The prosecution evidence certainly appears to merit acceptance.Now, the defence evidence has to be considered from two different angles.The first approach will be to note, if any dent has been caused by the defence in the case put forth by the prosecution and secondly if on the inherent merits of its case, the defence had established by preponderance of probability, that its case was acceptable, to cast a suspicion on the basic truth of the prosecution case.The evidence of D.W. 3, has already been discussed and rejected.D.W. 1 is a Junior Engineer in the Mambalam External Unit.According to him, in the Telephone Department there are three branches.The first is the Exchange itself, otherwise described as internal.The second is the external or the outdoor unit.The final unit is called the cables.All the three units, in this prosecution, relate to Mambalam Division.These three units operate from different places.The external or outdoor unit is concerned with the maintenance of the telephone lines from the distribution point to the subscriber's point, as well as giving new telephone connections.The movements of the employees of the outdoor unit, like the Phone Inspector, Linemen and Technicians, will be entered in the tell-tale sheet.After a perusal of Ex. D-1 relating to 29-9-1984, D.W. 1 has deposed, that between 3-45 p.m. and 4-25 p.m. on 29-9-1984, A-2 was in the external unit, in the Office itself.D.W. 1 has been cross-examined in extenso by the prosecution.Two phone Inspectors were in charge of the entries and one of them was Bhaskaran.The entries have been made in Ex. D-1 in respect of A-2, by One Inspector in the forenoon and another in the afternoon.D.W. 1 was certain that he had seen Ex. D-1 for the first time in Court.There was no indication in Ex. D-1, of its having been verified by higher authorities, in the regular course of business.At the relevant time, the authority, who had the supervisory power with regard to Ex. D-1, was the first appellant.He admits that he was subordinate to A-1 and P.W. 6 was their higher authority.To a specific suggestion that the entries in Ex. D-1 would be made, only when people go out of the unit, he had answered that it was not so.Before we scrutinise the entries in Exs. D-1 and D-2, it will be relevant to refer to the evidence of P.W. 6 regarding tell-tale sheets.He has deposed that the words "O.D." indicate out door.According to him, the tell-tale sheet will contain entries as to the time when the linemen and inspectors had talked over the phone and the place from which they had conversed.He was not aware as to when exactly, in the tell-tale sheet, the letters "O.D." would be incorporated.However, he has specifically denied the suggestion made by the accused, that the letters "O.D." would show that the employee, working in the unit was inside the office itself.A perusal of the Exchange tell-tale sheet shows, that there is a column, christened as fault particulars.This relates to particular telephone numbers, the time when the fault-complaint was given, the time when it was cleared and the actual clearance time itself, All these details may have to be incorporated, in that column.The last column has the heading "clearance".The very details found in print, in the tell-tale sheet, would show that the particulars to he noted, may have to relate to the outdoor work and normally cannot be correlated to the indoor work.Looking at the tell-tale sheet and considering the evidence of P.W. 6 and D.W. 1, it appears that the evidence of P.W. 6 deserves full credence in the light of the contents of Ex. D-1, and the evidence of D.W. 1 has to be rejected as untrue.It is rather strange that only for the entries made in respect of A-2, the letters "O.D." are written in ink; whereas for the other employees, it has not been so noted.This is one more factor which even prima facie creates a suspicion of fabrication, especially when we take note of the fact, admitted by D.W. 1, that A-1 was the supervisory authority, with regard to this document.Serial Nos. 30, 34, 35 and 36 are stated to relate to the second accused, whose name is K. Rasheed Ahmed.Against serial No. 36, the time noted is 4-25 p.m. Prima facie it appeared, that this document had been maintained in the regular course of business, though this document did not indicate that at the relevant timings noted therein, the persons concerned must be presumed to have worked inside the office itself.However, a careful scrutiny of this document creates a substantial doubt about the truth of the entries.However, on the right hand side after serial No. 35, we have serial No. 32 noted against some other person at 3-50 p.m. It is, therefore, apparent that after item 31 on the left hand side on 29-9-1984 at 3-45 p.m. there was no other entry.The next entry No. 32 at 3-50 p.m. had been made on the right hand side.To provide a defence, it appears that serial Nos. 32, 33 and 34, on the left side and 35 and 36 on the right side have been purposely entered in this document.If it were not to be so, it will be very difficult to have serial Nos. 32 in between 35 and 36 on the right hand side.The interlineation in this document is so patent, that with an ulterior motive of setting up a defence, this document had been tampered with and so suit Ex. D-2, obviously D-1 also had been brought into existence.This entry relating to item 30 appears to be real and only thereafter, as put forth by the prosecution, A-2 had got in touch with P.W. 2 at the latter's residence.If it could thus be safely concluded that A-2 had met P.W. 2 on 29-9-1984, though disclaimed by the former, the prosecution case of demand certainly deserves credence.I further hold that Ex. D-1 and certain entries in Ex. D-2 have been created for the purpose of shaping the defence.The evidence of D.W. 2, who is a wire man and the subordinate of A-1 will have to be next considered.Exs. D-3 to D-5 are sought to be proved through him.It is his evidence that at or about 9 a.m. on 29-9-1984, P.W. 2 was at his office, stating that a telephone connection had been allotted to him by the Area Manager and was anxious to find out if that connection could be given, on the same day.He expressed a desire to meet the Assistant Engineer (P.W. 6).D.W. 2, who learnt, that the area where P.W. 2 lived, was within the jurisdiction of the Junior Engineer (A-1), informed the said fact to the latter.Both the accused were then available in the Office along with another Junior Engineer, Iswaran, not examined.P.W. 2 immediately went over to A-1 and asked him if the telephone connection could be given immediately.A-1 is stated to have replied that if there was an order for telephone connection, it could immediately be executed.When P.W. 2 wanted the connection to be given on the same day, A-2, who was near A-1, told P.W. 2 that he had to give a donation for their Conference, which was being organised.According to D.W. 2, P.W. 2 replied that he had no funds then and would make the payment when they go over to this house for installing the telephone.Three donation receipts for Rs. 100/- each were given to P.W. 2, who signed on the counterfoils.Both the accused assured him that if an order had been received, they would give connection immediately.P.W. 2 thereafter left the office.He was not aware, in whose custody the book containing Exs. D-3 to D-5 had been handed over.A suggestion put to him, that P.W. 2 did not affix his signatures in Exs. D-3 to D-5, was denied.P.W. 2 has been extensively questioned on this portion of the defence case.He has categorically denied that the signatures found in Exs. D-3 to D-5 were his.The evidence of P.W. 2 certainly must be true for if as stated by the accused he had already met them at or about 9 a.m. on 29-9-1984 and told D.W. 2, that already a telephone connection in his favour had been ordered by the Area Manager, there was no need for him to have contacted P.W. 6 to find out the position regarding his application.As soon as he knew from the Office of the Area Manager, that allotment had been made, he had got in touch with P.W. 6 once at 12 Noon and again at 1 p.m., as suggested by the Office of the Area Manager.That the evidence of P.W. 2 must be true is further strengthened by the evidence of P.W. 6 that he had informed A-1 over the telephone at 2 p.m. on 29-9-1984 about the allotment of a telephone connection to P.W. 2 with a direction to him to take further action.The statement of A-1 that he was so informed by P.W. 6 only at 4-30 p.m. cannot be accepted.If the prosecution case of A-2 having met P.W. 2 at 4 p.m. on 29-9-1984 is acceptable, as already found, the case of A-1, as though he knew about this telephone connection only at 4-30 p.m. is not entitled to acceptance.A-1 had stated that be made a demand from P.W. 2 for donation of Rs. 300/- for the Union Conference, which was readily acceded to by the latter.Thereafter A-2 wrote the name of P.W. 2 in three tickets, which fact was known to D.W. 2 and Iswaran, not examined.P.W. 2 told him that he would pay later.When the telephone connection was to be given.He directed A-2 to carry out the work relating to P.W. 2's telephone on the next day.He also directed D.W. 3, who went for work in P.W. 2's house, to collect the donation.Then he admits having received Rs. 300/- from P.W. 2 which was a donation and not bribe.The very visit of A-1 and A-2 at 12 Noon on 1-10-1984 taken in conjunction with the averments in Ex. P. 4, confirmed, by the substantive evidence of P.W. 2 in Court, leads to the only conclusion, that in pursuance of the demand made by A-2 for a bribe on 29-9-1984, both the appellants went to the house of P.W. 2 at 12 Noon on 1-10-1984, and accepted it.It may not be possible generally, to reject the defence only because it was inconsistent, but when the defence was palpably false, in the background of onus cast on them, these conclusions become inevitable.The way in which the first four letter "Muru" have been written in D-3 to D-5 portrays a mechanical immitation.Even the first letter 'S' is patently at variance, so also the penultimate letter 'A', and the letter 'g'. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
115,101,829 | The version as set up by the prosecution is that on 31.03.1998 one 'M' (name undisclosed) at about 12 noon (aged about 13 years) was attending to her household chores along with her mother.Accused Sajjan Lal who was residing in their neighbourhood reached there. 'M' enquired from him whether he had a newspaper to which he replied that he would ascertain the same from Ashok.'M' accompanied accused Sajjan to the house of Ashok where as soon as she reached there accused Ashok closed the door of the room and committed rape upon her.The co-accused Sajjan Lal also raped her.The act was repeated.While doing so, her mouth was gagged.Blood was also oozing out from her private part; she reached home.On inquiry by her mother, the incident was revealed to her.She was aged 12 years on the date of her deposition and under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act there is no bar on the age of the deposition of the witness; the only condition being that the witness must be able to understand the import of what she so states on oath.PW-4 has specifically stated that at about 12.00 Noon on the fateful day when she was sitting at their shop the accused Sajjan came to the shop and on her enquiry as to whether he had a newspaper he took her to the house of Ashok where she was raped by both Ashok and the appellant.The sole accused had been convicted for the offence under Section 376 read with Sections 365 & 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).He had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.For the offence under Section 365 of the Crl.Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 1 of 8 IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and for the offence under Section 342 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 1 of 8Matter was then reported to the police and the aforenoted FIR was registered.Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 2 of 8Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 2 of 8Upon investigation, chargesheet was filed.Co-accused Ashok was found to be a juvenile and was tried under the Juvenile Justice Act before the Juvenile Court.Charge under Sections 376/365/342/34 of the IPC was framed against the accused.She has reiterated her version as set up by the prosecution.On oath she has deposed that accused Sajjan had taken her to the house of accused Ashok and after striping her clothes, he committed rape upon her along with the co-accused Ashok; she started bleeding from her private parts; her underwear was taken into possession.In her cross- examination, she has stated that accused Sajjan was known to her two months prior to the date of the incident and his house was also known to her.She has admitted that although she cannot read a newspaper but the newspaper was needed by her to spread it in the almirahas; she denied the suggestion that accused persons had not committed rape upon her.She was the complainant; her version is also that accused Sajjan was known to them being in their neighbourhood i.e. in the house opposite to their house Crl.Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 3 of 8 and he often used to purchase goods from them on credit.She denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated.Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 3 of 8The rukka Ex. PW-7/A was prepared and the FIR Ex. PW-7/B was registered on the same day.The hymen was found torn and bruised but no bleeding was present at the time of examination.No sign of external injury was noted.PW-3 Dr. V.K. Jain had medically examined the accused; he had reported that there was nothing to suggest that accused was incompetent to have sex.On behalf of the appellant it has been argued that the MLC has named only Ashok and name of Sajjan does not appear in the MLC; the incident had occurred at 12.00 Noon when admittedly the prosecutrix used to be in school between 7.00 AM to 1.00 PM.There is no report of the CFSL; the age of the victim has also not been verified.Submission is that the appellant has been falsely implicated for the reason that money was owed by the appellant to the mother of the prosecutrix and they having had an altercation some time ago on this point the accused has been falsely embroiled and to substantiate this submission attention Crl.Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 4 of 8 has been drawn to cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-4 where suggestion to this effect had been given by the learned defence counsel.Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 4 of 8Arguments have been countered.She was bleeding from her private parts; she came back home where her mother noticed her weeping and a police complaint was lodged.The record shows that Rukka was taken at 6.00 PM on the same day and the FIR was registered thereafter.The statement of the prosecutirix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/A was also got recorded on the following day i.e. 01.4.1998 wherein the same role i.e. that the accused Sajjan Lal Crl.Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 5 of 8 and Ashok Kumar had committed rape upon her person had been attributed.This was after a specific inquiry made by the learned Magistrate (PW1) that the witness was capable of understanding the questions put to her and she was in a fit state of mind to give the said statement.This version of PW-4 (Ex.PW1/A) was reaffirmed by her deposition on oath.Although a suggestion has been given to the witness that there were some money dealing of the accused Sajjan Lal with the mother of PW-4 but the same had been vehemently denied.She has stated that she had come home from school early as she had not paid the fee for which her teacher had sent her home; this version was also corroborated by PW-5Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 5 of 8She had four children.She had deposed that on the fateful day at about 12.00 Noon she saw her daughter was crying; she appeared frightened; there was blood on her legs.On inquiry, a complaint was lodged with the police.She had also denied the suggestion that because of an altercation with Sajjan 10-12 days prior to the incident he was falsely framed in this case.Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 6 of 8The MLC Ex.PW-2/A reflects the history of rape by two boys one of whom was identified as Ashok Kumar.Hymen was bruised at 4'O clock position and torn at 5'O clock position.Bleeding was also noted.Bleeding was also noticed; history charts also refer to the incident where the name of co-accused Ashok has specifically been mentioned.The history chart details a rape committed upon the victim by two persons.Prosecution in view of this ocular testimony of PW4 corroborated by the version of her mother as also the medical evidence has been able to establish its case to the hilt.There was no reason for the accused persons to have been falsely implicated.The conviction calls for no interference.Section 376 of the IPC prescribes a minimum punishment for rape which shall not be less than seven years but may extend for life or to 10 years and the convict shall also be liable to pay fine.The victim, even as per the case of the prosecution, is between 13 to 14 years of age.The Crl.Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 7 of 8 sentence inflicted upon the accused is the minimum sentence.It calls for no interference.Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 7 of 8This Court has been informed that the convict has already undergone some part of his sentence as an under trial.Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. be granted to him.The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.Appeal No. 162/2000 Page 8 of 8 | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
115,104,092 | BAIL APPLN.1142/2020 Page 1 of 10He has informed that one BAIL APPLN.1142/2020 Page 2 of 10 inmate was admitted in DDU Hospital on 10.05.2020 for intestinal problem where he was operated.It is also submitted by DG (Prisons) that before being admitted to DDU Hospital, this inmate, namely "K" was sharing barrack with 19 other inmates, all of whom along with five jail staff were tested for COVID-19 (Novel Corona Virus).He informed that as per the report received, 15 inmates and one staff have been found to be COVID-19 positive.BAIL APPLN.1142/2020 Page 2 of 10In view of this situation vide his letter dated 16.05.2020, DG (Prisons) has requested that the criteria adopted earlier needs to be relaxed so as to further decongest the jails as still the present occupancy of the Jail exceeds the optimum capacity of the Jail.(vi) Female Under trial prisoners (above 60 years of age) facing trial in a case except the ones excluded hereunder and are in jail for more than six months with no involvement in any other case;It has further been resolved that following category of UTPs, even if falling in the above criterion or the criteria adopted in the earlier Meetings, should not be considered :-(i) Those inmates who are undergoing trial for intermediary/ large quantity recovery under NDPS Act;(ii) Those under trial prisoners who are facing trial under Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act;(iii) Those under trial prisoners who are facing trial for offences under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D and 376E and Acid Attack;(iv) Those UTPs who are foreign nationals;(v) Those under trial prisoners who are facing trial under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) / PMLA, MCOCA ;The status report reiterates the allegation against the applicant and asseverates, further, that the father of the applicant had returned to Delhi, consequent to the relaxation of lockdown and that the applicant has two brothers and two sisters, who are perfectly capable of looking after the mother of the applicant.Regarding the mother of the applicant, it is asserted, in the status report, that she was admitted in hospital on 31 st May, 2020 with acute gastroenteritis and was discharged on 1 st June, 2020, and has not been recommended surgery.The nominal roll of the applicant states that his conduct, during incarceration, was unsatisfactory.However, Annexure-A to the nominal roll reads thus:1. 18.02.2017 As Per Kalandra attached/received from Tis Hazari Courts vide DD No. 15-A dated 18.02.2017 it has been reported that above said UTP had taken one packet tobacco make BAIL APPLN.1142/2020 Page 5 of 10 (Kuber) from his relative/friends during the time of his production in Court.Moreover, the recommendations are only for the purpose of interim bail of 45 days, and have been issued in general public interest.The applicant, unquestionably, has suffered incarceration far in excess of the two year-limit, stipulated in the recommendations, as he BAIL APPLN.This matter has been taken up for hearing by video- conferencing.This is an application for regular bail.The applicant was arrested on 12th April, 2016, consequent on lodging of FIR 326/2016, and charged with commission of offences under Section 302/307/452/147/148/149 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).The applicant is in judicial custody since 12 th April, 2016, i.e. for exactly four years and two months, as on date.On directions of Hon'ble Chairpersons, DG (Prisons) was requested to furnish the information, for the impact analysis qua the proposed relaxed criteria of UTPs.BAIL APPLN.1142/2020 Page 3 of 10(iv) Under trial prisoners (UTPs) facing trial/remand prisoners in Theft cases and are in jail for more than 15 days;(vi) Cases investigated by CBI/ED/NIA/Special Cell of Delhi Police, Crime Branch, SFIO, Terror related Cases, Riot cases, cases under Anti-National Activities and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act etc."Mr. Thakur points out that his client falls within category (i) in the categories of prisoners who, according to the above recommendations, may be considered for grant of 45 days' interim bail, on personal bond, namely, "under trial prisoners (UTPs) facing trial for a case under Section 302 IPC (who) are in jail for more than BAIL APPLN.1142/2020 Page 4 of 10 two years with no involvement in any other case".BAIL APPLN.1142/2020 Page 4 of 10Consequent to issuance of notice, a status report, dated 4th June, 2020, has been filed by the SHO, PS Vikas Puri, Delhi.BAIL APPLN.1142/2020 Page 7 of 10Insofar as the nominal roll of the applicant is concerned, though his conduct, during incarceration, is stated to be unsatisfactory, that is only case he was found to have taken one packet of tobacco from a visiting relative.(ii) he has suffered incarceration for four years and two months, as on date, and(iii) the reference, to his "unsatisfactory" conduct during incarceration, as contained in his Nominal Roll, is restricted to the two allegations set out in Annexure A thereto, which, in my opinion, do not serve to discountenance the applicant's prayer for interim bail.In view thereof, the application is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on interim bail for a period of 45 days, from the date of his release, on submission of a personal bond in the sum of 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent, Delhi, with directions that he shall not leave the city of Delhi, shall not tamper with the evidence, shall conduct himself, at all times, legally and with due propriety, and shall surrender before the jail authorities on the expiry of 45 days.1142/2020 Page 9 of 10The application is disposed of.Copy of this judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court as soon as possible, and also be forwarded to the counsel for the parties via email.The Registry/Court Master is also directed to ensure that a copy of this judgement is forwarded to the Jail Superintendent under whose custody the applicant is incarcerated, by e-mail and/or Special Messenger, for due compliance.C. HARI SHANKAR, J.JUNE 11, 2020 dsn BAIL APPLN.1142/2020 Page 10 of 10BAIL APPLN.1142/2020 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
115,104,186 | Appeal is already admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No. 7441/19, an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of the appellants.Vide judgement dated 27.03.2019 passed in S.T. No. 15/2014, the appellants have been convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of rupees 1000/- each also with default stipulation.According to case, on 27.11.2013, complainant-Bhupendra Singh has lodged the report in police station Simariya stating that he went to see farm then one Jogendra Singh informed him through phone that accused-Ravendra, Botu@Arvind and their companion have assaulted his uncle Krishnapal Singh.He reached on the spot and saw his injured uncle.On asking, victim stated that due to some dispute regarding irrigation, appellants along with one co-accused Dhirendra have assaulted him with wooden stick and cudgel.Before assaulting victim of this case, appellants have also assaulted the Chali Raja and Rajjan.While arguing on application for suspension of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated in the case.The learned trial court erred in convicting the appellants whereas there is no cogent evidence is available in the case against them.He further submits that initially police has registered the case for the offence under sections 323, 239, 506-B, and 34 IPC, but after investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under sections 307 and 324 IPC.There is material contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses, but trial Court did not consider the same and passed the order of conviction.There is much possibility to get success in the appeal.Apart from that appellants are young persons and if they not release on bail, their future would be spoiled and purpose for filing this appeal would also be frustrated.He prays for allowing this application.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submission of appellant's counsel.Heard and peruse the record.On perusal of record, it reflects that the allegation which found proved against the appellants is that on the day of incident appellants were armed with deadly weapon and with the intention to kill the victim, they assaulted him.The trial Court has framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323(2-counts), 294 and 506(2-counts) of IPC but they have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC only.Further it appears that the trial Court has examined as many as 18 prosecution witnesses and out of them 7 witnesses have turned hostile.Appellants are in jail since the date of judgement and Appellant No. 1 has suffered about 8 months jail sentence period whereas appellants No. 2 and 3 have suffered approximate 6 months.In the case, statement of Dr. Amit Mishra (PW-16) is important and he has deposed about the injuries caused on the body of victim and opined that the injuries caused to victim is grievous in nature and danger to his life.Further, after considering the statements of witnesses namely Bhupendra Singh (PW-3), Victim Krishnpal (PW-14), Rajjan Prajapati (PW-18) and others, at this stage it is not a fit case to suspend the jail sentence of appellants.Accordingly, this I.A. No. 7441/19 is dismissed. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
1,151,112 | JUDGMENT R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.This is Criminal Writ Petition for quashing certain criminal proceedings.Heard both the sides.On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Employees' State Insurance Corporation controverted these two arguments and contended that the prosecution against the petitioners is perfectly maintainable and there is no merit in the petition.The petitioners are Directors of a Public Limited Company namely, the Phoenix Mills Limited.In the two complaints which are subject matter of the prosecution of the petitioners, the names of accused persons are shown. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
115,111,730 | Even the sanctions of the society or its reaction to such relationship or what people will say or think and how her children would face their friends, adverse effect on the marriage prospects of her two grown-up daughters, nothing could stop the appellant to desert her family so that she could live only for and with Surender Singh (deceased).The appellant before us was settled in her matrimonial home consisting of her husband and four grown up children, before falling in CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 1 of 36 love with Surender Singh, who was not only unmarried but much younger to her.The deceased Surender Singh was brother of her Nandoi.The close relationship and family ties provided her the opportunity to meet him and this relationship nurtured during their frequent trips to Singapore and other foreign countries visited by them to import goods to India for sale.When the 'love' between the two became known to the family members of both the sides, it met with opposition.At that stage, she preferred to walk out and break all family ties to live separately so that there is no surveillance on them and they could live for each other in their own world.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 1 of 36However, the destiny had something else in store for them.The appellant is before us for committing the murder of the person in whose love she just walked out of the marriage and left everything.Not only that, she also filed a divorce petition to clear her way to marry the deceased.What an irony! Surender Singh met his end at the hands of the lady who loved him more than anyone else in the world.The rage appeared to be such that it was not satisfied by just killing.She, despite being follower of 'Sikh' religion and the deceased also a 'Sikh', shaved his head and beard and cut the body into pieces.None could anticipate such a tragic end of this love story.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 2 of 36The prosecution case unfolds with recording of DD No.4A dated 13.08.1988 at Police Station Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.On that day, Shri Joginder Singh, cousin of the deceased informed the police that he along with his cousin Inder Vir Singh had visited the Flat No.127, Income Tax Colony in search of Surender Singh.Smt. Baljeet Kaur present in that flat informed about presence of parts of human body in that flat which he had come to inform, for necessary action.The DD entry was handed over to Inspector Jagjit Singh, SHO, who along with staff made departure entry in the official vehicle No.When the SHO along with staff reached the flat of Baljeet Kaur, he met Inder Vir Singh and Baljeet Kaur and presence of two human hands in the kitchen was also noticed, which were identified by Inder Vir Singh to be that of his brother Surender Singh.Foul smell was emitting from the flat.Inder Vir Singh made statement (Ex.PW-6/B) stating about the illicit relations between his brother Surender Singh and Baljeet Kaur for about four years prior to that and that his brother left home on 10.08.1988 at about 6 PM informing that CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 3 of 36 he was visiting Baljeet Kaur at her house in Pitam Pura and would return by next day.When he failed to return, he went along with his cousin Joginder Singh in search of Surender Singh.On opening of the door by Baljeet Kaur, foul smell was noticed and on enquiry by him about his brother Surender Singh, she informed that Surender Singh had killed and cut into pieces some person in her absence and thrown the pieces in the house and left for some unknown place.She also informed that she herself was disturbed and sought his help.Thereafter, he sent Joginder Singh to inform the police and waited for arrival of police at the place.After arrival of the police on noticing the two human hands, one of which was clearly visible from the bag in which the hands were kept.He identified them to be of his brother Surender Singh.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 3 of 36After making endorsement (Ex.PW-25/A) on the statement (Ex.PW-6/B), the rukka was sent for registration of the case, on the basis of which FIR No.32/1988 under Section 302/201 IPC was registered.During the course of investigation, pieces of human body were also recovered from a trunk, but the legs were missing.The matter was investigated and crime team was also called.Spot was got photographed and incriminating articles were seized.On a day prior i.e. on 12.08.1988 vide DD No.7A (Ex.PW- 13/A) at Police Station Patel Nagar information was received at 6:40 AM about legs of human being lying there.The DD was handed over to ASI Puran Giri, who along with Ct.Jagdish left for the spot and after reaching there found left leg lying there and in the meantime another leg was also informed to be lying at the back side of premises CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 4 of 36 No.22/18, West Patel Nagar in a polythene bag and on checking it was found to be right leg.After making endorsement to the effect that somebody has been murdered and in order to destroy the evidence, the legs have been thrown there, the endorsement on DD Ex.PW13/A was sent for registration of FIR No.277/88 under Section 302/201 IPC at Police Station Patel Nagar.All the Police Stations were informed about the recovery of two legs and the same were also sent for getting the post mortem conducted which was done by PW-17 Dr. L.T. Ramani.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 4 of 36After the recovery of pieces of human body without legs from Flat No.127, Income Tax Colony in possession of Baljeet Kaur, the two legs recovered by the police of Police Station Patel Nagar along with remaining pieces of bodies recovered from 127, Income Tax Colony were sent for post mortem which was conducted by PW-3 Dr. Bharat Singh and as per postmortem report Ex.PW3/A, the cause of death has been given as 'asphyxia due to strangulation' and it was also confirmed that two legs recovered were the part of the same body.The appellant Baljeet Kaur was interrogated and arrested by the police in this case from the same flat.The police also recovered razor, scissor, knife, churi etc. from the flat which were used by her to remove hair from the head and face etc. of the deceased Surender Singh as well as to cut the body parts into pieces and to destroy the same.During the course of investigation, the Appellant Baljeet Kaur led the police to the house of PW-19 Jasbir Kaur, resident of 25/60, West Patel Nagar and from there she got recovered one portable T.V., one kara and two rings belonging to the deceased Surender Singh.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 5 of 36PW-7 Sh.Sanjeev Kumar and PW-20 Sh.Anupam Arya, who deal in providing VCP on hire basis, informed the police about VCP being installed at the flat No.127, Income Tax Colony by Sanjeev (PW-7) after Baljeet Kaur and one Sardarji came to their shop on 10.08.1988 in the evening for hiring the VCP.She was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to enable her to explain the circumstances appearing against her.Despite detailed statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she preferred to give 10 typed pages in reply to the last question put to her i.e. anything else she has to say, submitting that the same be read as answer to this question.She has also examined DW-1 Jaswinder Singh to prove that he met the deceased CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 6 of 36 Surender Singh at the Palam Airport in the night of 10 th August, 1988 when he had gone there to meet his brother-in-law.DW-2 Sh.Jagjit Singh, her nephew was examined by her to prove that from 10th August, 1988 till 12th August, 1988 she was residing at her sister's house and had not moved out of the house during that period.DW-2 Sh.Now, from the said evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the following chain of circumstances stands proved against the accused from which it can be reasonably concluded that it was the accused who had committed the murder of deceased Surender Singh in her flat on the night intervening 10/11.8.88:-1) That she had developed friendship with the deceased Surender Singh about 4 years back prior to the incident and used to visit foreign countries including Singapore and Hong-Kong and used to stay there with him and used to bring imported goods which used to be disposed through the shop of Surender Singh at Sadar Bazar;2) that she had deserted her husband Wariyam Singh and her four children and had been living with the deceased Surernder Singh four years prior to the incident;CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 7 of 363) that she had taken on rent the flat No.127, Income Tax Colony, Pritam Pura, Delhi about six months back from PW Ramji Lal to whom the said flat was allotted by his department through PW Virender Singh and had been residing there since February, 1988;4) that she was in sole occupation of the said flat since the date she occupied the flat;5) that the deceased Surender Singh had been visiting her in that flat off and on prior to the incident;6) that on 10.8.88 at about 6.30 PM deceased Surender Singh had left his house after telling his brother Indervir Singh and his other family members that he was going to the house of the accused and had left his house on two wheeler scooter bearing NO.DHQ-4810;Recovery of body parts:It is not in dispute that the appellant alone was occupying the flat No.127, Income Tax Colony, allotted to PW-27 Ramji Lal, a Govt. employee and let out to her through PW-5 Virender Singh.Recovery of body parts from that flat is not only proved from the photographs, but undisputedly the appellant complained of foul smell being emitting from her flat and the matter was reported to the police.From the testimony of PW-10 Inder Vir Singh and PW-11 Joginder Singh, it has been proved by the prosecution that parts of the body were recovered from the kitchen (except legs) as well as from the trunk which were identified by PW- 10 to be that of his brother Surender Singh.Recovery of body parts from the kitchen of the appellant on 13th August has also been proved CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 15 of 36 by the police officials, who reached the spot after being informed.From the testimonies of PW-4, PW-18 (public witnesses), PW- 13 ASI Pooran Singh and PW-9 SHO Vijay Pal Singh of PS Patel Nagar, it stands proved that on getting information from the public witnesses regarding lying of human legs they visited the spot and found human legs lying at some distance from each other.Medical evidence;The post mortem on the two legs recovered by police persons from Police Station Patel Nagar on 12th August, 1988 was conducted by PW-17 Dr. L.T. Ramani and vide his report Ex.PW-17/A he opined that the pair of limbs were human legs belonging to an adult male and that the time elapsed between death and postmortem examination was about 30 hours.After the recovery of remaining parts of the dead body from the flat of the appellant, the two legs recovered within the jurisdiction of police station Patel Nagar and the remaining parts were sent for post mortem which was conducted by Dr. Bharat Singh.In his detailed report (Ex.PW-3/A), he opined as under :-"Cuts on the legs below the knee joints are of similar nature i.e. soft tissues are cut in a sharp manner and bones show irregular broken ends.We can fit them on these cuts ends of both the legs, those two leg portions received earlier on 12.08.88, skin, hair and circumferences of the bones are similar."The CFSL results Ex. PW25/K and PW25/L prove that blood of group CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 16 of 36 'B' of human origin i.e. of deceased, was found on Ex.18 i.e. numerous black strands of hair; Ex.20 i.e. fleshy like material described as skin pieces; Ex.21a i.e. one wet dirty cloth piece having stains; Ex.21b i.e. two polythene bags stained with brown stains at places; and Ex.22 i.e. brown gauge cloth piece.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 16 of 36'Last seen'He has specifically stated that the appellant along with the deceased (whose photograph was identified by him at PS Shalimar Bagh visited their shop and he went to the flat of the appellant to install the VCP.The channel's knob was not working properly.It was an imported B/W T.V. He took a thread and set it in working order.In the meantime Sardarji also arrived with a plier.At that time, deceased was present in the flat of the appellant.The cassette was provided by the appellant which he inserted inside the VCP and started the VCP and TV.At that time when he left, except the appellant and one Sardarji, there was none else in that flat.He also stated that he was called at the police station where he was shown the photograph (Ex.PW-6/A) which he identified to be that of same Sardarji, who visited their shop with the appellant and at whose flat he installed the VCP.26. PW-20 Shri Anupam Arya, owner of Video Hut also deposed about the visit of the appellant with the Sardarji at his shop for hiring a CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 17 of 36 VCP for night and after some time he sent his employee Sanjeev (PW-7) for installing the same who returned after installing the same at about 9 PM.He also stated that on 11.08.1988 at about 8:30 AM, he visited the said flat to collect the VCP and after about two minutes of knocking, the door was opened by the appellant and he saw some lady suit scattered on a cot in the room and VCP was also kept on the same cot.The appellant gave him Rs.40/- as hire charges for VCP and he took the VCP and returned to his shop.On 13.08.1988, he as well as PW-7 were called at police station Shalimar Bagh where they were shown photograph (Ex.PW-6/A) which they identified to be that of same Sardarji who visited their shop along with the appellant.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 17 of 36DHQ 4810 was found registered in the name of Surender Singh s/o Shri Dharam Singh, r/o 3247, Bahadurgarh Road and this fact was confirmed from the record of Transport Authority at Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi and the date of transfer in the name of Surender Singh was recorded as 08.02.1987, he being the second owner.This scooter was seized by the IO, while it was lying parked in open garage of Income Tax Colony.Its keys have been recovered from the flat of the appellant.PW-19 Jasbir Kaur stated that on 11th (year she could not recollect), but 2 years ago (she was examined on 14.05.1991), she was present in West Patel Nagar, the appellant came to her house at about 8 or 8:30 AM with a small TV.On that night she stayed at her house claiming that she was unwell.Next day morning she handed over a packet containing gold kara and two rings with a promise to CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 21 of 36 take the same back at noon time on the same day, but she did not return thereafter.It was only on 13.08.1988 that the appellant visited her house accompanied by the police and she handed over kada, rings and TV to the police vide memo Ex.She identified TV Ex.P25, kada Ex.P26 and gold rings Ex.The contention of the appellant is that regarding foul smell CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 24 of 36 emitting from her flat was noticed by her when returned on the evening of 12.08.1988 which she brought to the notice of family of PW-5 Virender Singh who accompanied her to PP Pitam Pura.SI Reval Singh and Inspector Jagjit Singh came to the spot during night itself and on finding parts of the dead body at her flat, she was forced to identify which she could not.During that intervening night, her husband was contacted and Jasbir Kaur was also brought to the PS early in the morning which fact stands established from the testimony of PW-5 Sh.Virender Singh, PW-9 Sh.As already mentioned, apart from the answers given during her examination under Sec.313 CrPC, in reply to the last question whether she had to say anything else, she submitted ten typed pages duly signed by her stating that the same be considered as her reply to the last question.In her statement under sec.313 CrPC, she has admitted having a relationship with deceased Surender Singh due to which she walked out of her matrimonial home about four years prior to the occurrence.She also admitted having taken on rent Flat No.127, Income Tax Colony which used to be visited by deceased Surender Singh.She also admitted filing of a divorce petition by her so that after taking CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 25 of 36 divorce from PW-28 Sardar Waryam Singh, she could marry the deceased Surender Singh and dismissal of that petition in default after her arrest in this case.She also stated that there were two keys of the lock of the flat, one used to be with her and other used to be with Surender Singh.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 25 of 36Referring to the incident of 12.08.1988, she stated that when she came to her flat at about 5.00 pm, foul smell was coming from her flat and on opening, she found blood stains on the ground and some dead body pieces.She was so much shocked on seeing all this.She immediately closed the door and locked the same and went to the house of PW-5 Sh.Virender Singh where she met his wife.She continued waiting for the return of Virender Singh and when he returned at 10.00 pm, she narrated entire incident to him.PW-5 Virender Singh alongwith his mother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) accompanied her and they reached PP Pitam Pura at about 11.45 pm on 12.08.1988 itself and narrated the entire incident to SI Reval Singh- Incharge, PP Pitam Pura who accompanied them at 2.00 am to the spot.Inspector Jagjit Singh - SHO also reached the spot and lock of the door was opened by police after taking the keys from her and thereafter, the police showed her two severed arms of a dead body and other parts of the dead body were recovered from a trunk with bottom legs/feet missing, which she could not identify.It is further mentioned in this written note that at 2.00 or 2.30 am, police knocked the door of PW-1 Malivarghese and recorded her statement, took search of the house and seized all the articles lying there.Thereafter police asked her to take them to the residence of her husband at 200, Parmanand CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 26 of 36 Colony, Mukerjee Nagar from where her husband was brought to the police station.At the police station, Mohinder Kaur - sister of her husband and Harbans Singh - brother of the deceased and husband of Mohinder Kaur were found present and at about 5.30 pm, they again returned to the flat accompanied by her husband.She claimed to have been arrested at 2.30 pm on the night intervening 12.08.1988/13.08.1988 and that the SHO left the PS and returned at about 7.30 am on 13.08.1988 alongwith Jasbir Kaur who remained present in the police station throughout the day and did not produce any of the articles as claimed by the police nor she (appellant) was taken to Patel Nagar by the police.she also claimed that two rings and kada were got made by her to present Surender Singh at the time of marriage and that Surender Singh never used to wear the same.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 26 of 36She also stated that since her TV was out of order, she took the same for repair but as the shop was closed, it could not be repaired and when the TV was out of order, there was no question of asking for VCR from the Video Hut Shop.41. PW-5 Sh.Virender Singh tried to support the appellant by making improvements in his statement recorded under Sec.161 CrPC by introducing a new version of his visit to the Police Station on the night of 12.08.1988 with the appellant as well as his mother and sister- in-law (Bhabhi).It is pertinent to note here that prior to recording of DD No.4-A dated 13.08.1988, no DD entry was recorded either at PP Pitam Pura or PS Shalimar Bagh pertaining to any incident at flat No.127, Income Tax Colony.Even DD record was also summoned from PP Pitam Pura for cross examination of PW-23 SI Reval Singh CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 27 of 36 but it could not help the appellant.So it is necessary to find out whether, infact, appellant visited PP Pitam Pura on the night of 12.08.1988 accompanied by PW-5 Sh.Virender Singh and his relations.The falsity in this plea of appellant is exposed from the statement of PW-5 Sh.Virender Singh himself as while deposing before the Court, he stated that when he returned home on 12.08.1988 at about 10.30 or 11.00 pm, his wife was weeping because foul smell was coming from the flat of the deceased.First of all, foul smell can be because of any reason like, dead rat in the house or any other reason which could not be a cause for wife of PW-5 Sh.Virender Singh to cry.As per PW-5 Sh.Virender Singh, the keys of the flat were not available with the appellant and when the police accompanied them during night, they had to break open the kunda of the door.He also stated that PW-23 SI Reval Singh initially expressed his inability to visit the spot due to non-availability of any vehicle in the Chowki, then he alongwith SI Reval Singh and the appellant came in a taxi to the quarter of appellant on the same night.He omitted to mention as to how his mother and Bhabhi returned from the Chowki and from which Taxi Stand they hired the taxi.This entire story as narrated by PW-5 as to what happened during the intervening night of 12.08.1988/13.08.1988, does not find any corroboration either from the version of appellant given under Sec.313 CrPC or from the statement of PW-1 Ms. Malivarghese whose entrance door is just opposite to the entrance door of the house of the appellant in the same corridor.It is just not possible for her to remain unaware of visit of the police at midnight in the flat just opposite to her flat.PW-28 Sardar Waryam Singh - husband of the appellant though stated that about 2 years back (he was examined on 05.06.1990) his brother received information on telephone inquiring about his wife on which he informed that he had no knowledge.On the same early morning at about 5.00 am, police came to their house alongwith his wife and then he came to know about murder of Surender Singh and that at that time, his wife was staying in Pitam Pura.Here, the question that remains unanswered by the appellant is that she does not claim to have given the telephone number of her husband to the SHO and if she was already with the police right from about 11.00 pm on 12.08.1988, where was the occasion for the police to telephone her husband and ask where she was especially when divorce petition was pending.Surprisingly, even as per PW-28 Sardar Waryam Singh, at the time when he was contacted by the police, he came to know about the murder of Surender Singh but appellant has preferred to claim through DW-1 Sh.Jaswinder Singh that Surender Singh was seen alive on the night of 10.08.1988 at Palam Airport, It is different that the statement of DW-1 Sh.Jaswinder Singh cannot be trusted as even he was not aware about the appellant being staying separately from her family i.e. husband and children, four years prior to the incident and the place i.e. Palam Airport where he claims to have spotted the deceased at about 10.30 pm, was otherwise not possible in view of statement of PW-7 Sh.Anupam Arya who had gone to collect VCP from the said flat, it is proved that at that time only appellant was seen in the flat.Virender Singh as per whom, she has only complained about foul smell emitting from her flat without knowing the cause.Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI MS.JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI %Strange are the ways of love.Neither the love of husband nor the affection of four minor children could put a check on the intense love of appellant Baljeet Kaur for Surender Singh, the deceased.After being convicted for committing the murder of Surender Singh and destruction of evidence, she is before us challenging her conviction under Section 302/201 IPC and the sentence awarded to her by the Trial Court thereunder.The Appellant Baljeet Kaur has impugned the judgment dated 30.08.1997 and order on sentence dated 06.09.1997 by which she was CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 2 of 36 held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC for committing the murder of Surender Singh and also for the offence punishable under Sec.201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence by cutting the body parts into pieces and disposing of legs.Vide order dated 06.09.1997, she was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.201 IPCThe said VCP was collected by PW-20 from the said flat on 11.08.1988 and though at the time of installation of VCP the said Sardarji was present at the flat, but at the time of taking back the VCP only the appellant Baljeet Kaur was present at the flat.After recording statement of neighbours i.e. PW-1 Mrs. Malivarghese, PW-5 Virender Singh, PW-2 Surinder Kumar (Secretary of the Residents Welfare Association), PW-27 Ramji Lal (allottee of the flat ) and other witnesses and on completion of investigation, Baljeet Kaur was chargesheeted for committing the offence punishable under Section 302/201 IPC.Jagjit Singh also claimed himself to be a goldsmith and that he made two gold rings and one kara from the three gold bangles provided to him by the appellant six months prior to this occurrence and that she got the same made for gifting them to Surender Singh.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 6 of 36Trial Court, in para 57 of the judgment, enumerated the circumstances established by prosecution to base her conviction, which are reproduced as under :-DHQ-4810 stood registered in his name since 8.2.87;8) that the accused accompanied by deceased Surender Singh had visited the video library of PW20 Anupam Arya at QU-129A, Pritam Pura on 10.8.88 at about 8.15 PM where PW7 Sanjit Kumar was working as servant in that shop;9) that the accused and deceased Baljit Kaur had bookd a VCR (UCP) at that time;10) that PW7 Sanjiv Kumar had last seen the accused and deceased Surender Singh present in the said flat when he had gone to install the VCP in their house on that night on a cycle within 10 minutes of booking the VCR;11) that on 11.8.88 when PW20 Panupam Arya who had gone to collect the VCR had found only the accused present inside the room of the flat and lot of lady suits were found lying scattered on the cot lying in that room;CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 8 of 3612) that on 11.8.88 at about 7 PM accused was found going from her flat by PW1 Mrs. Moliverghes and PW2 Surender Kumar alongwith portable T.V. and a bag;13) that the accused had reached the house of her friend PW10 Jasbir Kaur on 11.8.88 at about 8.30 PM and had stayed there on the night in her house at 25/60 West Patel Nagar, Delhi;14) that she had handed over the portable T.V., one god kara, two rings to her friend Jasbir Kaur for keeping in safe custody with her on the next day in the morning on 12.8.88;15) that the legs of deceased Surender Singh were found lying in the back lane of H.No.22/18 and H.No.22/42 West Patel Nagar which were spotted by PW4 Radha Kishan and PW18 Devender Kumar Chadha for which a case was registered un/s 302/201 IPC at Police Station Patel Nagar, vide FIR No.277/88 and the same was investigated by PW13 ASI Puran Giri and PW9 SWHO, V.P.Singh;16) That on 13.8.88 the remaining parts of the body of deceased Surender Singh consisting of his arms, his clean shave head and other parts of his body were recovered from the flat of the accused;17) that the parts of human body were identified by PW Indervir Singh from his face and from his arms which were having a thick hair;18) that the scooter bearing No.DHQ4810 on which the deceased had gone was found parked on the ground floor in a garage and the keys Ex. P23/1 to 3 were handed over the accused to Inspector Jagjit Singh;19) that the accused had made disclosure statement Ex. PW10/A and subsequent to disclosure statement she CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 9 of 36 had pointed out the place where she had thrown the burnt clothes/ashes and the hair of deceased;CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 9 of 3620) that the accused had pointed out the place at West Patel Nagar where she had thrown away the legs of deceased in polythene cover;21) that the accused had got recovered the portable T.V. and the gold ornaments consisting of gold kara and two rings from the house of her friend Mrs. Jasbir Kaur, situated at 25/60 West Patel Nagar;22) that the said portable T.V. and the gold kara and two rings were identified by PW10 Indervir Singh to be belonging to his brother Surender Singh;23) that the post-mortem on all the parts of human body was conducted by PW3 Dr. Bharat Singh, who had opined that the death of deceased Surender Singh was caused by strangulation and his body was cut into pieces after his death;24) that the human blood of B-group was found on clothes of the accused consisting of lady shirt, chunnies and salwar recovered from her flat and the human blood of B-group was also found on the trunk in which the parts of the body of deceased Surender Singh were found.So, from the said chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution, the only inference which can be drawn is that it was the accused and none-else, who had committed the heinous offence of murdering the deceased and then cutting his body into pieces.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 10 of 36Mr. Sanjay Suri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has submitted that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial and last seen evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove either of the two.It has been submitted that in respect of last seen evidence, the prosecution examined PW-7 and PW-20 and both of them stated that they were maintaining record of providing VCPs on hire basis, which could have been a clinching evidence in this matter.Reason for them to depose against the appellant was pressure of the police.Regarding the testimony of Inder Vir Singh and Joginder Singh, it has been submitted that Surender Singh (deceased) was the youngest and his elder brother Harbans Singh had already expired and with a view to grab the entire business and property, Surender Singh was killed and the appellant was falsely implicated in this case to settle the score.The family of Surender Singh had a grudge against her for the reason that Surender Singh used to visit her frequently.It has been further submitted that there is no evidence of illicit relationship between the appellant and the deceased.On behalf of the appellant, it has been further contended that the entire police record is manipulated to suit the design of Inder Vir Singh to falsely implicate the appellant in this case.It was not on 13 th that the appellant came to know about lying of pieces of human body parts at the flat of Baljit Kaur.PW-5 Virender Sigh is a witness to the fact that on the night of 12.8.1988 itself on getting foul smell coming from the flat of the appellant, seeing her concerned, he along with his bhabhi, mother and the appellant visited Police Post Pitam Pura and CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 11 of 36 met SI Reval Singh and informed him about the same.The police visited the spot in the night itself.The appellant was not having the key, hence the door was broken open and thereafter the pieces of human body were detected in the flat.He has further deposed that on the night intervening 12/13th August, the police was on job which fact is further proved from the statement of PW-28 Sardar Waryam Singh - husband of the appellant that he got the call from the SHO early in the morning enquiring about the whereabouts of Baljeet Kaur and the police visited him along with Baljeet Kaur in the early morning itself.The testimony of PW-19 Jasbir Kaur also established that she was with the police from early morning of 13th August throughout the day and in these circumstances statements of PW-19 Jasbir Kaur and PW- 28 Sardar Waryam Singh prove that the police was already in action since the night of 12th August itself.So, whatever documents were prepared by the police on the morning of 13th August, 1988 have to be disbelieved.It has also been contended that the crime scene was got photographed but the photographs did not reveal the presence of razor, knife, churi, scissor etc. which is sufficient to presume that these things were planted later on to falsely implicate the appellant in this case at the behest of brother of the deceased.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 11 of 36He has further submitted that the credibility of the defence witnesses have to be treated at par with that of the prosecution witnesses and from the testimony of DW-1, while presence of Surender Singh on 10.08.1988 at Palam Airport is established, the testimony of DW-2 Joginder Singh is sufficient to prove that the appellant was staying with them during the period from 10 th August to CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 12 of 36 12th August.It has also been pointed out that it has come in the statement of PW Inder Vir Singh that on 12th he checked the RML Hospital to find out the whereabouts of his brother Surender Singh.He has also stated that Surender Singh left home on 10.08.1988 for meeting the appellant and if it was so then where was the need to check Surender Singh in RML Hospital instead of checking at the house of the appellant.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 12 of 36It has been strongly contended that as per prosecution, the appellant was having illicit relationship with the deceased.If it was so CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 13 of 36 then she had absolutely no motive to commit the murder of a person with whom she was in love and for whom she deserted her husband and children.While submitting that the nature of 'last seen' and circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution is very weak, stress was laid on absence of motive for the appellant to commit the alleged offence of murder.It has been further submitted that Scooter bearing registration No. DHQ-4810 claimed to have been owned by the deceased Surender Singh and its keys recovered from the flat of the appellant also could not be proved, as it has come on record that the scooter could not be started with the key Ex.PW-23/1 and there is no evidence on record to connect the appellant either with the key or with the scooter.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 13 of 36Learned APP for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that this is a case based on last seen and circumstantial evidence, which have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to the extent that all the circumstances proved against the appellant are inconsistent with hypothesis of her innocence and consistent with her guilt.This case is based on 'last seen' and circumstantial evidence.When a case rests on such evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following conditions :-(i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;Now the question arises, whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution satisfies the above conditions, for which we have to look into each and every circumstance leading to death of Surender Singh.The spot has also been got photographed and recovery of parts of body of Surender Singh on 13th August except legs stands duly proved from the flat of the appellant.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 15 of 36It has come in the statement of PW-7 and PW-20 that they were maintaining some record of providing VCR/VCP on hire basis and they were having two video cassette players at that time of make Monex.They used to make entry in the register i.e. recording address of the person to whom it was provided on hire and in routine that register used to be destroyed every month.We agree with learned counsel for the appellant that the said register that had the record of installing VCP at the flat of the appellant should have been seized by the Investigating Officer, but at the same time its non-seizure is not fatal to the case of the prosecution for the reason that small shop keepers providing VCPs/VCRs on hire basis for one night on nominal charges of Rs.40/- are not expected to maintain record in an organized manner.Both these witnesses are independent public witnesses, not even known to the appellant prior to this date.Despite lengthy cross- examination, their testimonies could not be challenged and we have no hestitation to hold that PW-7 Sanjeev Kumar, an employee of PW-20 has seen the deceased alive in flat No.127 of the appellant.From the testimony of PW-20, it is proved that next day morning at about 8:30 AM when he visited the said flat to collect the VCP, only the appellant was there who paid him the hire charges and he returned after collecting the VCP.Appellant seen leaving her flat with bag and TVPW-1 Mrs. Moly Verghese was the immediate neighbour of the appellant residing in quarter No.124, Her statement is to the effect that entrance door of flat Nos.124 and 127 open in the same corridor and she used to see the appellant standing in her balcony and one Sardarji used to visit her.She has also stated that about 2/3 days before she came to know of the murder; she had returned from her office at about 7.00 PM.When she saw that the appellant was standing in the corridor with a portable T.V and a bag.Though this witness did not fully support the case of the prosecution, but her testimony to the extent it supports the case of the prosecution that one Sardarji used to visit the flat of the appellant and her seeing the appellant leaving with bag and TV can be relied upon by this Court, as this part of her testimony further stands corroborated by PW-2 Surinder Kumar, General Secretary of the Residents Welfare Association of the Income Tax Colony.His testimony is sufficient to establish that on seeing the lady going with a TV and bag he made enquiry and came to know that CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 19 of 36 she was the resident of flat No.127 and her name was Baljeet Kaur and that lady was seen going on a three wheeler scooter along with a TV and bag.This witness was frank enough to give reason for not being able to identify the appellant to be the same lady as when he saw her, she was well dressed and in make up and stressing that if she is again dressed like that, he would be able to identify her.Thus, the testimony of PW-1 & PW-2 proved the appellant leaving her flat with the bag and portable TV 2/3 days prior to the date of murder of Surender Singh was detected.Recovery of scooterCRL.A. 79/1998 Page 19 of 36As per prosecution witness (PW-29), scooter bearing registration No.Other two keys could open the dickey but the third could not start the scooter not because it was not of that scooter, but there could be many technical reasons as scooter was lying parked in the malkhana of police station for a long time, If a vehicle remained parked for a long time, it becomes a junk.Even absence of petrol could be a reason due to which it could not be started.Non-start of scooter at the stage of evidence with one of the keys is insignificant.As he met homicidal death, his scooter and keys remained there only at the place of the appellant.Recovery of kada, ring and TV from PW-19 Jasbir KaurCRL.A. 79/1998 Page 20 of 36It has been proved by PWs 1 & 2, residents of Income Tax Colony that 2/3 days prior to detection of murder of deceased Surender Singh, the appellant Baljeet Kaur was seen going with a bag and TV.P27 & P28 which were left by the appellant at her house.During cross-examination, she tried to change the time of the visit of the police and recording of her statement as early morning of 13th August to strengthen the defence of the appellant that the police came to know of the incident on the night of 12th August itself.On this plea of the appellant, we would advert later on.Here suffice to say that testimony of PW-19 Jasbir Kaur proved leaving of TV, one kada and two gold rings at her house by the appellant on 11th August, 1988 which she handed over to the police at the instance of the appellant on 13th August.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 21 of 36Relationship with the deceasedAs per prosecution case, the appellant was in illicit relationship with the deceased and due to this reason she left her family and started residing separately four years prior to this occurrence.She was living alone and the deceased used to visit her frequently and stay with her.It has also come in the statement of PW-10 Inder Vir Singh, brother of the deceased Surender Singh that the appellant Baljeet Kaur was the wife of brother-in-law (sala) of his elder brother Harbans Singh.He has stated about illicit relationship between the deceased and the appellant and that on the evening of 10th August, 1988 the deceased left home to visit the appellant, but failed to return thereafter and on 13th August, 1988 when the family members became worried about CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 22 of 36 him, he along with his brother joginder Singh visited the flat of the appellant to look for him.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 22 of 36The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no illicit relationship between the appellant and the deceased Surender Singh and there is no proof of the same.Statement of PW-28 Waryam Singh, husband of the deceased as well as admission of appellant herself in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is sufficient to prove the kind of relationship she had with the deceased.She not only walked out of her matrimonial home, leaving her husband and four children but also arranged for a separate flat so that the deceased could visit her any time.It is her own admission that she wanted to marry the deceased and for that she even filed a divorce petition which was dismissed in default after her arrest in this case.The circumstances brought on record and admission of the appellant herself is sufficient to clear the cloud, if any, on their relationship.The prosecution has not come out with any motive for commission of this crime by the appellant.The case of the prosecution rests on 'last seen' and circumstantial evidence.Here in the given facts, deceased and the appellant were in the relationship and appellant was living separately in that flat which was frequently visited by the deceased which fact was well known not only to her husband and family but also to the family of the deceased so much so that before visiting the flat of the appellant on 10.08.1988, deceased informed his family that he was visiting Baljeet Kaur.It has earlier been observed by us that the prosecution has not been able to prove on record any motive for the appellant to kill the person for whom she left the entire world, but the question arises whether inability to prove the motive in itself is sufficient to acquit the appellant in this case.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 27 of 36CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 28 of 365 Sh.Virender Singh claims to be present at the spot for ten hours, but he does not speak about associating PW-1 Ms. Malivarghese in the proceedings by the police on that night.Sanjeev Kumar who had seen the deceased CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 29 of 36 alive in the company of appellant about 9.00 pm on 10.08.1988 at the time of installation of VCP at the said flat and even the scooter of the deceased was lying parked at the ground floor and keys of the same were recovered from the flat of the appellant.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 29 of 36The testimony of PW-19 Smt. Jasbir Kaur further falsifies the statement of the appellant regarding recovery of TV, Kada and rings.It has come in the statement of PW-19 Smt. Jasbir Kaur that she started knowing the appellant just 6-7 months prior to the occurrence as they used to meet in Gurudwara.She categorically stated about the perplexed condition of the appellant on her visit to her house on the evening of 11th August, 1988 alongwith one TV, Kada and two rings and that Kada and rings were left with her next day morning with the assurance to collect the same on the same day from her which she failed to do.PW-19 Smt. Jasbir Kaur is a witness to the recovery of T.V., Kada and rings from her possession and Kada and rings as well as the TV have been claimed by the appellant to be belonging to her.How these articles reached the house of Jasbir Kaur at Patel Nagar if the appellant was staying with DW-2 Sh.Jagjit Singh during this period i.e. 10.08.1988 to 12.08.1988, remains unexplained by her.Another important factor that requires consideration is that DW-2 Sh.Jagjit Singh claims himself to be a goldsmith having prepared Kada and rings out of two gold bangles given by the appellant to him so that she could present the same to Surender Singh at the time of marriage.This statement of DW-2 Sh.Jagjit Singh is not finding any support from the statement of appellant herself.Not only that, he admitted that it did not bear any mark or stamp to show that the same were CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 30 of 36 manufactured by him.While appellant claimed in her statement under Sec.313 CrPC that these kada and rings were never worn by Surender Singh, DW-2 Sh.Jagjit Singh admitted during his cross examination that they were used one.Appellant has failed to reconcile this contradictory version, one coming from her mouth and another from her nephew (DW-2).DW-2 Sh.Jagjit Singh claims that from 10.08.1988 to 12.08.1988 appellant did not move out of their house and remained with them.She not only visited but also stayed there during night pretending ill-health.This statement of PW-19 Smt. Jasbir Kaur stands corroborated from the statement of PW-1 Ms. Malivarghese and PW-2 Sh.Surinder Kumar who had seen the appellant leaving the premises where she was staying, alongwith one bag and TV.This material available on record is sufficient to discard the statement DW-1 Sh.Jaswinder Singh and DW-2 Sh.Jagjit Singh in toto.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 30 of 36Lot of emphasis has been laid on behalf of appellant on the photographs of the crime scene which do not show scissor, shaving razor and axe and claimed that all these articles were planted to falsely implicated the appellant.A doubt has been tried to be created as to whether the deceased Surender Singh was killed by someone and cut into pieces and thrown at the flat of appellant.Till the date of arguments before this Court, it has not been claimed that Surender Singh was seen alive by anyone after 10.08.1988 till 13.08.1988 i.e. when he was seen alive in the company of appellant and the subsequent date when the pieces of his body were recovered from the flat of the appellant.The body has been duly identified by brother of the deceased and absolutely no doubt about the parts of body and legs recovered from Patel Nagar to be of the deceased Surender Singh.From the testimony of PW-7 Sh.Sanjeev Kumar who came to install Video at the flat of Appellant, recovery of scooter keys from the flat of the appellant as well as that of scooter form the ground floor (open garage), visit of Surender Singh to the house of appellant on the evening of 10.08.1988 stands proved.The testimony of PW-20 Sh.These CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 32 of 36 witnesses are independent witnesses and had no axe to grind in the matter.The loopholes in the version of the appellant that the police was informed by her on the night of 12.08.1988 and the support she tried to take from PW-5 Sh.Virender Singh, PW-19 Smt. Jasbir Kaur, PW-28 Sardar Waryam Singh as well as DW-1 Sh.Jaswinder Singh and DW-2 Sh.Jagjit Singh in this regard boom ranged her defence.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 32 of 36The testimony of PW-23 SI Reval Singh and Inspector Jagjit Singh is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that prior to lodging of DD No.4-A, the police was not aware of presence of pieces of dead body at the flat of appellant and their presence in the residential complex where appellant was residing on the night intervening of 12.08.1988/13.08.1988 is not proved at all.Had they visited on the night of 12.08.2011/13.08.2011 to the house of the appellant, not only case of the recovery of two severed legs could have been solved immediately, there was hardly any need for getting two postmortem conducted on the legs, one by PW-17 Dr. L.T. Ramani and another by PW-3 Dr. Bharat Singh alongwith other parts of body.The statement of appellant under Sec.313 CrPC that when she alongwith PW-5 Virender Singh and police returned to her flat, the door was opened with key, is in contrast to the version of PW-5 that key was not with her and the kunda of the door was to be broken open.Otherwise also, the version of the appellant that initially she opened the flat and on seeing the body pieces and blood on the floor, she was shocked and immediately she came out and after locking the door, she went to inform PW-5 Sh.Virender Singh, is contrary to version of CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 33 of 36 PW-5 Sh.As stated by appellant under sec.313 CrPC, after opening the flat on the evening of 12.08.1988, she came to know about the presence of pieces of human body in her flat.In that case, nothing stopped her from calling the PCR, informing the office of Residents Welfare Association and her acquaintance/well-wishers like PW-5 Sh.Virender Singh or even her immediate neighbourer Ms. Malivarghese.She could not have waited for return of PW-5 Sh.Virender Singh till 10.30/11.00 pm and then visit PP Pitam Pura, which statement is falsified from the police record.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 33 of 36Here in the instant case, the murder has been committed within the four walls of flat No.127, Income Tax Colony which was in exclusive possession of the appellant."If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts.A Judge does not preside over a CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 34 of 36 criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished.A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape.Both are public duties.The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led.The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 34 of 36The postmortem was conducted on 14.08.1988 and time since death is given as about four days prior.In this case of last seen evidence, the time gap between the point of time when the deceased and the accused were seen alive and the time of death is so small that possibility of the offence being committed by any other person becomes impossible and ruled out.We find that prosecution has been able to discharge its onus by proving that deceased was lastly seen in the company of appellant at about 9.00 or 9.15 pm on 10.08.1988 in her flat.The factum of leaving the premises alongwith a bag and TV in an auto and her visit to Patel Nagar to the house of PW-19 Smt. Jasbir Kaur and recovery of two severed legs from that very area on 12.08.1988 further proves beyond any reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who had taken away the two severed legs for disposal of the body cut into pieces.The recovery of pieces of body of Surender Singh from the flat of the appellant when PW-10 Inder Vir Singh and PW-11 Sh.Joginder Singh came in search of Surender Singh, makes the appellant liable to CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 35 of 36 explain as to how the pieces of human body were found in her flat or to own the liability for homicide.No doubt, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to discharge the onus but the facts which are within the special knowledge of the appellant, the prosecution is not required to prove such facts as part of its primary burden.CRL.A. 79/1998 Page 35 of 36The appellant shall surrender before the Trial Court on 15.12.2011 to serve the balance of her sentence. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
115,119,120 | 1.This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 28.06.2012 passed by Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad as well as order dated 05.05.2012 passed by Additional District Magistrate, C.S.M. Nagar, directing externment of petitioner for a period of six months under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 ('Act' in short).2.Briefly stated petitioner's case is that petitioner won the election of Block Pramukh while his political opponent Saurabh Singh had lost.Presently petitioner is Block Pramukh of Block Salon, District C.S.M. Nagar, and at the behest of Saurabh Singh on 14.11.2011, a show-cause-notice under Section 3(1) of the Act was issued stating therein that twenty-five cases were pending against him.Witnesses were not deposing against him on account of his terror.Petitioner did not file reply.4.These two orders have been impugned in this writ petition.5.Sri R.B.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that most of the cases mentioned in the notice resulted in acquittal.They were old.There were no fresh cases showing his activities to be prejudicial to the peace of the society attracting Section 3(1) of the Act.One NCR and another beat information.7.From the perusal of NCR, it appears that allegation was that Azad Singh wanted to cut the trees belonging to family grove.This NCR led to the proceedings under Sections 107, 116 of the Cr.P.C. Another case mentioned in the report is beat information given by Police dated 27.05.2010 informing that the petitioner is a daredevil and earns money by illegal means.Earlier, he was Block Pramukh.On account of his clout, he got his brother elected as village Pradhan and he has connection with the political parties.Village people are not feeling safe on account of his criminal activities, as such proceedings under Section 3 of the Act may be initiated against the petitioner.All these four cases find mention in the order of Commissioner.Two cases are under Sections 302 I.P.C. Details of the cases is given hereunder :10.(A) Case Crime No. 18 of 1997 under Sections 302, 506, 507, 120-B and 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act, Police Station Salon, District Raebareli.(B) Case Crime No. 167 of 2006, under Sections 307, 302, 506 I.P.C. and 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act, Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli.(C) Case Crime No. 152 of 1992, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act, Police Station Salon, District Raebareli.(D) Case Crime No. 108 of 2006, under Sections 395, 342, 506, 147, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Raebareli.13.A counter affidavit was filed by Sri Mahmood Ahmad Siddiqui, Deputy S.P., Salon, District C.S.M. Nagar.16.A rejoinder affidavit has been filed reiterating the contents of petition.In supplementary affidavit petitioner denied knowledge of above three cases.Notice mentions the last incident dated 27.05.2010, the beat information.Notice was given one year six months thereafter.Order of externment was passed after a further period of six months.49.Order dated 28.06.2012 passed by Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad as well as order dated 05.05.2012 passed by Additional District Magistrate, C.S.M. Nagar are quashed.Order Date :- 11.09.2012 krishna/ | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
115,119,865 | A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C. c. as per rules.(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge Pithawe RC | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,723,381 | -( 2 )- CRA No. 207/2001 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramroop dated 19.5.2000 other co-accused persons Haribaba, Ramsiya and Rinku were said to be absconding.Prosecution's case in brief is that on 23 rd April, 1997 at 4=30 pm Kotwar Shivprasad lodged merg intimation report (Ex. P/11) to the effect that at the relevant time he (Shivprasad) was cultivating the agricultural land of Puttu Singh Khangar, resident of Madhepura and had accumulated the harvested wheat crop in relating field.On 19th April, 1997, when harvested crop was lifted, then a burnt skull of a person was seen, then his brother Ramdas threw that skeleton of skull in the field of Tej Singh Rathor and relating burnt skull was lying there.On report of complainant Shivprasad (Ex. PW-11), merg No. 2/97 was registered and after due investigation, crime No. 17/1997 was registered vide FIR (Ex.P/11).1997 Ramshiroman who was son of Vidyaram (PW-9) and Kalawati (PW-3) was taken from his house by respondent Ramroop and co-accused Rinku by saying that absconding dacoit gang leader Haribaba has invited him for taking food in Bhandara, but thereafter Ramshiroman did not return to house.After recovery of burnt skull from field situated in village Gaheli, the burnt skull was identified by Vidyaram (PW-9) as skull of his missing son Ramshiroman.1997 (date of incident), when both of them were wandering on-( 3 )- CRA No. 207/2001 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramroop bicycle in nearby villages Gaheli and Pachera in reference to their business of purchasing and selling buffalows, then they heard the sound of talking of Haribaba with Ramshiroman in behad situated near village Gaheli, and thereafter they heard sound of firing of shots by guns and being frightened they returned to village Chandupura.The recovery of burnt bones of skull and later on recovered some other burnt bones were sent to Medico-legal Institute, Bhopal, where Dr. D.K. Satpati (PW-20) on 1.9.1999 examined sent various burnt bones and their pieces and opined that all the bones belonging to same person, who was by gender male and aged about 25 to 30 years, but as there was no injury to any bone was visible, the duration of death could not be opined.(18/05/2018) Per Ashok Kumar Joshi,J.:Challenge in this appeal filed by the State/appellant under Section 378 of the CrPC is to the judgment dated 19.5.2000 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No.257/1998, whereby the present respondent Ramroop was acquitted from the charge of Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.It would be significant to mention here that at the time of passing of above mentioned judgmentDr. Satpati recorded his report (Ex. P-12).After completing formalities of the investigation, describing Haribaba, Ramsiya and Rinku as absconder, chargsheet was filed before relating JMFC against arrested accused Ramroop.Arisen criminal case was committed to Sessions Judge, Bhind, who transferred relating sessions trial to Fourth ASJ, Bhind.Respondent Ramroop denied charges framed by trial court u/s. 302/34 and Sec. 120-B of the IPC.In respondent's trial prosecution witnesses Brajesh Sharma (PW-1), Harischandra (PW-2), Kalawati (PW-3), Radheshyam (PW-4), Shivprasad (PW-5), Shivraj Singh (PW-6), Ramdas (PW-7), Ashok (8), Vidyaram (PW-9), Brajesh s/o Vidyaram (PW-10), Amar Singh-( 4 )- CRA No. 207/2001 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramroop (PW-11), Rajendra Singh (PW-12), Betal Singh (PW-13), investigating officer Omprakash Sharma (PW-14), Ramnath (PW-15), head constable Mohd. Khan (PW-16), then S.H.O, Police Station, Amayan Rajendra (PW-17), constable, Ramgovind Singh (PW-18), ASI Rambahadur Singh (PW-19), and Dr. D.K. Satpati (PW-20) were examined.1997 and on this point Dr. K.P. Rajoria (DW-1), Mahaveer (DW-2) were examined and respondent Ramroop examined himself as (DW-3) before the trial court.2000 acquitted the respondent Ramroop from charged offences.Hence, this State appeal against his acquittal.Appearing learned public prosecutor Shri J.M. Sahni on behalf of appellant/State vehemently contended that it was proved from the evidence of father, mother and two brothers of deceased Ramshiroman that Ramshiroman was taken by present respondent Ramroop and Rinku intimating him that Haribaba invited him in bhandara and it was proved from evidence of eye witnesses Brajesh Sharma (PW-1) and Harish Chandra (PW-2) that they were eye witnesses to the incident, who saw and heard the talking of Haribaba and deceased in relating behad and also saw Haribaba and Ramroop-( 5 )- CRA No. 207/2001 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramroop with guns encircling Ramshiroman and later on they heard the sound of firing and being frightened by dacoit Haribaba's gang, they did not disclose the incident to family members of deceased, though they were close relatives of the deceased and after recovery of the burnt skull, they disclosed the incident firstly to the relatives of the deceased and thereafter to police.It is also argued that in view of the terror of dacoit gang leader Haribaba in relating area, the conduct of both eye witnesses could not be stated to be unnatural and unbelievable.Hence it is prayed that appeal be allowed and respondent Ramroop be adequately punished.Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has totally supported the findings recorded by trial court on grounds that the trial court has minutely analyzed and appreciated the entire evidence available on record and it was proved by evidence of Dr. K.P. Rajoria (DW-1) and relating record of relating hospital that respondent was admitted in Mehgaon Hospital at relevant time, hence acquittal of Ramroop could not be disturbed especially in view of limited scope of interference in criminal appeal against acquittal, in absence of any perversity.It was also contended by learned counsel for respondent that even the identity of the recovered burnt skull and other bones being of deceased Ramshiroman was not established beyond reasonable doubt, as his dead body was not-( 6 )- CRA No. 207/2001 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramroop recovered or seen by anyone.According to evidence of mother Kalawati (PW-1997 from his house situated at village Gaheli in presence of her mother and brother Brajesh by Ramroop present respondent and co-accused Rinku and at the time of leaving the house, deceased's brother Brajesh (PW-6) was with deceased as deceased took food from his house to give it to his another brother Radheshyam (PW-4) who was at that time was busy with his work at khaliyan and after providing food to Radheshyam deceased went with Ramroop and Rinku for attending bhandara as on that day Ramnavmi (Navami of Chitra month of Indian Calendar) was being celebrated.1997, no missing person's report was lodged by any close relative of the deceased at any police station.According to evidence of both alleged eye- witnesses Brajesh Sharma (PW-1) resident of village-( 7 )- CRA No. 207/2001 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramroop Pachera and Harish Chandra (PW-2) native resident of village Chandupura but at that time he was residing at Gwalior and they were close relatives of the deceased and according to evidence of both these eye-witnesses, they were together in the behad situated between villages Gaheli and Dhorka and they heard talking between Haribaba and Ramshiroman at the place of incident keeping themselves hidden at some distance and Haribaba was telling to Ramshiroman that his father i.e. Vidyaram had grabbed money of Haribaba's real brother Avdhesh, hence he would not leave them and both these eye witnesses deposed that they were acquainted with the voices of Haribaba and Ramshiroman.Harishchandra (PW-2) deposed that he saw Habribaba, Ramsiya, Ramroop and Rinku from some distance and each person was having separate gun in his hand and Ramshiroman was crying and they also heard some gun-shots, but surprisingly Brajesh Sharma (PW-1) deposed that at that time of hearing some talking that Radheshyam (PW-4) was also with him, but this fact is not deposed by Harish Chandra (PW-2) and even by Radheshyam (PW-4).Harish Chandra (PW-2) was declared hostile by prosecution as his evidence was not in total accordance with his police statement, though he deposed that deceased Ramshiroman was brother- in- law (sala) of his real brother Ashok and Brajesh (PW-1) is his brother- in- law (sala).Both these witnesses deposed-( 8 )- CRA No. 207/2001 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramroop that they saw and heard incident at about 4 or 4:30 p.m. Both these witnesses deposed that after being frightened by the incident, they jointly returned back to village Chandupura at 9 p.m. of that day.1997 he has gone on the scene of occurrence with police and other family members of deceased, then spot map (Ex. P-1) of above mentioned behad was prepared.Brajesh Sharma (PW-1) deposed in cross- examination that on 26.4.1997 he had gone at the place of occurrence of incident with police and thereafter on 27.4.1997 he and Harish Chandra gave their statements to police for the first time, though in para-15 he deposed that on 24.4.1997 after reaching to village Gaheli, he disclosed about the incident seen and heard by him to Rakesh, elder brother of the deceased, but this fact is missing in his police statement (Ex. D-2).Harish Chandra (PW-2) deposed that on the date of incident he with Brajesh Sharma, was wandering on bicycle in nearby villages for looking buffalows.1997 he had gone to behad with police and other family members.Safina form (Ex. P-8) was prepared by1997 regarding recovery of burnt skull of unknown person from a field of Tej Singh Rathore situated near village Gaheli.1997 he recorded statements of Brajesh Sharma, Harish Chandra, Kalawati, Radheshyama, Shivprasad, Ramdas and Ashok Singh and Vidya Ram.It is clear from the unchallenged testimony of Kalawati (PW-3) that after incident when her husband Vidyaram visited first time at police station, then it was learnt to her that her son Ramshiroman has been killed by Haribaba.Her husband Vidya Ram (PW-9) deposed that Ramshiroman was searched till 6 to 7 days by them and nothing could be traced out, then on seventh day, he reached to police station, Amayan where a head constable asked him that where is Ramshiroman, then he replied that his son Ramshiroman had gone to Chandupura or village Baraso, then the head constable intimated him for the first time that her son Ramshiroman has been killed, then later on same day, he with investigating officer Omprakash Sharma (PW-12) reached to scene of occurrence nearby village Dhorka, where some burnt bones and-( 10 )- CRA No. 207/2001 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramroop ash were recovered and thereafter on his returning to police station Amayan, inspector shown him a skull, then he rightly identified that skull was of Ramshiroman.1997, it came to his knowledge that his brother has been murdered by Haribaba, Ramroop, Ramsiya and some unknown persons, but there are material contradictions and omissions in his evidence given before the trial court and his police statement (D-4).1997 his brother was murdered by Haribaba and other accused persons in their presence.There are material contradictions and omissions among evidence all the closed relatives of deceased.It is clear from admission of Vidya Ram (PW-9),-( 11 )- CRA No. 207/2001 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramroop in his cross-examination (para-9), that his son Ramshiroman was regularly visiting dacoit gang leader Haribaba and his son Ramshiroman was co- accused with Haribaba and some other persons in a murder trial relating to murder of four monks (sadhu) at Ratangarh Devi's temple.This fact demonstrates that deceased Ramshiroman was a close associate of absconding dacoit gang leader Haribaba and prior to incident, he was co-accused with Haribaba in another session trial regarding murder of four sadhus at Goddess temple situated at Ratangarh.It appears to be the real reason why missing report regarding Ramshiroman was not lodged by his family members.Vidyaram (PW-9) clearly deposed in para-8 that when he first time saw the skull and recovered teeth and identified them to be belonging to his son.On same day in the evening at 5 or 6 p.m. Brajesh (PW-1997, nearer to village Dhorka, in a nalah, they heard crying and on same day Ramshiroman was murdered and Harishchandra and Brajesh disclosed the name of Ramroop as a co-murderer of his son but all these facts are missing in Vidyaram's police statement (Ex. D-9).Hence, this possibility could not be ruled out that after recovery of burnt skull, both these close relatives of deceased were introduced as eye witnesses.Identification of deceased only by looking to his burnt skull and teeth by deceased's father and brother also appear to be unnatural and unbelievable, because it is not possible for anyone to identify the deceased by looking skeleton of burnt skull or burnt dentureIt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the recovered burnt bones and skull and some other parts of the human body were of Ramshiroman.The alleged identification was totally doubtful as clothes worn by deceased and most of the organs and flesh of dead body had burnt.We are of the considered opinion that the trial court has minutely analysed and appreciated the entire evidence available on record and no finding of trial court is appearing, prima facie, perverse.2003 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind.Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant/State u/s. 378 of the Cr.P.C against acquittal of present respondent Ramroop is dismissed and impugned judgment of trial court regarding respondent is affirmed. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,725,895 | Petitioner Kattu Bai is mother of Rajesh, petitioner Vimla is his sister-in-law (Bhabi), Kishorilal is father and Rakesh is younger brother.At the time of marriage, petitioners did not make any demand for dowry; however, Kamla, father of the deceased had given dowry as per his capacity.After the marriage, the deceased used to tell her parents that her husband Rajesh was telling her that her father had not given anything in dowry; therefore, she should bring a motorcycle, a gold chain and Rs.50,000/- from her father.He threatened that if she failed to bring aforesaid items, he would kill her.After that, Devendra, brother of the deceased had gone to her matrimonial home to pacify her in-laws.On 08.02.2017, father-in-law Kishori had gone to the maternal home of the deceased to take her to her matrimonial home; whereon, Kamla had given a gold ring and gold danglers to him.At about 06:00 p.m. on 11.02.2017, the deceased caught fire in front of hearth.She was 3 CRR No.2574/2017 taken to Bijawar hospital by her in-laws.From Bijawar hospital, she was taken to Chhatarpur.(21-11-2017)This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Court of Shri D. K. Nagle, Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.200/2017; whereby a charge under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was framed against petitioners/accused persons Kattu Bai, Kishorilal, Vimla, Rakesh and Rajesh.At 10:45 p.m. she made a dying declaration to the Executive Magistrate, wherein she stated that she was sitting in front of the hearth cooking meals and somehow caught fire.Her in-laws ran to her rescue and took her to the hospital.There was no dispute with anyone.However, Kamla, father of the deceased and Devendra, brother of the deceased stated under section 161 and in their marg statements that in Chhatarpur hospital that Roshni had told them that at about 06:00 p.m. she was cooking meals.At that time, Rajesh came from behind, picked up a bucket filled with kerosene, poured it upon the deceased, pulled out a burning log from the hearth and set her afire.She ran outside; however, Rajesh had bolted the door.At that time, father-in-law Kishori, mother-in- law Kattu, brother-in-law Rakesh and sister-in-law Vimla were sitting outside the room.Devendra and Kamla also stated that all of them had conspired and got the deceased burnt by petitioner Rajesh.3 CRR No.2574/20173. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order of framing charge mainly on the ground that the deceased had admittedly given a dying declaration at 10:45 p.m. on 11.02.2017 to Executive Magistrate, wherein she categorically stated that she caught fire while she was sitting in front of hearth cooking meals and her in-laws took her to the hospital.4 CRR No.2574/2017She has also clearly stated that there was no dispute in the house.It has also been contended that statements of her father Kamla and brother Devendra were recorded on 11.03.2017, i.e., about a month after the date of the incident.They claimed that the deceased had made an oral dying declaration on 11.02.2017 in Chhatarpur hospital wherein she had blamed her husband Rajesh of pouring kerosene upon her and setting her afire.Such oral dying declaration has no credibility in the face of the written dying declaration made in the presence of Executive Magistrate.It has also been submitted that a careful reading of the statements of Devendra and Kamla reveals that even in the oral dying declaration she did not level any allegation against Kattu Bai, Rakesh, Vimla or Kishori.That they had conspired with Rajesh to set the deceased afire is imagination of these two witnesses.It has also been urged that there is no allegation that Kishori, Kattu Bai, Rakesh and Vimla also made any demand for dowry and had in any manner inflicted cruelty upon the deceased due to non-fulfillment of aforesaid demand.In these circumstances, the trial Court grievously erred in framing charge against the petitioners.Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioners be discharged.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the revision petition and supported the impugned order.In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."It may be seen from the aforesaid judgments that the Supreme Court has expressed its concern with regard to false implication of husband and his relatives in the cases under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by disgruntled wives.It has also been held that the tendency of falsely implicating even those relatives of husband, who lived separately and in different cities is also growing.It has been held that if there are no specific and credible allegations, with necessary particulars against the relatives of the husband, they should not be made to suffer the ignominy of a criminal trial.A perusal of the statements made by Devendra and Kamla reveals that there is no allegation that any of aforesaid four petitioners have made any demand for dowry.There is also no allegation that deceased Roshni ever told her father or brother that any of the aforesaid four petitioners ever inflicted any cruelty upon her.The only allegation against petitioner Kishori is that when he had gone to bring Roshni back to her matrimonial home, Roshni's father Kamla had purchased and given him one gold ring and one pair of gold danglers; however, without any demand, it would not constitute offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.So far as offence under section 302 and in the alternative 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, both of aforesaid witnesses have leveled allegations against Rajesh.They have 10 CRR No.2574/2017 stated that Roshni had told them that Rajesh had poured kerosene upon her and had set her afire.She had run out but Rajesh had bolted the door from outside.Then they stated that Roshni had given the statement to Tehsildar in Chhatarpur hospital and after that they have stated that other members of the household namely Kishorilal, Kattu, Rakesh and Vimla were sitting outside in the veranda.It appears from the aforesaid statements that firstly deceased Roshni had not told Devendra and Kamla that other family members were also complicit in the matter.She had merely stated that other family members were sitting outside in the veranda.Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that Roshni had told them that others had also conspired with Rajesh to kill her, it is clear that it was merely her assumption.She did not disclose any basis for such assumption.Thus, there is no material available on record against petitioners Kishorilal, Kattu Bai, Rakesh and Vimla, which is capable of being converted into admissible evidence to sustain conviction of any of the aforesaid petitioners for any offence.10 CRR No.2574/2017In aforesaid circumstances, petitioners Kattu Bai, Kishorilal, Rakesh and Vimla deserve to be discharged.The charge against aforesaid petitioners framed by the trial Court under sections 302 read with section 34, 304-B read with 11 CRR No.2574/2017 section 34 and 498-A read with section 34 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.11 CRR No.2574/2017Consequently, this criminal revision partly succeeds.The charge framed against the aforesaid petitioners by the trial Court by order dated 15.09.2017 is quashed.The aforesaid four petitioners namely, Kattu Bai, Kishorilal, Rakesh and Vimla are discharged. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,730,031 | This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.138 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Gudiyattam, Vellore District and quash the charge sheet filed by the first respondent police against the petitioners in the above case.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.39 of 2014 has been registered against the petitioners and another on the allegation that the defacto complainant was beaten up with hands, stamped with legs and caused injuries.He further submits according to the complaint, the complainant was assaulted by five male persons using their hands and their legs, but the respondent police has filed charge sheet stating that crow bar and knife were used by the petitioners for assaulting the complainant.He further submits that initially case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 325 and 506(ii) I.P.C, and subsequently final report was filed altering the sections into 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 326 & 506(ii) I.P.C. He further submits that there is no specific allegation as against the third petitioner excepthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 that he slapped the complainant on ear with his hand.He further submits that false allegations have been made against the petitioners as such they have filed this petition.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that due to previous enmity over the disputed ancestral property, the petitioners and another have beaten the complainant.He further submits that the fifth accused picked up a stone and gave to A1, who then threw the same on the complainant and caused injuries.Further A3 also assaulted the complainant with hand.He further submits that all the accused persons have severely beaten the complainant with hands and also stamped with legs thereby caused injuries.He further submits that there are specific allegations against all the petitioners.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.It is seen that the case was initially registered under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 325 and 506(ii) I.P.C, and subsequently final report was filed altering the sections into 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 326 & 506(ii) I.P.C. It is also seen there are specific allegations against all the petitioners.Even against the third petitioner there is a specific allegation.From the statement ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 witness one, M.Yuvaraj, it is noted that the third petitioner beat the complainant with his hand and the second petitioner also beat with small crow bar.Hence, these aspects have to be established before trial Court, as such this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer sought for in this petition.However, considering the age of the third petitioner, the personal appearance of the third petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application.The third petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment etc..,.With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.19.02.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No pds/lokhttp://www.judis.nic.in 51.The Inspector of Police, Pernambut Police Station, Vellore District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,731,577 | C.R.M. 10968 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 20, 2010 And In re.: Anubhab Maity & 4 Ors.This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Marishda Police Station Case No. 76 of 2010 dated 13.7.2010 under Sections 341/325/354/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners and for the State.In case they surrender, their prayer for bail will be considered in accordance with law.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,740,794 | The complainant hadfiled a private complaint against nine persons including accusedNo.Afzaluddin Hassan,possessed the same upon death of his mother, KhairunnisaBegum Saheba as per the oral gift dated 12.12.1966 and deed ofconfirmation of the said oral gift.It was the case of thecomplainant, that upon death of her father, Afzaluddin Hassan,the said property was inherited by her as well as her threesisters and accused No. 1, her brother.It is further averred inthe complaint, that her father had entered into a developmentagreement on 25.05.1989 with M/s Banjara ConstructionCompany Pvt. Ltd. However, the same was cancelled during hislifetime.It is further averred by her that, thereafter, she cameto know about the existence of a document thereby assigningthe rights by M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. infavour of M/s NRI Housing Company Pvt. Ltd., representedthrough accused No. 3, Abid Rasool Khan.B.R. GAVAI, J.Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.Both these appeals arise out of the common JudgmentSignature Not Verified and Order passed by the single Judge of High Court ofDigitally signed bySANJAY KUMARDate: 2019.10.21 Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the16:30:44 ISTReason:The criminal appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.9156 of 2017 filed by M. Srikanth, the original accused No. 4,challenges that part of the order by which the single Judge ofthe High Court has rejected his application under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.311/2010 of P.S., Central Crime Station, Hyderabad.The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appealsare as under:The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayedin the original complaint.The Respondent No. 2, Fatima Hasna,in the criminal appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9156 of2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”), is the sisterof accused No. 1, Akramuddin Hasan.For the said incidentanother complaint vide Crime No. 177/1996, came to be 4registered for the offence punishable under Sections 418 and420 read with Section 120B of the IPC against seven personsincluding M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. andaccused No. 3 in the present case.With regard to the said causeof action, the complainant had also filed Original Suit No.1989/1996 against accused No. 3 and others for permanentinjunction.The complainant’s sisters had filed O.S. No.1403/1999 against M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt.Ltd. of which accused No. 3, Abid Rasool Khan, was theManaging Director.According to the complainant, certaininterim orders were also passed in the said original suits.Further, it is thecase, that accused No. 1 had also created another forged andfabricated document styled as deed of confirmation (Hiba Bil 5Musha) dated 08.03.1990 vide which the property is orallygifted to accused No. 1 on 29.08.1989 and also handed overphysical possession thereof.1, posing himself to be the owner of the premises, on thebasis of the alleged oral will and deed of confirmation, created aregistered lease on 01.12.2008, bearing document No.3107/2008 permitting accused No. 4 to sublease the said landin favour of accused No. 5, Hindustan Petroleum CorporationLtd.(“HPCL”).Accused No. 6 and accused No. 9 are theemployees/officers of accused No. 5 HPCL whereas, accusedNos.7 and 8 are the attesting witnesses.It appears, that various criminal petitions came to befiled before the High Court.Criminal Petition No. 6047/2013was filed by accused No. 7, Khaja Mohiuddin and accused No.8, G. V. Prasad.Criminal Petition No. 6064/2013 came to befiled by accused No. 3, Abid Rasool Khan.Criminal Petition No.6609/2013 came to be filed by accused No. 4, M. Srikanth, whois the appellant in the criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) 6No.Criminal Petition No. 8743/2013 was filed byaccused No. 5 HPCL and its officers, accused No. 6, S.K. Sruiand accused No. 9, R. Umapathi.He submitted, that as per theterms and conditions for grant of the said outlet, he wasrequired to get the land on long term lease and sublease thesame to accused No. 5 – HPCL.It is submitted, that even takingthe complaint at its face value, there are no averments whichwould show that accused No. 4 had any role to play infabrication of the document which bestowed the title on accusedNo.It is further submitted, that there are various civilproceedings pending amongst the complainant, accused No. 1and their sisters so also the other parties.4 also ought to have been quashed.Per contra, Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, learned counselappearing on behalf of the private complainant, submitted thatthe High Court has rightly dismissed the petition of accusedNo.It is submitted, that accused No. 4 in order to deprivethe benefits of the property to the complainant had got the leasedeed executed in his favour from accused No. 1 knowing verywell that the claim of accused No. 1 was based on fabricateddocument(s).After the death of their father on 28.05.1996, accusedNo.In respect of the same action,Crime No. 177/1996 had been registered at the instance of thecomplainant.With respect to the said transaction, two originalsuits were already filed, one by the complainant and another byher sisters.Thesaid will is created on a nonjudicial stamp paper of NizamatJung and has been allegedly executed on 02.04.1950.According to the complainant, accused No. 1, her brother, had 13created another forged and fabricated document styled as deedof confirmation (Hiba Bil Musha) dated 08.03.1990 confirmingthe oral gift to accused No. 1 and also recording handing overof physical possession.It is further the case of the complainant, thatthereafter accused No. 4 executed a sublease in favour ofaccused No. 5 HPCL represented by accused Nos. 6 and 9within a period of two months i.e. on 30.01.2009 and thataccused Nos. 7 and 8 are the attesting witnesses.The complaint filed by respondent No. 2 runs into 26pages and 26 paragraphs.Aperusal of the complaint would further reveal, that thecomplainant also disputes with regard to the area of theproperty including the manner of its devolution upon theparents of the complainant and her competing interest with that 14of her siblings.We are of the considered view, that the issues raisedreflect a civil dispute with regard to inheritance amongst thelegal heirs.We fail to understand as to how a dispute withregard to the inheritance under a will and deed of confirmationcan be decided in a criminal proceeding.We find, that the samecan be done only in an appropriate civil proceeding.Not only 15that, the civil proceedings with that regard are alreadyinstituted by various parties including the complainant.Theseproceedings are as follows:(i) O.S. No. 239 of 2004 on the file of the Hon’ble XI ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad.(ii) O.S. No. 337 of 2002 on the file of the Hon’ble XI ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad.(iii) O.S. No. 58 of 2001 on the file of the Hon’ble XI ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad.(iv) O.S. No. 277 of 2000 on the file of the Hon’ble XI ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad.(v) O.S. No. 506 of 2001 on the file of the Hon’ble XI ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad.It will be relevant to refer that though in the complaint,the complainant had mentioned about pendency of O.S. No.1989 of 1996 against accused No. 3 and O.S. No. 1403 of 1999against M/s Banjara Construction Pvt. Ltd., there is noreference with regard to the other proceedings.O.S. No. 239 of 2004 has already been filed by the complainant against her brother, accused No. 1 and her three sisters inter alia for partition and separate possession which is stated to be pending.The civil court is therefore seized of the question as regards the validity of the will.We of course refrain from expressing any opinion as regards genuineness or otherwise of the Will in question as there is no occasion to do so and the question is wide open before the lower courts.”It is further to be noted, that the complainant and hersisters executed an agreement of salecumirrevocable specificpower of attorney on 20.03.2015 in favour of one Mohd. KhalidShareef.In its final report dated 30.08.2017, the police hasopined that no material had surfaced to show any conspiracyduring investigation.The learned Judge himself in Paragraph 8, afterobserving that it is nobodies case that the signatures on thedocuments in question are forged or anybody has impersonatedfor the purpose of cheating, goes on to observe thus: 18“8…..The allegation in nutshell in this regard is that accused No. 1 is not the absolute owner of the properties, but for one of the coowner or cosharer along with the de facto complainant and other sisters of them and he falsely claimed as if he is the owner for purpose of cheating by using as if genuine forged and fabricated documents of so called will and so called deed of confirmation.Insofar as the criminal appeals arising out of thespecial leave petitions filed by the original complainant isconcerned, we absolutely find no merit in the appeals.Thelearned single Judge has rightly found that there was nomaterial to proceed against accused No. 5 – HPCL and itsofficers accused Nos. 6 and 9 as also accused Nos. 7 and 8, whohave been roped in, only because they were the attestingwitnesses.We are ofthe considered view, that continuation of criminal proceedingsagainst accused No. 4, M. Srikanth, would amount to nothingelse but an abuse of process of law.As such, his appealdeserves to be allowed.In the result, the criminal appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9156/2017 filed by accused No. 4 is allowed.Thecriminal proceedings in Crime No. 311/2010 of P.S., CentralCrime Station, Hyderabad, against accused No. 4 are quashedand set aside.The criminal appeals arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)Nos.916061/2017 filed by the original complainant aredismissed. | ['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,744,490 | CRM No. 10942 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 3rd December, 2018 in connection with Nakashipara Police Station Case No. 166 of 2018 dated 17.04.2018 under Sections 498A/302/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Anisur Sk. @ Anichhuddin Sk. @ Anachhuddin Sk.The petitioner is one of the relatives of the husband of the victim who claims to have not been involved in the alleged ill- treatment of the victim or with the incident that led to the victim's unnatural death.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
467,466 | N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.This writ petition is filed challenging the detention order dated 17.9.2009 passed against the detenu P.Vijayakumar under Act 14 of 1982 by the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-8, second respondent herein.Out of the above said 27 cases, bail had been granted in favour of the detenu in six cases by the learned Principal Sessions Court, Chennai and by this Court and in the remaining 21 cases, the detenu moved bail applications before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, and all the 21 bail applications were pending at the time of passing the order of detention.The main grounds of attack on the order of detention in the petition as well as arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are that this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15913 and 15914 of 2009 by order dated 24.8.2009 already prohibited the detenu from practising Siddha and Ayurvedic Medicines and therefore there is no pressing necessity to pass the order of detention by the Detaining Authority and non-consideration of the above aspect vitiates the detention order on the ground of non-application of mind.The detenu being a registered Medical Practitioner, registered his name with the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council from 7.9.1998, can effectively be prohibited from practise, either by suspending the registration or otherwise under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1970, by the competent authorities, if there is any violation in his medical practice, and non-consideration of the above aspect by the Detaining Authority vitiates the order of detention.The allegation that the detenu cheated the patients by promising cure after receiving large sums of money cannot be treated as disturbance of public order as tempo of the Society was not affected in any locality.The documents sought for by the detenu for submitting his effective representation having not been furnished, the further continuance of detention order is impermissible.The detenu having been already prevented from practise, as he has been confined in prison, there is no further need to pass the detention order to prevent his alleged activities.The second respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that till the date of detention order, the detenu was found to be involved in 27 cases.The representation sent on behalf of the detenu was considered by the first respondent on time.The detenu having been found acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, he was detained under Act 14 of 1982 on public interest.The grounds of detention were informed to the detenu's wife on 18.9.2009 by post, the very next day of passing of the order of detention.For the representation of the detenu, detailed remarks were sent by the second respondent to the first respondent without any delay, which was rejected by the first respondent.Insofar as the alleged alteration of the charges, the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, came to know about the further developments based on which charges were altered.The activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as he gave false interview through electronic media and the public at large were made to believe his false promise and thereby cheated number of persons, who are innocent patients and at last when some of the innocent victims requested to return the money after they did not get cured, they were threatened with dire consequences by showing pistol, which created panic among the general public.Only to prevent the indulgence in such further activity, the order of detention was passed against the detenu.The detenu is a Medical Practitioner, registered his name with the Tamil Nadu South Medical Council, Chennai.In the grounds of detention it is stated that in the year 2007, the detenu gave an interview in Jaya TV (Tamil TV Channel) that he will cure all diseases including brain ailment in his Travancore Raja Vaidyasalai at No.42, Karpagambal Nagar, Mylapore, Chennai-4, and after watching the same, one Janakiraman, contacted him in his Vaidyasalai for curing his disease affected child and the detenu demanded a sum of Rs.13,86,000/- for treatment, and told the said Janakiraman that the patient should take Thanga Baspam and Deer meat for six months.The balance sum of Rs.7.86 lakhs was also paid by the said Janakiraman during March, 2008 and even after one month, the detenu informed that the medicine was not yet made ready and that the said Janakiraman can contact him after one month.During 2008, when Janakiraman further approached the detenu for treatment, he gave false reasons and thereby he developed doubts and requested the detenu to return the money.At that time the detenu threatened the said Janakiraman that if the said incident is reported to anyone, he will kill him.Due to the fear and danger to life he did not complain to the Police at that time.The said Janakiraman, having seen newspapers and TV news that the detenu was arrested by the police on the basis of the complaint given by another person, has also lodged a complaint, which was registered as crime No.405 of 2009 of the Central Crime Branch under section 406, 420, 307 and 506(ii) IPC.During the course of investigation, the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and thereafter at the request of the police, the detenu was given in police custody for six days.O.P.Nos.13913 and 13914 of 2009 as well as the bail granted in four other cases and that in the remaining cases also the detenu moved bail applications and the same are pending.Further, the said order nowhere prohibits the detenu from giving false promise through media. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,748,628 | Parulekar that they are withdrawing the said complaint.7 The charge-sheet further contains a letter dated 18/01/2013 written by accused No.1 Avishek to inquiry officer Shri.Raja Thakre i/b.Shreeram Shirsat, Advocate for the Applicants.Devki R.Sahu i/b.Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 :::Avishek Asit Mitra and they are also arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 in Sessions Case No.202 of 2013 arising out of Crime No.234 of 2013 for offences punishable under Sections 376, 312, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for the sake of brevity).These offences came to be registered on the basis of a report lodged by the prosecutrix on 18/05/2013 with Police Station, Borivali after due inquiry of her earlier complaint by the police authority.The prosecutrix is an adult lady aged about 26 years and she was working as Assistant Manager with Grand Hyatt Hotel at Mumbai.Both revision petitioners applied for discharge by moving an application Exhibit 3 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai and after hearing the parties, by the impugned Order dated 12/09/2014, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai was pleased to reject the said application.Feeling aggrieved by rejection of their application for discharge, both revision petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed the instant revision petition.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 :::by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai for rejecting the application for discharge filed by parents of accused No.1 Avishek Asit Mitra.The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that involvement of parents of accused No.1 Avishek in the Crime in question is there because accused No.1 Avishek went on giving promise to the complainant i.e. the First Informant that he will convince his parents and after their consent he will perform the marriage.Accused No.1 Asit further informed that he will keep his father present at Borivali Police Station where they will take the decision.The learned Court below further observed that by taking name of his parents accused No.1 Asit went on keeping sexual intercourse with the complainant i.e. the First Informant.These are the only reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the application for discharge moved by the revision petitioners claiming discharge from the Sessions Case pertaining to Section 376, 312, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.3 It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction is an extraordinary jurisdiction, which is required to be exercised rarely when there is glaring defect of procedure or manifest error on the Gaikwad RD 3/14 ::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 ::: (24)REVNNo.3332014point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice.If perversity in the impugned order is pointed out by bringing to the notice of the Court that relevant material was not considered or if it is noticed that irrelevant material favourably considered and relied for passing the impugned Order, then exercise of revisional jurisdiction is justified.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 :::4 Let us now examine the charge-sheet in order to ascertain case of the prosecution against the accused persons.Following accused are arraigned in Sessions Case No.202 of 2013 by the prosecuting agency :Undisputedly, accused No.2 Asit and accused No.3 Beli are father and mother of accused No.1 Avishek.5 Considering the nature of allegations, case of the prosecution rests on version of the prosecutrix.Her first version in respect of the incident is found in the complaint made by her to the Deputy Commissioner of Police of Borivali Range (Record pageIn this complaint, the prosecutrix averred that she is working as an Assistant Manager with Hotel Grand Hyatt and accused No.1 Avishek is doing the work of Audit in the said Hotel.On the pretext of loving her, he Gaikwad RD 4/14 ::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 ::: (24)REVNNo.3332014has cheated her and by promising to marry her, he had committed sexual intercourse with her.The prosecutrix in this complaint further averred that she became pregnant and she was constrained to abort the foetus.At that time, accused No.1 Avishek accepted his guilt and insisted her to forget everything and to marry somebody else.Perusal of this first version of the prosecutrix does not show that she had made any allegations against present revision petitioners/accused No.2 Asit and accused No.3 Beli.It was then entrusted for inquiry to Shyam Parulekar, Police Inspector.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 :::6 The charge-sheet contains a letter dated 06/01/2013 signed by the prosecutrix as well as Avishek and addressed to said Shyam Parulekar, PI.By this letter, the prosecutrix as well as Avishek had informed inquiry officer Mr.Parulekar wherein he has stated reasons for not marrying the prosecutrix.He informed that he was scared as to how his family will react to the situation and whether they will accept his relation with the prosecutrix.This shows that the son was apprehending disapproval of his parents i.e. the revision petitioners to his relations with the prosecutrix.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 :::that ultimately the prosecutrix lodged a detail report in the matter on 18/05/2013, which has resulted in registration of the Crime No.234 of 2013 under Sections 376, 312, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.Column No.16 of the charge-sheet contains brief facts of the prosecution case.The charge-sheet shows that, according to the prosecution case, accused No.1 Avishek committed rape on the prosecutrix by developing friendly relations which ultimately matured into love relations with her and allured her with promise of marriage and repeatedly indulged in sexual relations with her.When the prosecutrix became pregnant, without her consent, her foetus came to be aborted.It is further averred by the prosecutrix that at the police station, accused persons gave a written guarantee of marriage to the prosecutrix and subsequently, on the pretext of mismatched horoscope cheated the prosecutrix.9 It is thus clear that, according to the prosecution case, so far as present revision petitioners i.e. parents of accused No.1 Avishek are concerned, the charge sought to be levelled against them by the prosecutrix is that of cheating.The factual premise for levelling this charge is to the effect that at police station they both as well as their son i.e. accused No.1 Asit indulged in Gaikwad RD 6/14 ::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 ::: (24)REVNNo.3332014conspiracy, gave a written assurance of marriage to the prosecutrix and cheated her.It is, therefore, really not necessary to consider what the prosecutrix has stated about her allegations in respect of rape and abortion as those are solely directed against accused No.1 Avishek.Suffice to state that as per version of the prosecutrix, while doing work as co-worker with the prosecutrix, accused No.1 Avishek developed intimacy with her, assured to marry her by stating that he loves her very much and then indulged in sexual relations with her.So far as present petitioners are concerned the prosecutrix in her report has referred to the complaint lodged by her on 20/12/2012 with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, which is extensively referred to by me in the foregoing paragraphs.The prosecutrix further averred that in pursuant to that complaint, the Inquiry Officer Mr.Parulekar had called accused No.1 Avishek.Accordingly, accused No.1 Avishek and his mother i.e. accused No.3 Beli came to Police Station Borivali.At that time, accused No.1 Avishek had accepted the facts stated by the prosecutrix, but had refused to marry her.After return of his father, he will bring his father to Borivali Police Station and then decision regarding their marriage would be taken.The prosecutrix Gaikwad RD 7/14 ::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 ::: (24)REVNNo.3332014further stated that till 30/12/2012 she waited for the reply of accused No.1 Avishek as well as reply from his parents, but she was kept waiting and, therefore, she became assured of the fact that accused No.1 Avishek had indulged in sexual relation with her by cheating her and had aborted her foetus against her consent.Except this, the prosecutrix has not stated anything against present revision petitioners i.e. parents of accused No.1 Avishek.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 :::Therefore, both revision petitioners cannot be directed to answer the charge for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC as sought to be levelled by the prosecuting agency.There is no iota of evidence against them in this regard.12 Let us therefore assume that the prosecutrix intended to charge both revision petitioners for the offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 of the IPC and made punishable under Section 417 of the IPC.The learned Court below made use of irrelevant material for rejecting the application for discharge.Hence, the impugned Order rejecting the application for discharge suffers from perversity and illegality.Resultantly, the foregoing discussion requires me to pass the following order :::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:28:46 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,751,236 | She is married with Rafik Chandbhai and she resides with her husband at Medshi, Tq.Malegaon, Dist.Applicant No.8 is daughter of applicant No.3 and permanent resident of Medshi, Tq.Malegaon, Dist.She is prosecuting her studies in MBBS Course at G.S. Medical College, Mumbai.Applicant No.4 is also married and she is M.A.D.Ed and teacher::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: (5) criapl2309.18 by profession and she resides with her family having two daughters and a son at Gulbarga (Karnataka State).::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that allegations are made against all the applicants as regards unlawful demand of money, gold etc from respondent No.2 as alleged in the FIR and as such role is attributed to all the applicants as regards the offences alleged against them in the FIR sought to be quashed.He also submitted that no importance be given to the statement recorded before the Dilasa Cell to state that there is no prima facie case against the applicants.It is alleged that on the next day applicant No.3 younger sister-in-law compelled respondent No.2 to wear Burkha.FIR discloses that on that day there was reception in the night and applicant Nos. 1 and 2 father-in-law and mother-in- law of respondent No.2 said her that her parents have not given the expenses of marriage to them.RESERVED ON : 05.10.2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 11.10.2018::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: (3) criapl2309.18 J U D G M E N T [PER: S.M.GAVHANE, J.] .Rule made returnable forthwith.With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties the application is heard finally at the admission stage.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::By this application under section 482 of code of Criminal Procedure applicant Nos. 1 to 8 original accused Nos. 2 to 9 against whom and one Mohsin Shaikh who is arrayed as accused No.1, the First Information Report bearing No.508/2018 dated 28.07.2018 for the offence punishalbe under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') has been registered with the City Police Station, Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar on the complaint of respondent No.2/complainant Rifat W/o.Mohsin Shaikh, have requested to quash and set aside the said FIR to their extent.At the time of marriage both respondent No.2 and Mohsin Shaikh had completed their MBBS Course.Mohsin::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: (4) criapl2309.18 Shaikh is pursuing his Post-Graduation in DMRE at Dhule.Both respondent No.2 and her husband Mohsin Shaikh- accused No.1 are Doctors.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::It is further submitted that applicant No.3 is a Doctor and she is holding DHMS Degree.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant No.6 Mubeen Ibrahim Shaikh elder brother-in-law of respondent No.2 is Electronic Engineer and he is already separated from his family and he is residing at Fatema Housing Society, Ward No.1, Shrirampur since 2013 with his wife Sabana and four kids.According to the learned counsel applicant Nos.3 and 4 sister-in-laws of respondent No.2 are not residing at Shrirampur where the incident as alleged in the FIR has taken place and they are residing with their families at their matrimonial houses.Moreover, applicant No.3 is doing medical practice at Medshi, Tq.Malegaon, Dist.Moreover, applicant No.8 daughter of applicant No.3 is prosecuting her study at Mumbai.According to the learned counsel for the applicants even if applicant No.6 is residing separate and applicant Nos.3,4 and 8 are not residing at Shrirampur they have been involved by respondent No.2 with a view to harass them only because they are relatives of her husband Mohsin Shaikh.Learned::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: (6) criapl2309.18 counsel submitted that allegations made in the FIR that since 14.12.2013 to 25.04.2016 when respondent No.2 was residing in the family of her husband Mohsin Shaikh at Shrirampur she was ill-treated on account of demand of gold and cash amount are general allegations and they are vague in nature.It is submitted that husband of respondent No.2 issued notice on 19.05.2018 through Advocate to respondent No.2 claiming divorce from her.Respondent No.2 submitted her reply on 14.06.2018 to said notice.Mother of respondent No.2 is a Lawyer by profession.As the dispute between respondent No.2 and her husband started for the purpose of divorce mother of respondent No.2 misled respondent No.2 and therefore, the present FIR making omnibus allegations has been filed by respondent No.2 involving all the family of her husband to harass them.It is submitted that respondent No.2 was studying in Pravaranagar Medical College from 01.02.2014 till April, 2016 and therefore, allegations in the FIR are self- contradictory.Learned counsel further submitted that purposeful involvement of distant relatives of::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: (7) criapl2309.18 husband of respondent No.2 clearly shows her intention to harass all the relatives of her husband.According to the learned counsel continuing criminal prosecution against the applicants would be misuse of legal process and therefore, it is just to quash the FIR.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::The appellants in spite of the liberty granted to them to move the trial Court, have filed this appeal for quashing the proceedings which had been initiated on the basis of FIR lodged by respondent No.2 by Special leave in the Supreme Court.The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph Nos. 18,19,26 and 27 thus:::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::The High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in-sofar as the consideration of the case of the appellants are concerned, who are only brother and sister of the complainant's husband and are not alleged even by the complainant to have demanded dowry from her.The High Court, therefore, ought to have considered that even if the trial Court at Allahabad had the jurisdiction to hold the trial, the question still remained as to whether the trial against the brother and sister of the husband was fit to be continued and whether that would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are not allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: ( 10 ) criapl2309.18 of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegations of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::The High Court in our considered opinion appear to have missed that assuming the trial Court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still left to be decided whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant demanding dowry from the complainant.Since the High Court has failed to consider all these aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether a case was made out against the appellants to proceed against them.But as the contents of the FIR does not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the complainant's husband except::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: ( 11 ) criapl2309.18 casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by the High Court and make the unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offence under Section 498-A/323/504/506, IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which would be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants.Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant- respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings insofar as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: ( 12 ) criapl2309.18 the High Court shall stand overruled.The appeal accordingly is allowed.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::In the case of Rameshwar Nivrutti Bingole Vs State of Maharashtra 2017 (4) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 574, FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC was filed by respondent against her husband and in-laws.They have filed application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash proceeding initiated against them on the basis of said FIR.It was observed that no specific incident or specific overtact is attributed qua each of the applicants.There are general allegations of demand of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.Though there are allegations of ill- treatment and beating, nevertheless those are omnibus in nature.It was held that on the basis of such allegation trial cannot proceed further against applicants.However, in view of specific allegations against applicant husband, his application was rejected.In the said case in so far as applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, no specific incident or specific overtact is attributed qua each of the applicants.There were general allegations of demand of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.It was observed that though there are allegations of ill- treatment/harassment and beating, nevertheless those are omnibus in nature and on the basis of such::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: ( 13 ) criapl2309.18 allegations, the trial cannot proceed further.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::In the case Madan Shankar Bhivsane and others Vs State of Maharashtra and another 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 2035 the FIR was registered against the applicants Nos. 1 and 2 father-in-law and mother-in- law and applicant Nos.3 and 4 married sister-in-laws of respondent No.2 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC with the Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad.In the application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash said FIR against aforesaid applicants this Court has observed that there are casual references to their names and the allegations are general in nature and also the witnesses do not disclosed any offences against the applicants.Further it was observed that FIR is lodged maliciously with an ulterior motive and accordingly application was allowed and the FIR as against the applicants was quashed.In Vimalbai Vanji Patil and others Vs The State of Maharashtra and another Criminal Application No.1363/2018 decided on 29.08.2018 by this Court [Coram:-T.V. Nalawade & Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, JJ] the respondent No.2 wife of son of applicant No.1 had lodged FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 232, 504, 506::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: ( 14 ) criapl2309.18 read with Section 34 of the IPC against applicants and her husband.Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the applicants for quashing the said FIR against them.It was observed that married sister of the husband of respondent No.2 was living separate from the husband of respondent No.2 first informant from prior to date of her marriage.Allegations made against them are vague in nature.Though the cousins of the husband of the informant are residents of same village, they are residing at different places and they are not living in the house where the first informant cohabited with her husband.Allegations against them are also vague in nature.It was observed that applicant No.1 mother of the husband of first informant and applicant No.2 wife of the real brother of the husband were living in the house where the first informant cohabited with her husband.Accordingly, application of applicant Nos. 3 to 11 was allowed and relief in terms of prayer clause-B which include the amended prayer of relief of quashing of the charge-sheet filed against said applicants was granted.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::Joshi, learned APP submitted that in the FIR role is attributed to all the applicants.Statement of::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: ( 15 ) criapl2309.18 respondent No.2-complainant recorded before the Dilasa Cell on 10.07.2018 prior to the FIR was made with a view to settle the matter and therefore, it does not help the applicants to state that there is no prima facie case against them.It is submitted that FIR may not be quashed as requested by the applicants and the application is liable to be rejected.Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Vs Union of India writ petition (civil) no.73/2015 with criminal appeal no.1262/2017, writ petition (criminal) No.156/2017 dated 14.09.2018 on::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: ( 16 ) criapl2309.18 the approach of exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants, respondent No.2 and learned APP for the respondent/State.We have perused the copies of police papers including FIR and the statements recorded during the course of investigation.We have gone through the copies of documents produced by the applicants.On perusal of complaint/FIR it appears that after her marriage on 14.12.2013 respondent No.2 had come to the house of her husband at Shrirampur for cohabitation.They have spent huge amount for marriage of their daughter and that she should bring 20 tolas gold, car of Rs.10,00,000/-, expenses of reception from her parents and so also her husband said her to::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: ( 17 ) criapl2309.18 bring Rs.40,00,000/- expenses of his higher education.Further, it is alleged that on 16.12.2013 her husband abused, threated and beaten her by hands and took her to Narayangaon and left there.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::It is further alleged in the FIR that thereafter, while respondent No.2 was cohabiting her husband and all the applicants (whose names are disclosed in the FIR) all residents of Shrirampur, Tq.Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar had taken out 14 Tolas gold ornaments on her person which were given to her by her parents and started causing mental and physical cruelty to her saying her to bring 20 Tolas gold, car of Rs.10,00,000/-, expenses of reception and expenses of Rs.40,00,000/- of higher education of her husband from her parents and on saying that she is not doing the work in the house properly.On saying so she was abused, threatened and beaten by the hands, but she was residing there.It is further alleged that while respondent No.2 was cohabiting at Shrirampur her husband said her to sweep varhanda and court yard of the house and she swept the same::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: ( 18 ) criapl2309.18 and thereafter her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law and both sister-in-laws had abused, threatened and beaten her by the hands saying that she cannot properly sweep.So also, her husband hit her head on the wall.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::FIR further shows that thereafter, respondent No.2 was taking education in Pravaranagar Medical College at Loni and she was residing there and when she was coming to her in-laws house on Saturday and Sunday all the family members were taunting her.It is alleged that thereafter on 25.04.2016 when she had come to her in-laws house at Shrirampur with her parents, they were also abused and threatened and told that unless the demand is fulfilled they would not cohabit respondent No.2 and on saying so she was driven out of the house.It is alleged that husband of respondent No.2 and all the applicants/ accused caused cruelty to respondent No.2 for aforesaid demands and demand of Rs.1 Crore to construct hospital at Shrirampur.From the above referred allegations in the FIR prima facie it appears that specific allegations are made against applicant Nos.1 and 2 father-in-law::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 ::: ( 19 ) criapl2309.18 and mother-in-law of respondent No.2 regarding demand of money, gold and car on 15.12.2013 on the next day of marriage in the nigh of reception.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:35 :::It appears from the record that applicant No.5 brother-in-law of respondent No.2, and his wife applicant No.7 are residing in Ward No.2 Subhedar Wasti, Shrirampur on which address applicant Nos.1 and 2 father and mother of applicant No.5 are residing.Considering the fact that applicant Nos.5 and 7 are residing with applicant Nos.1 and 2 and allegations made against them with other applicants regarding unlawful demand of money and gold from respondent No.2 we prima facie do not find a case is made out for quashing the complaint against them in the light of view taken by this Court in the case of Vimalbai Vanji Patil (supra).Applicant No.3 is Doctor.She is doing medical practice at her native place Medshi, Tq.Malegaon, Dist.Documents i.e. copies of certificate issued by Grampanchayat, Aadhar Card and Ration Card show that applicant No.3 is resident of Medshi, Tq.Malegaon, Dist.So also, Exh.G document shows that her occupation is::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:36 ::: ( 20 ) criapl2309.18 Doctor and she is having her own hospital.Similarly, copy of marriage certificate shows that applicant No.4 is resident of Gulbarga (Karnataka State).When applicant Nos. 3 and 4 married sister- in-laws of respondent No.2 are residing at different places as above and applicant No.4 is teacher by profession and applicant No.3 is Doctor and when they are not residing at Shrirampur as alleged by respondent No.2 in the FIR, allegations against them of respondent No.2 that they had demanded money, gold and expenses of education of her husband from her are vague in nature and said allegations are not specific.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:36 :::Considering said birth date during 14.12.2013 to 25.04.2016 when alleged incident took place, she was below 17 years.It appears from the certificate of residence that she is permanent resident of Medishi, Tq.Malegaon, Dist.However, it appears that in 2014-2015 she was studying in the college at Shrirampur.Considering her age in 2013 and allegations in the FIR that she alongwith applicants caused cruelty to::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:36 ::: ( 21 ) criapl2309.18 respondent No.2 for demands of money, gold and car which allegations are omnibus in nature and not specific, are not sufficient to state that there is prima facie case against her.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:36 :::As regards applicant No.6 who is younger brother-in-law of respondent No.2 record shows that since 2013 he is residing in the house No.D-13, Fatema Housing Society, Ward No.1, Shrirampur with his family separate from his parents.Therefore, omnibus allegations made against him alongwith other applicants in the FIR are not sufficient to proceed against him.It appears from the record that after her marriage on 14.12.2013 respondent No.2 went to Pravaranagar for further education from 01.02.2014 and she was residing in the hostel.Thus, if the period of alleged offences and date of complaint/FIR is considered there appears considerable delay even in lodging the complaint against the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:36 :::For all the reasons discussed herein above and considering the allegations in the FIR and the statements of witnesses, we find that the allegations against applicant Nos. 3,4, 6 and 8 are general in nature and said applicants are not residing with the husband of respondent No.2 in his family and applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are married sisters of the husband of respondent No.2 and therefore continuation of FIR and criminal proceeding against applicant Nos. 3,4,6 and 8 would amount to abuse of process of law and they would be unnecessarily harassed.Therefore, application needs to be partly allowed.We make it clear that the observations made herein above are prima facie in nature for the::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:36 ::: ( 23 ) criapl2309.18 purpose of deciding this application only.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:36 :::In light of above we pass the following order:FIR bearing No.508/2018 registered in the City Police Station, Shrirampur against applicant No.3-Dr.Nikhat Rafik Shaikh, applicant No.4-Mrs.Aasma Atik Shaikh, applicant No.6-Mubeen Ibrahim Shaikh and applicant No.8-Miss.Sana Afreen Rafik Shaikh for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC is quashed and set aside.Request of applicant No.1-Mohd.Ibrahim Sahebali Shaikh, applicant No.2- Mrs.Azmat Fatima Mohd. Ibrahim Shaikh, applicant No.5-Mateen Ibrahim Shaikh and::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:36 ::: ( 24 ) criapl2309.18 applicant No.7-Mrs.Nishat Mateen Shaikh to quash the aforesaid FIR against them is rejected.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:36 :::Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] VishalK/criapl2309.18::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 02:05:36 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,610,907 | 1 Form No. J(1) In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy CRR No. 3706 of 2013 Nemai Sengupta Versus Rajesh Bagaria & Anr.For the petitioner : Mr. Raushan Kumar Ray Heard on : 10-12-2013 Judgment on : 20-12-2013 Ashim Kumar Roy, J.:This order be communicated to the court concerned through the learned Registrar (Administration) for taking appropriate action in terms of my order.Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) | ['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. |
1,786,164 | JUDGMENT J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts relevant to the decision of this petition succinctly are that Zamir Ahmed, deceased husband of the petitioner, was a motor mechanic and was having his place of work near Inter-State Bus Terminal, Delhi.He used to repair shock absorbers and do other auto jobs in the repairs of motor vehicles etc. and he had kept his goods including shock absorbers, tools and implements in a box at the place of his work.First Floor.Kishanganj (Teliwara).As a result of the house search of the respondent, 170 big sized shock absorbers, 30 small sized shock absorbers, some tools and implements and the box containing the goods etc. were recovered and seized by the police.(2) The respondent moved an application dated 26th September 1984 for return of the seized goods to him contending that he was rightful owner thereof and the same had no connection whatsoever with the alleged theft.He also pointed out that there was likelihood of the said goods being damaged in the event of the trial protracting over a long period and he would suffer irreparable loss on that account.The said request was opposed by the complainant-petitioner, who asserted that the goods in question belonged to her deceased husband Zamir Ahmed and had been stolen by the respondent from the place of his work taking advantage of her helplessness.(3) The learned Magistrate vide order dated 28th November 1984 rejected the application of the respondent and directed that the articles be released to the complainant-Smt.Anisa Begum on her furnishing Superdaginama in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 .Feeling aggrieved the respondent went in revision in the Court of Session.It was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge who vide impugned order dated 8th February 1985 set aside the aforesaid order of the Metropolitan Magistrate and directed that the seized articles be returned to the respondent-Masoom Ali.Hence, this revision petition by the complainant-petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Additional Sessions Judge. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,786,259 | However, thepolice have continued with the investigation and submitted a report against thehusband of the deceased and his mother for the offence under Sections 304-B and498-A of the Indian Penal Code. | ['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,786,311 | JUDGMENTORDERLeave granted.The appellant was arrested on 21st February, 20004 for involvement in anoffence under Section 120-B read with Sections 364(A), 341, IPC and Section3(4) of The Andhra Pradesh Control of Organized Crime Act, 2001 (for short`The Act').The charge-sheet has since been filed in the Court of IXMetropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.She moved the Sessions Court for bailand on rejection, she moved the High Court.The request for bail cannot be accepted".Aggrieved by this Order the Special Leave Petition giving rise to thepresent appeal has been filed.The main allegation against the appellant isthat she lent her car for being used in carrying the kidnapped boy fromHyderabad to Pune by the other accused including her daughter.It may benoted that appellant's daughter has been released on bail by the HighCourt.A perusal of the charge sheet would indicate that the material against theappellant is mainly the confession said to have been made by her to theI.O. and also the confessional statement made by the co-accused by which itis sought to be established that the appellant knowingly lent her car tofacilitate the commission of offence of abducting the boy.It must be noted that the confessional statement made to the PoliceOfficer/I.O. cannot be proved as evidenct.The Act contains specialprovision making the confessional statement admissible notwithstandinganything contained in the Cr.P.C. or the Indian Evidence Act provided theconfession is made before a Police Officer not below the rank ofSuperintendent of Police.The confessional statements which are now soughtto be relied upon in the charge sheet are not those recorded in accordancewith Section 18(1) of the Act by the authorised officer.As far as therecovery of car is concerned, the same was seized while it was at herresidence.So also, the materials on record does not justify theconclusion at this stage that the appellant would indulge in similaroffence of an organised crime if she is released on bail.As alreadynoticed, she has been in prison for about 15 months so far.In thecircumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court and direct theappellant to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond for Rs. 20,000and a surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the Ist Addl.MetropolitanSessions Judge, Hyderabad.The appeals are accordingly allowed. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,634,362 | e Inherent powers of this Court u/S 482 Cr.P.C. are invoked to ad assail the prosecution initiated against the petitioner vide F.I.R. dated Pr 18.02.2016 bearing Crime No.158/2016 alleging offences punishable u/S 406, 420/34 I.P.C. and subsequently added section 409 I.P.C..a hy Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned F.I.R. was lodged against three co-accused namely Manohar Lal Parik, ad Chiranji Lal Parik and Devendra Garg and the petitioner was neither M named in the said F.I.R. nor any allegation was made therein against him. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,634,490 | "That on receipt of DD no. 6-B dated 25.04.2015 when police party reached GTB Hospital, one Shamshad Alam S/o Rahees Ahmed got lodged his report inter alia alleging therein that on 24.04.2015 at about 10.30 p.m. while he was present along with Arshad, his friend, hot talks were going on between said Arshad and Amjad and meanwhile Arshad handed over his mobile phone to him (Shamshad) stating that he (Shamshad/complainant) was being abused by Amjad and he (Shamshad) should make him understand.He further alleged that while he was trying to talk with Amjad, Amjad started abusing him also and directed him that if he wants to talk, he (Shamshad) should come to Gali No. 8, Krishan Kunj to which at about 11 p.m. he alone went there and soon thereafter when he started talk with said Amjad, his three associates including accused Mst.Praveen Khan came there on a motorcycle and they all attacked him with knife and even also physically beaten him and then fled away from the spot.However, he went to nearby hospital.His friends also came there and police was informed about the incident."Blood started oozing out from my injury.I became started faint and then I of my own rushed to Life Line Hospital in an auto.Cross by ld.Memos Ex.PW1/C and 1/D were prepared there and same bear my signatures at point A."SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A.No.38876/2019 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Accordingly, the application stands disposed off.By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.'), the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 02.08.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 508/17, whereby all the respondents (accused before the Trial Court) were acquitted of the CRL.LP.577/2019 Page 1 of 12 offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC and were sentenced to the period already undergone by them, with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for seven days.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses in all.The incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they pleaded to have been falsely CRL.LP.577/2019 Page 2 of 12 implicated in the present case and accused Huma Praveen examined herself under section 315 Cr.P.C.577/2019 Page 2 of 12The Trial Court in the impugned judgment while acquitting the accused persons under Section 307/34 IPC and convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC gave its reasoning, which is reproduced herein below: -Accused Amjad Khan and Huma Parveen are facing trial for the charge under Sec. 307/34 IPC wherein it is alleged that on 24.04.2015 at about 11 a.m. in Gali No. 8, Kishan Kunj, Laxmi Nagar, both accused persons along with two more associates had caused injuries in the abdomen with knife and other parts of body to PW1 Shamshad Alam with such intention or knowledge and by their said act, they may cause death of said injured.It is undisputed fact that the star and key witness to prove the offence in question is PW1 Shamshad Alam.This witness in clear and unequivocal terms identified both accused persons present in the court as assailants and further stated that the lady accused came on a motorcycle along with two other associates and all of a sudden, all the three with accused Amjad gave beatings to him with leg and fist blows and one of the male associate took out a knife and gave its blow in his abdomen and said person who attacked upon him with knife was not present in the court.Thereafter, all accused persons left the spot.In the hospital, he was provided first aid and referred to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital and then to GTB hospital.Since the witness has not been given all facts as per his previous statement, ld.P.P. put some leading questions and PW1Shamshad Alam in his statement further stated that one of the male assailant caught hold him and second one caused knife blows in his abdomen and accused Huma Parveen started beating him along with their associates.577/2019 Page 3 of 1219............... He went to the hospital in an auto rickshaw and first of all, he reached at Lifeline Hospital, thereafter, he was referred to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital and then to GTB Hospital.IO met him at GTB Hospital and his complaint Ex.PW1/A was recorded by police.He was discharged from GTB hospital the following morning.He mentioned this fact in his complaint that an unknown person had given him the knife blow on his stomach.He had not mentioned the mobile number of Arshad as well as accused Amjad.Though, the CRL.LP.577/2019 Page 4 of 12 incumbent of Sec. 307 IPC is not attributed under the facts and circumstances of the present case as well the prosecution has not brought home the guilt of accused persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 IPC, however, it has been proved that it was the one of the associate of accused persons who caused knife injuries to injured/PW1 Shamshad Alam and accused Amjad caught hold the injured while inflicting knife injuries to PW1 by his associate and accused persons also gave beatings to the injured.577/2019 Page 4 of 12Perusal of the record is clear to the aspect that as per MLC Ex.C1 mentions - hum apne mareej ko apni marji he private hospital mein leke jaa rahin hain" means term LAMA (Left against medical advice) can be used for the patient i.e. complainant.Said MLC is also clear to the aspect that - "Private hospital has given first aid but does not make MLC & did not send the patient in ambulance.Patient is conscious, oriented."Hence, in view of the above, court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Se.307/34 IPC for which accused persons have been charged with.However, it is well settled law that accused persons can be held guilty for lesser offence.Offence punishable under section 323/34 IPC is a minor offence to the offence under section 307/34 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 CrPC.Accordingly, in view of section 222 Cr.PC the accused can be convicted for the offence u/s 323/34 IPC, though charge has not been framed against him.[See Bachcha V. State of UP, 2008 Crl L.J. 483].Hence, with these observations, it is clear that prosecution has fully proved its case against accused persons namely Amjad Khan and Ms. Huma Praveen for the offence punishable under Sec. 323/34 IPC and as such, accused Amjad Khan S/o Late Chhuttan and Huma Parveen W/o Shanwar Ali are held guilty for the CRL.LP.577/2019 Page 5 of 12 offence under Sec. 323/34 IPC and are convicted accordingly."577/2019 Page 5 of 12(emphasis supplied)After appreciating and considering the rival contentions of the parties and scrutinizing the evidence, the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges under Section 307/34 IPC against the accused persons and thereby acquitted them of the same but found the accused persons guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC.Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the state argued that the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court was perfunctory in nature, full of conjectures and surmises and therefore is liable to be set aside.She further contended that the impugned judgment was a case of legal defects resulting in the acquittal of the accused persons under Section 307/34 IPC and a grave failure of justice.7. Learned APP for the State labored hard to contend that the learned Trial Court has failed to analyse the testimony of the complainant (Shamshad), who in clear and unequivocal terms identified both the accused persons and stated that accused persons on 24.04.2015 had given leg as well as fist blows and a single knife blow on his abdomen which stood corroborated from the medical evidence (i.e. MLC No.1313/15, dated 25.04.2015) as there was a penetrating wound over right upper abdomen, with abrasions present at the right side of forehead and behind the right ear.She further contended that the entire evidence on record supported by the medical evidence clearly brings home the CRL.LP.577/2019 Page 6 of 12 guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.Ms. Tiwari, added that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention inflicted sharp injury on a vital part of the body.Learned APP for State contended that the ocular evidence and the medical evidence is eloquent and self-explicit, connects the accused persons with the crime, considering the impugned order, the accused persons should also be convicted under Section 307/34 IPC.577/2019 Page 6 of 12Having heard the learned APP for state, this court is of the view that the case of prosecution entirely rests on the sole testimony of the complainant (Shamshad Alam); hence we deem it appropriate to examine his testimony.Shamshad Alam entered into the witness box as PW1 and deposed that:"On 24.04.2015 at about 10 p.m I along with my friend Arshad was present in Shiva Market, Khureji Petrol pump.At that time Arshad was talking with Amjad on his mobile and during those talks hot words were exchanged.Arshad asked me to have talks with Amjad to make him understand as he was abusing him.I talked with Amjad who also started abusing me.Amjad asked me to come at Kishan Kunj Gali No. 8 if I want to talk him.I reached there alone there at about 10.15/10.30 p.m. Amjad met me there.We started talking and during that period, three more persons including one lady came there on motorcycle.All of sudden all the three with accused Amjad gave beatings to me with leg and fist blows and all of sudden one of them who was male took out a knife and gave its blow in my abdomen.577/2019 Page 7 of 12All accused persons left the spot.At the hospital first aid was provided to me and referred to some other hospital.I rushed to Dr.Hedgwar and from there I was referred to GTB Hospital.I was medically treated there ad police met me there.Police recorded my statement Ex.PW1/A bearing my signatures at point A. Next day, I was discharged from the hospital.PP for the State On of the male assailant caught hold of me while second one of them gave me knife blow in my abdomen and thereafter I was pulled down on the ground and then Amjad and Ms.Huma Praveen started beating me along with them.I had shown the place of occurrence to the police on the basis of which Ex.PW1/B was presented by the police.On 25.04.2015 I along with IO went to the house of Ms.Huma Praveen which was found closed and then we went to the house of Amjad i.e., House No. 16, Gali No. 19, Jagatpuri and at my point out accused Amjad was arrested from there.PW1 Shamshad Alam deposed that on 24.04.2015 at about 10:15/10:30 PM when he had arrived at Kishan Kunj Gali No. 8, he met with Amjad and while he was conversing with him three more persons including one lady(Huma Praveen) came there on a motorcycle and all of a sudden, they all started giving him leg and fist blows and one of the male associates gave him a knife blow on his abdomen.However, on the contrary, in the said initial statement (Ex.It is further relevant to highlight that the trial court has noted that the complainant was conscious and oriented when he had arrived at GTB Hospital and his injuries, were opined to be simple in nature.577/2019 Page 10 of 12 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,635,942 | /353/186/323/325/326/307/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act and Kurseong Police Station Case No. 7 of 2009 under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against those miscreants.As a result the petitioners reasonably apprehend serious threat to their life and limb, if they have to face their trial at Kurseong.Subsequently, when they were granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court on condition of furnishing local surety as nobody from Kurseong was inclined to stand as their local surety, this Hon'ble Court modified the condition by directing instead of local surety they shall be released on bail on furnishing of cash security of Rs. 20,000/-.In the meantime, police has submitted charge- sheet against the petitioners for the self-same offence in connection with the aforesaid case.Although, pursuant to the order of bail of this Hon'ble High Court the petitioners were directed not to leave the jurisdiction of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurseong and to stay at their place of residence at Ratna Dayang, Rohini, but because of the threat held out to them by the supporters of Gorkha Janamukti Morcha they have stay away from their place of residence.The supporters of Gorkha Janamukti Morcha have also burnt out their respective houses.Thus, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that if they have to face their trial before any Court at Kurseong not only their life would be at stake and as no lawyer from Kurseong as well as from outside is agreeable to defend them in the trial, the petitioners shall be seriously prejudiced.The contents of the said written instruction fully justify the contentions of the petitioners.It may be noted although the notice was sent to the defacto-complainant of the case, nobody appeared on his behalf, when this matter was taken up for hearing in 4 spite of repeated calls.It appears from the affidavit of service already on record that notice has duly been served upon him.Now, having regards to the prevailing condition at Kurseong and considering the facts no lawyer from the local Bar was inclined to defend the petitioners during the trial, in my opinion, it would be expedient in the interest of justice and conducive for a fair trial that G.R. Case No. 2 (1) of 2009 arising out of Kurseong Police Station Case No. 6 of 2009 and Kurseong Police Station Case No. 7 of 2009, now pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurseong be transferred to the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.It is directed the trial may be concluded with utmost expedition.The Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurseong as well as to the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.In view of the disposal of main criminal revisional application, an application for extension of interim order being CRAN No. 3020 of 2009 has become infructuous and accordingly stands disposed of.Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. ) | ['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,648,092 | There is no allegation of the department that he clandestinely removed or transported Pan Masala.For the sake of convenience, facts and other contention of the parties can be borrowed from the order passed in the case of Amit Bothra and Ashok Daga, relevant part of which is being reproduced below:-Both these petitions have arisen out of the same crime number of the same office/police station, therefore, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.These are the first applications under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in crime no.23/2020 registered under section 132(1)(a)(i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "GST Act"), Ss. 409, 467, 471, 120-B of the IPC by the Department of Revenue Intelligence and Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Central Excise Office, District Indore (here-in-after referred to as the 'Department').The case of the prosecution in brief is that the officials of the department received intelligence input that one Pakistani national Sanjay Matta is indulged in clandestine clearance of mouth freshener, commonly known as "Pan Masala", without payment of GST.Acting on this information, several searches were conducted at various places between 30.05.2020 to 02.06.2020 and unaccounted goods worth Rs.2.59 crores were found in different godowns of Mr. Matta, which were seized.Subsequent information received during search led to the search of premises of transporter M/s Ashu Roadlines, Indore.State of M.P.had supplied the finished goods in the same manner to M/s AAA Enterprises, Indore.The petitioners Amit Bothara and Ashok Daga are partners of the firm M/s Vishnu Essence.They were called and interrogated.The firm is honestly doing its business.It is paying GST to the tune of Rs.7-8 crores per month on an average on the sales.Their product contains 85% betel nut (Supari) and 15% Sugandh, Kattha, Elaichi (essence, catechu, cardamom) etc. Supari is purchased from the undertakings/companies of the government or from the societies run by the government; therefore, clandestine purchase is not possible.Rest of the raw material is purchased from the open market but only from the traders duly registered under the GST through invoices.Therefore, there has never been any scope to evade the tax.Investigation revealed that Mr. Vijay Kumar Nair of M/s. AAA Enterprises is the front man of Kishore Wadhwani.Kishore Wadhwani is the kingpin of the entire illegal procurement, production and supply chain of pan masala clandestinely.Investigation has further revealed that the petitioners had procured raw materials of pan masala and packing material from Ahmadabad and various other cities in Gujarat in clandestine manner and supplied manufactured pan masala to M/s. AAA Enterprises without invoices and payment of G.S.T.This is the first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in crime no.23/2020 registered under section 132(1)(a)(i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "GST Act"), Ss. 409, 467, 471, 120-B of the IPC by the Department of Revenue Intelligence and Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Central Excise Office, District Indore (here-in-after referred to as the 'Department').At the outset, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner claimed parity with co-accused--Amit Bothra and Ashok Daga, who have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos.21628/2020 and 21618/2020 respectively.He further asserted that rather the case of the petitioner is on better footing than the case of co-accused-- Amit Bothra and Ashok Daga, because all the allegations of the department of tax evasion are against their firm M/s 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.23289 of 2020 Vijay Kumar Nair Vs.State of M.P.Vishnu Essence, while the petitioner is neither a partner nor in any other way concerned or connected with the firm.He is proprietor of the firm M/s AAA Enterprises.As per the prosecution case itself, he was only a trader, supplier or commission agent of the firm Vishnu Essence.No document to show that any goods was procured, received or sold without invoices is produced.It is contended that the entire case of the respondent is based on the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 7o of the Act, which was recorded under coercion and duress and was retracted immediately after coming out of the pressure.Simply on the basis of suspicion, conjecture and involuntary confessions, no offence can be made out against the petitioner.Besides, the advance age (63 years), ailment (BP & Respiratory problems) and high risk to the life of such person due to spread of Covid-19 virus generated pandemic have also been taken as additional grounds for pressing the bail.Learned Additional Solicitor General contested the parity as claimed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.However, nothing substantial could be pointed out to distinguish the case of the petitioner from the case of the co-accused Amit Bothra and Ashok Daga.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.23289 of 2020 Vijay Kumar Nair Vs.During this search 10 vehicles, unaccounted Pan Masala, its packing material and some raw material was seized.The Pan Masala was found to be of 'Vimal' brand manufactured by M/s Vishnu Essence, Sanwer Road, Indore.The truck drivers also confirmed clandestine transportation of Pan Masala.Information extracted from the mobile of an employee of Aashu Roadlines Mr. Sameer Khan, indicated that the firm M/s Vishnu Essence had procured large quantities of raw material and packing material from Ahmadabad clandestinely and 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.23289 of 2020 Vijay Kumar Nair Vs.They confessed in their statements recorded under Section 70 of the GST Act that their firm had supplied Vimal brand Pan Masala worth Rs.320 crores clandestinely and has evaded payment of the GST to the tune of Rs.225 crores.Subsequent search of various places and statements of various persons further confirmed the aforesaid tax evasion.Following the due process, the petitioners were taken into custody and booked in the aforementioned crime.Refuting all the allegations made by the prosecution, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the firm M/s Vishnu Essence is duly registered with the GST vide registration no.23AAQFV6401JIZZ.It is asserted that the petitioners have never confessed anything before the officials.Their statements were recorded under threat and pressure.They retracted them immediately after coming out of the fear.It is further averred that the petitioners were doing their business honestly and were paying GST to the tune of Rs. 7 crore per month regularly, but due to unprecedented circumstances of spread of COVID-19 pandemic and complete lockdown pursuant thereto; there was some delay in paper work and submission of the invoices etc. Taking advantage of this beyond control peculiar circumstance, the officials of the department abused their authority, presumed the tax evasion and assessed the amount only on the basis of their conjecture and surmises as there was no production during the period of lockdown.Nil electricity consumption 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.23289 of 2020 Vijay Kumar Nair Vs.State of M.P.establishes the fact of closure of the factory during this period.Therefore, the allegation of evasion of tax is false and frivolous from it's very foundation.It is also submitted that the petitioners were earlier paying GST honestly and are also ready to pay the same in future.Though under pressure, but they have already paid Rs. 7 crores and are still ready to pay the deficit, if any, found due on the final assessment.It is argued that the dispute is only a revenue matter.The alleged evasion is assessed about Rs. 7 crores.Despite their right to challenge the assessment by depositing 10% of the amount assessed, they have deposited entire amount of Rs. 7 crores.It is asserted that the petitioners have no connection with Pakistani national Sanjay Matta or alleged main accused Kishore Wadhwani.It is further argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case.The officials have acted maliciously.The allegation made against them is vague.There is no incriminating evidence or supporting documents qua the petitioners.Details of alleged tax evasion have not been supplied to them.Their custody is illegal as there is no evidence to show that the officials were having "reasons to believe" that their custody was necessary.The department has not sought their police remand.This shows that there detention was unnecessary and illegal.The sole basis of their arrest is their statements recorded by the officials, but the same were recorded under threat and pressure and have been retracted immediately.Procedure prescribed under Ss. 67, 69, 74, 134,136, 138 of the GST Act and S.41A of Cr.P.C. for arrest, recording of statement, search and seizure have not been followed.The dispute is entirely covered under Section 132 of the G.S.T. Act. Initially the offence was also registered under the same Section.Offences under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC are not made out.Record shows that these offences have been added by the officials at a later stage merely with intent to harass the petitioners.Their custodial interrogation is not required.The nature of evidence is documentary and all documents are in custody of the Department.Hence, there is no fruitful purpose to keep them in custody.They are paying around 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.23289 of 2020 Vijay Kumar Nair Vs.State of M.P.70-80 crores G.S.T. per anum on an average.Their detention would cause loss of this amount to the State exchequer.About 150 workers are working in the firm of the petitioners.In case of their detention, the work of the firm will be at a halt and hence, affect the survival of the families of those 150 workers.The offence is punishable with maximum 5 years imprisonment and is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.The petitioners are ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court, therefore, it is prayed that they be granted bail.The petitioners have relied upon Joti Prasad Vs.State of Haryana 1993 supp.SCC 497, P.Chidambaram Vs.Directorate of Enforecement 2019 Lawsuit (SC) 1947, D.K. Sethi Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs.Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010) Vol.14 SCC 496, Sandeep Kumar Bafna Vs.State of Maharashtra and Anr (2014) 16 SCC 623, C. Pradeep Vs.The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Selman and Anr SLP 6834/2019, Madhav Gopaldas Shah Vs.State of Gujarat, Prasad Purshottam Mantri Vs.UOI and Ors, Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka Vs.UOI 2018 SCC Online Cal 4674, Mohit Vijay Vs.UOI (Rajasthan High Court), Lalit Kumar Gandhi Vs.State of MP and Make My Trip Vs.Stand taken by the department is that the petitioners have a very proximate nexus to the entire syndicate involved in clandestine manufacturing of pan masala and have caused huge loss to the sovereign exchequer.Acting on the intelligence information, when several persons were interrogated and search of several places was conducted, tax evasion of crores of rupees was detected.Still the investigation is going on.As many as 11 searches and 14 statements have been recorded after the arrest of the petitioners.In all possibilities the magnitude of the offence would increase in many folds.Release of the petitioners would hamper the investigation, which is at very crucial stage, therefore, it is prayed that they be not granted bail.It is submitted that during the course of investigating very clinching and cogent evidence has been unearthed which indicates that in connivance with each 7 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.23289 of 2020 Vijay Kumar Nair Vs.State of M.P.other, the petitioners as well as other wrongdoers have adopted a peculiar modus operandi for clandestine manufacturing and sale of pan masala.The petitioners are not merely benefactors of illegal activities, but had a very proximate nexus with the entire band of persons involved in the said syndicate.Sale and distribution of pan masala has been completely banned across the country due to pandemic induced lockdown from 25th March, 2020 considering its risk in spread of Covid-19 infection.In spite of the strict restriction, the petitioners' firms took undue benefit of this emergent situation and supplied their finished goods clandestinely in the State of Madhya Pradesh in connivance with M/s. AAA Enterprises.As per Section 132(5), since the G.S.T. evasion detected is more than five crores rupees, the offence is cognizable and non-bailable.There is every likelihood of the petitioners affecting the investigation and tampering with the witness.The officials of the DGGI were assaulted when they tried to search the house of Kishore Wadhwani for which an FIR is lodged with Police Station--Juni, Indore.In the case of P. V. Ramana Reddy Vs.UOI W.P. No.4764 of 2019 at paras 56 and 57, the Telangana High Court has observed that the object of arrest is to prevent a person from committing any offence or from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner or to prevent such person from any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and to do proper investigation or inquiry.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.)4430/2019 has upheld this observation the High Court of Telangana.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.23289 of 2020 Vijay Kumar Nair Vs.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr.A.No.730/2013 decided on 9th May, 2013 in the case of Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation has observed in para 34 that the Economic Offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.The economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posting serious threat to the financial health of the country.Therefore, the petitioners be not granted bail.Reliance has also been placed on The State of Gujrat Vs.Provisions of section 69, 70, 131, 133, 135, 136 of the GST Act have been referred by the learned counsel for the respondent/UOI.I have heard the learned senior counsels at length and have perused the record supplied by the department.On careful consideration of nature and gravity of the allegation made against the petitioners and the specific evidence collected in respect of these allegations, elaborate discussion of which would not be apt as it may adversely affect the interest of either party, the specific facts put-forth by the learned senior counsels for the petitioners and their reply and other facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, the case for granting bail is made out.Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, both the petitions stand allowed.It is directed that the petitioners Amit S/o Shri Shubhkaran Ji Bothara and Ashok Daga S/o Shri Ghawarchand Daga be released from custody on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) each with separate sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before it as and when required further subject to the following conditions :-(i) The petitioners shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments on frivolous grounds to protract the trial.;(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the 9 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.(iv) In case of their involvement in any other criminal activity or breach of any other aforesaid conditions, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.(v) The petitioners shall submit their passports, if any, before the Trial Court and shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court."I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the documents produced before the Court as well as the statements recorded under Section 70 of the G.S.T. Act..(Virender Singh) Judge Pankaj Digitally signed by Pankaj Pandey Date: 2020.08.14 13:30:21 +05'30' | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,864,916 | Heard on the bail application.Perused the case diary This is second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. First bail application was dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2014 passed in M.Cr.After rejection of the first bail application charge-sheet has been filed.The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.122/2014 registered at Police Station, Ishagarh, District Ashoknagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 294, 324, 506-B, 147, 148, 149 and 302 of IPC.As per the prosecution case, the complainant Pooran alongwith Chanda, Shubhalal, Chandan, Mohkam, Bhago Bai and Hargyan Bai was cutting crops from his field at about 10:00 AM Ranveer Singh armed with iron rod, Vijay Singh armed with Ballam, Hari armed with lugangi, Udabhan armed with iron rod, aongiwth Devlal Mohar Singh and Kallu came there and asked why they were cutting the crops of their field and started abusing when complainant said the field belongs to him then Ranveer Singh gave a blow of iron rod which hit on the head of complainant and blood oozing from the wound, Hari gave a luhangi blow on the righ hand, Mohar Singh also gave a lathi blow which hit on left hand, then Chanda, Sundarlal, Chandan, Bhagobai, Hargyan Bai, Mohkam came to save the complainant, they were also beaten by means of luhangi, ballam, lathi and iron rod.Report was lodged and the injured were sent for medical examination, thereafter in the hospital Chandan died.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated.He has not committed any offence.Applicant is a very old person aged about 60 years.He is in custody for more than 06 months.It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant for causing injury to the deceased Chandan.Therefore, the applicant be released on bail.Applicant party have also sustained injury and cross case bearing Crime No.121/2014 under Section 323, 294, 506, 147, 148, 149 of IPC has been registered.Thereafter, this instant crime has been registered against the applicant. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,652,831 | (i) Anticipatory Bail Application No.1342 of 2019, is allowed;(ii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with C.R.No.450 of 2019, registered with Baramati Police Station, District - Pune, he is directed to be released on bail on his executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 21:07:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 21:07:17 :::rpa 4/4 47-aba-1342-19.doc(iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called for till fling of the charge - sheet;(iv) Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 21:07:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 21:07:17 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,865,467 | (i) The deceased in this case, was one Mrs.Menaka.P.W.s 1 and 2 are the sons of the deceased.They are residents of Edaiyarkadu in Chettipulam.The appellant/1st accused had returned from Malaysia, about one month prior to the date of occurrence.He is also a native of Edaiyarkadu/Siraiyankadu, in Chettipulam Village.Accused No.2 (since deceased) and accused No.4 are relatives of the 1st accused while accused Nos. 3 & 5 are friends of the 1st accused.As the brother of the 1st accused, by name, Guhan, was employed in Malaysia, his wife, P.W.4., by name Suseela, was residing in a common house property in Siraiyankadu, Chettipulam Village.There were disputes between the 1st accused and his brother over the family properties and on account of the same, it is alleged that the 1st accused had driven out P.W.4 from the common house property.Therefore, P.W.4 had left the village and was living with her parents at Thagattur.However, whenever she came to see the house property at Siraiyankadu, she used to visit the house of the deceased.This made the appellant and the other accused to believe that P.W.4, Suseela, was encouraged and helped only by the deceased and her family members to claim right over the disputed property.This is said to be the motive for the occurrence.(ii) On 20.02.2008, P.W.4, Mrs. Suseela had come to the house of the deceased.At about 9.30p.m., she left the house of the deceased and went to see the disputed property.It is stated that all the five accused were standing in the house property and on seeing her, they gave a chase to attack her.P.W.4 ran towards the house of the deceased and entered the house of the deceased.All the accused, who came, chasing Suseela, armed with wooden logs, tried to enter into the house of the deceased.At that time, the husband of the deceased, by name, Thirunavukkarasu, who was standing near the entrance of his house, intercepted and attempted to prevent the accused from trespassing into the house and attacking the said Suseela.As a consequence, the 1st accused/appellant attacked him on his head with the wooden log.He fell down and the other accused started beating him.The deceased, Menaka, who was inside the house, on seeing her husband being attacked, rushed to his rescue.The 1st accused/appellant attacked her with the wooden log on her head once.On seeing this, P.W.s 1, 2 and the daughter of the deceased, by name, Sudha ( who is no more), intervened and the said Sudha was attacked by the 2nd accused(since deceased) on her head.Thereafter, all the five accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.s 1 and 2, who are the children of the deceased.After the accused had left the place of occurrence, the deceased and the other two injured (the husband and daughter of the deceased) were taken to the Government Hospital at Thiruthuraipoondi, by P.W.4 and others.P.W.11 had been told that the deceased was attacked by a known person at her house at 8p.m. She was only semi-conscious.(vi) Tenderness + Right Hypochondrium."Exs-P11 and P12 are respectively the Accident Registers pertaining to them.The deceased was admitted in the said hospital as an in-patient for providing treatment while the daughter and husband of the deceased, after providing first aid, were referred to the Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur, for further treatment.(iv) While in hospital, despite treatment given, the deceased succumbed to the injuries.Ex-P6 is the printed First Information Report.He forwarded Exs-P1 and P6 to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for further investigation.(v) One Sundaramoorthy, the then Inspector of Police, Kariyapattinam Police Station, was the Investigating Officer.He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.He also recovered wooden logs, two in number (M.O.1 series) under a mahazar, Ex-P16, in the presence of the same witnesses.a) Lungs: Pleura Normal.Lungs congested.b) Heart: Empty.c) Stomach: About 50ml of viscous fluid present.d) Pancreas: No injury.No blood conversion on peritoneal cavity.e) Small Intestine: Empty with gas.f) Large Intestine: Empty with gas.g) Uterus:h) Ovaries: Normal.No injury.External Genitals: No injury.No injury to long bones and vertebrae."Ex-P8 is the postmortem certificate.The Doctor opined that the injuries found on the dead body would have been caused by a weapon like wooden log.He further opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organ brain.(viii) During the course of investigation, Sundaramoorthy, the Investigating Officer, arrested the 1st accused and the 5th accused at about 10a.m. on 22.02.2008, in the presence of P.W.7 and another.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. NAGAMUTHU,J.) The appellant is the 1st accused in S.C. No. 16 of 2009 on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.Including the appellant, there were totally five accused in the said case.The 2nd accused died before the charges were framed.The Trial Court, however, did not choose to rearrange the order of the rank of the accused.The deceased second accused, as per the final report, was shown as the second accused in the charges and in this judgment also.As against accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5, the Trial Court framed the following charges:A1 & A3 to A5Charge No.2Under Section 309 r/w 149 I.P.C.A1 & A3 to A5Alternative ChargeUnder Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C.A1 & A3 to A5Charge No.3Under Section 302 I.P.C.A1Charge No.4Under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.A3 to A5Alternative ChargeUnder Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.A3 to A5 By judgment dated 12.04.2013, the Trial Court convicted the 1st accused/appellant alone under Section 302 I.P.C.(charge No.3) and acquitted him of the other charges while accused Nos. 3 to 5 were acquitted of all the charges framed against them.For the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., the Trial Court sentenced the 1st accused/appellant to undergo the punishment of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and the remand period undergone by the 1st accused/appellant was directed to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.The Doctor noted the following injuries:"L/E - Laceration 5 x 1.5c.m.Right parietal region.Depressed # + Right parietal region."Ex-P10 is the Accident Register issued in respect of the deceased.On the same day, P.W.11 examined Sudha, the daughter of the deceased and she noted the following injury:" L/E - Laceration + 5 x1 cm Right Tempero occipital region"Then, she examined Mr.Thirunavukkarasu, the husband of the deceased, on whom, she found the following injuries:"L/E (i) Laceration 2 x 3 x 1 cm right eye brow.(ii) Laceration 4 cm x 1 cm below eye on right side.(iii) Laceration 1 cm left cheek.(iv) Loss of Central Incisor.(v) Tenderness + Right arm.On 22.02.2008, he examined P.Ws. 4, 7 and others and recorded their statements.On the same day, at about 10a.m., in the presence of Panchayatdhars and witnesses, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at Government Hospital, Thiruthuraipoondi and Ex-P13 is the inquest report.(vi) P.W.10, Dr. T. Sivakumar, Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Thiruthuraipoondi, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 21.02.2008 at 1.15.p.m.He noted the following injuries:"External Injuries:1. Lacerated injury over right parieto occipital region 6 cm x 2cm x 2cm Bone exposed.2. Abrasion over right wrist 1 cm x 1 cm.3. Abrasion over right elbow 1 cm x 1 cm.Abrasion left thumb 1cm x 1 cm.Intravenous cannula over left hand and right foot.Internal Examination:1. Skull:a) Fracture of occipital bone and left parietal bone.b) About 100ml of blood clot over occipital and left temporal bone.Neck: Bones are intact.3. Thorax:No evidence of injury.4. Abdomen:a) Liver: Congested.No injury.b) Kidney: Congested.No injury.He examined P.W.s 6 and 7 and others and recorded their statements.P.W.12 examined P.W.s 8, 9, 10, 11 and another and recorded their statements.He came to know that the 2nd accused (since deceased), 3rd accused and the 4th accused had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi.(ix) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment and the accused denied the same.(x) In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined, 16 documents and 3 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.s 1 and 2 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence.They have clearly and cogently spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.s 3, 4 5 and 6, who were examined as eye-witnesses, turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution, in any manner.P.W.7 has spoken about the arrest of accused Nos. 1 and 5 on 22.02.2008 at 10a.m. P.W.8 has spoken about the fact that he carried the FIR and the complaint to the Court and handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi.P.W.9 has spoken about the fact that he carried the dead body and handed over the same to the Doctor for postmortem.P.W.10 has spoken about the autopsy conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.11 has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased and the other two injured persons, namely, the daughter and husband of the deeased.P.W.12 has spoken about the investigation done and the filing of final report.(xi) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same as false.No defence witnesses were examined on their side.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the 1st accused/appellant alone under Section 302 I.P.C. That is how, the 1st accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.We have also carefully gone through the evidence available on record.At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.s 1 and 2 would not have been present at the time of occurrence at all.According to him, P.W.s 1 and 2 were staying in a hostel during the relevant point of time and therefore, on the crucial date, they would not have been present.This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant does not persuade us at all because P.W.s 1 and 2 have categorically explained in their evidence as to how they happened to be present in their house.They have also stated about the manner, in which the occurrence had taken place.The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that that the neighbours, who accompanied the injured to the hospital, had told the Doctor that the occurrence was at 8p.m whereas according to P.W.s 1 and 2, the occurrence was at 9.30p.m.and therefore, according to the learned counsel, P.Ws. 1 and 2 would not have been present at the scene of occurrence at the crucial moment.Even this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant does not appeal to us at all for the simple reason that one cannot expect these rustic village people to be so meticulous and precise in noting down the time of occurrence and to mention the same.The time of occurrence, as it was stated by the neighbours to the Doctor and as stated by P.W.s 1 and 2 can only be taken as approximate time of occurrence and therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is also rejected.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that P.W.s 1 and 2 did not accompany the deceased and the injured to the hospital, which would go to show that they were not present at the scene, at the time of occurrence.This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant also does not persuade us at all because, soon after the occurrence, the neighbours, who arrived at the scene, had hired a taxi, and all of them took the deceased and the other two injured to the hospital and even at the time, when the complaint was obtained by the Police, P.W.s 1 and 2 were very much present in the hospital.There were three people, who were injured in the occurrence and they were taken to the hospital.Out of them, one died and two of them were referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur, for further treatment.When that was the condition of the injured, certainly, P.W.s 1 and 2 would not have been in a mood go to the Police Station immediately to give a complaint.Thus, in our considered opinion, there was nothing unnatural on the part of P.W.s 1 and 2 in concentrating on the health of the deceased, who is their mother and the other two injured, who are none else than their father and sister, without going to the Police Station to lodge a complaint.Thus, we are of the considered view that though there was some delay in preferring the complaint as well as in the FIR reaching the Court, that would not, in any manner, destroy the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2, which inspire the fullest confidence of this Court.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that Ex-D1, the marriage invitation card of the 1st accused/appellant, would go to show that the appellant got married only on 18.02.2008 and therefore, on 21.02.2008, he would not have been present at the time of occurrence.This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant also deserves to be rejected as the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 clearly establish the presence of the 1st accused/appellant at the scene of crime, at the time of occurrence and we hold that it was the 1st accused/appellant, who caused the injury on the deceased, resulting in her death.Having come to the said conclusion, now, we have to examine as to what was the offence, which the 1st accused/appellant had committed, by his above act.It is in evidence that there was no enmity between the appellant and the deceased at all.Except the fact that the appellant had a feeling that the deceased and her family were supporting P.W.4, Suseela, in respect of her claim over the disputed family property, there were no other issues between them.On the date of occurrence, at about 9p.m., P.W.4, Mrs. Suseela, who is the sister-in-law of the 1st accused/appellant had gone to the disputed property.The arrival of Suseela and her visiting the disputed property would not have been expected by the appellant and the other accused.Thus, the appellant had found Suseela, at the place of occurrence, only by chance.On seeing her, it is stated that the 1st accused along with other accused chased her to attack her and she rushed towards the house of the deceased and entered into the house.The 1st accused along with other accused, also attempted to trespass into the house of the deceased to attack the said Suseela.At that time, the husband of the deceased tried to intervene and prevent the accused from entering the house.It is alleged that the 1st accused/appellant attacked him first.Only at that time, the deceased intervened and the 1st accused/appellant gave one single blow with the wooden log on her head.Certainly, there was no enmity between the 1st accused and the deceased and only in the melee, that occurred, in his attempt to attack P.W.4, Suseela, the 1st accused had given a single blow on the head of the deceased, when she intervened and he did not repeat the attack on the deceased also.There was no pre-meditation on the part of the 1st accused/appellant to attack the deceased so as to cause her death.However, the act of the 1st accused, in causing injury to the deceased, which resulted in her death, would squarely fall within the third limb of Section 300 I.P.C. and at the same time, his act would also fall under exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. It is in evidence that though the 1st accused had gone to the house of the deceased, his aim was only to attack P.W.4, Suseela.But, when the husband of the deceased had intervened, there would have arisen some quarrel, and he would have questioned the authority of the 1st accused to enter his house and there would have been a scuffle and only in that scuffle, the 1st accused would have given a single blow on the head of the deceased, when she came to the rescue of her husband.Though there is evidence that the appellant had caused injury on the husband of the deceased, since the appellant had been acquitted by the Trial Court from these charges and since there is no appeal against the same, we cannot re-open the same.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the 1st accused was a newly married man at the time of occurrence and now, he has got children.He has a large family to take care of and the occurrence was not a pre-meditated one and it was only out of a sudden quarrel, in a heat of passion, that the occurrence had taken place and there are lot of chances for reformation.Having regard to these mitigating and aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304(i) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 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. |
1,786,563 | The sentences of imprisonment have been made to run concurrently.Komal Prasad constable police out post Runkata was tried with the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 225, I.P.C. He has been acquitted in the case,Beni with his wife Smt. Kailash Pati (P. W. 1) used to live in village Rai-pura Ahir within police Station Achhnera.There was enmity between Beni and Gajodhar of village Raipura Ahir.Gajodhar was in collusion with the police and used to implicate Beni in false cases.The police, therefore, used to send him to jail.On this account Beni left his village and began to work as labourer in the city of Agra.In the early morning on or about 1-5-1977 the Head constable along with three constables of police out post Runkata reached at the house of Beni in village Raipura Ahir.Beni was not at his house.Thereupon the Head constable forcibly took away his wife Smt. Kailash Pati from her house.On reaching a culvert outside the village Abadi the Head constable demanded Rs, 500/- for releasing her She told him that she was too poor To pay Rs. 500/-.The Head constable then agreed to accept Rs. 125/-.The Head constable asked her to give him the said money at Runkata outpost on Thursday.She promised to give him the said money on the said day.Hence she was released.On 4-5-1977 Smt. Kailash Pati gave an application Ex. Ka. 1 to Deputy Superintendent of Police (C. B.), C. I. D., Agra (Sri Mohammad Rafi) Sri Mohd. Rafi marked the application to Sri Hari Prakash Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption C. I. D. (P. W. 2).Smt. Kailash Pati produced currency notes of Rs. 125/-(one note of Rs. 100/-, one note of Rupees 20/- and one note of Rs. 5/-) before him.On 5-5-1977 Hari Prakash Sharma left his office at 10 A. M. along with K. K. Singh Inspector, Prakash Chand Dixit and Manu Mai constables in a jeep driven by Hakim Singh.On reaching the Collectorate, he collected Subhash Chand Katara, a Law graduate, Nihal Singh and Kalicharan (P. W. 3).This party reached Sudhir Petrol Pump Runkata at about 10.45 A. M, Smt. Kailash Pati and her mother in law reached at the hut of Prasadi in Runkata.Leaving her mother-in-law there Smt. Kailash Pati reached the petrol pump and met Hari Prakash Sharma there.Hari Prakash Sharma made initials on the currency notes, and then gave them back to Smt. Kailash Pati.Smt. Kailash Pati along with Kalicharan and Nihal Singh then reached at the hut of Prasadi and sat under a Shisham tree.She sent her mother-in-law to call the Head constable.The Head contable sat on a cot.Hari Prakash Sharma Inspector, constables and Subhash Chand Katara took their positions at the back of the hut.Hari Prakash Sharma was able to see the Head constable, Smt. Kailash Pati and Ors., Smt. Kailash Pati then talked with the Head constable requesting him not to harass her and her and her husband then and Kep them in his ritht hand.The constable asked her about kalicharan and Nihal Singh.She told him that they were her relations and that she had brought money from them.Immediately then Hari Prakash Sharma and Ors. proceeded towards the place where the appellant, Smt. Kailash Pati, Kalicharan, Nihal Singh were sitting.On seeing them this appeal- the currency notes in ques-"" tion on the" ground.Hari Prakash Sharma disclosed his identity to the appellant and told him that he had taken bribe.Thereafter Hari Prakash Sharma picked up currency notes Exs.The appellant did not disclose his name.He was, however, taken into custody by the constable Hari Prakash Sharma.With difficulty he could be taken up to the jeep.In the meantime a constable (whose name was later on found as Komal Prasad) came up and shouted as to why his Head constable Vishnu Prasad was being taken away.The constables with Hari Prakash Sharm attempted to beat the appellant in the jeep.Some people of the village lant threw the currency notes in question on the ground .Hari Prakash Sharma then reached police out post Runkata and took general diary and made an entry in the general diary of the out-post at 12.45 hours.In this entry he mentioned the entire occurrence.Thereafter Hari Prakash Sharma along with the general diary of the out-post went to police station Achhnera.The officers of the police department every day come in contact with the public.It is the duty of the police officers to maintain law and order.It is their duty to protect the people.They are not expected to harass and trouble the people.He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J.Vishnu Prasad appellant, Head constable police out post Runkata, police station Achhnera, District Agra has been convicted and sentenced under Sections IGIjJHAjJL-P. C. and 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 to undergo R. I. for 2 years, 1 year and 2 years respectively.On reaching there Hari Prakash Sharma lodged verbal report of the occurrence and handed over the general diary of the out-post there.Shanker Singh, Head constable (P. W. 5) wrote out the check report on the dictation of Hari Prakash Sharma and made entry in the general diary at 2.30 P. M. in the evening at 7.30 P. M. the general diary of the out-post was returned through constable Banhchan Singh.Yadupal Singh Inspector, C. I. D (C. B.) P. W 6 investigated the case froin 13-6-1977, and ultimately submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and Komal Prasad constable.At the time of occurrence the appellant was the only Head constable post- ed at police out-post Runkata.Hari Prakash Sharma came to know of the name of the appellant and that of Komal Prasad at out-post Runkata,The appellant, did not admit the allegations of the prosecution He asserted that Smt. Kailash Pati and her husband were in the habit of committing thefts, dacoities, house-breaking and manufac- turing illegal liquor, that he used to receive warrants for the arrest of of Beni, husband of Smt. Kailash Pati and Chenu, brother of Beni, that Kailash Chand Katara, son of a history sheeter was on good terms with Beni, and Chainu, Berias, that Kailash Chand Katara had fabricated this false case against him, that on 5-5-77, the date of occurrence he along with Komal Prasad and Jaibir Singh constables had gone to execute summonses and warrants to village Runkata, Nagla Murli, Arrsena and Roipura, that after having executed the said processes they returned to the police out-post, that then he learnt that the general diary had been taken away by the officers of the C. I. D. to the police station, that then he sent Bachchan Singh constable to bring the general diary.He further asserted that on 5-5-1977 he went to Raipura Ahir to arrest Beni and Chainu, that they were not present at their house, that Smt. Kailash Pati met him, that he asked her the whereabouts of Beni and Chainu, that, Smt, Kailash Pati offered to give him money and that fie rebuked her.Komal Prasad constable denied to have released Vishnu Prasad appellant from the custody of the constables of Hari Prakash Sharma,The prosecution examined Smt. Kailash Pati, Hari Prakash Sharma, Kali-charan and Subhash Chandra (P. Ws.1 to 4) besides Shanker Singh, Head constable and Yadupal Singh Investigating Officer.The trial Judge examined Jaibir Singh as Court witness (C. W. 1).The appellant and Komal Prasad did not examine any witness in their defence.On an appraisal of the entire material before him the Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge) Agra, convicted the appellant and for good reasons acquitted Komal Prasad of the offence punishable under Section 225, I.P.C.11. learned Counsel for the parties have been heard, and record has been examined carefully with their assistance.Smt. Kailash Pati has narrated the prosecution version.She clearly stated that the appellant (Diwan ji i. e. Head constable) demanded Rs. 500/- from her for releasing her that ultimately the appellant agreed' to take Rs. 125/-, that then she approached the officers of the Anti-Corruption Department, that on the date of occurrence she paid the currency notes which were initialled by Hari Prakash Sharma to the appellant, that the appellant counted the currency notes and kept them in his right hand.She further stated that as soon as Hari Prakash Sharma and other persons came up the appellant threw the currency notes on the ground under a cot.These notes were picked up by Hari Prakash Sharma.She has then stated that the appellant ran away from the custody of the constables which were with Hari Prakash Sharma.Kalicharan (P.W. 3) has Corroborated the testimony of smt.Kailash Pati on the point of givmg the currency notes to the appellant and the appellant's accepting the same.He has further corroborated her testimony on the point that on seeing Hari Prakash Sharma and Ors.the appellant threw the currency notes which were picked up by Hari Prakash Sharma.Lastly, he has stated that the appellant ran away from the custody of the police of the anti-corruption department.Hari Prakash Sharma has fully corroborated the testimony of Smt. Kailash Pati.Subhash Chand Katara has also corroborated her testimony.It will be noticed that Kalicharan was a young man and out of employment on the date of occurrence.After the occurrence he was employed as a teacher in primary school Garhi.Subhash Chand Katara had passed the examination of law.Kalicharan and Subhash Chand Katara both are residents of Nagla Aman.These two persons had absolutely no connection with Smt. Kailash Pati or her husband.These two persons were also not under the influence of the police officers.Prior to the date of occurrence Kalicharan had got his name registered in the Employment Exchange Agra.On the date of occurrence, he came to Agra to find out the action, if any, taken by the Employment Exchange on his application.Subhash Chand Katara had promised to make query in the Employment Exchange.Therefore, Kalicharan was with him.Subhash Chand Katara came to Agra for having talks with Sri Panna Lai Sri-vastava Vakil in connection with his enrolment.Kalicharan and Subhash Chand Katara came by city bus and got down at bus stand near Collectorate.They happened to meet Hari Prakash Sharma who was proceeding in a jeep to lay the trap.It will thus appear that both these witnesses are quite independent and reliable.She has then admitted that Beni was wanted in a dacoity case 4 or 5 years ago and that warrants for her husband's arrest also came 3 years ago from police stations Allahpur and Fatehpur Sikri.She then stated that Gajodhar was murdered and her husband was impleaded for his murder.She then admitted that she was also implicated in liquor manufacturing cases prior to the occurrence and that she was not convicted in any case.These facts go to show that Beni husband of Smt. Kailash Pati is a bad character and that she was also implicated in liquor manufacturing cases but she was perhaps not convicted.These facts go to show that there can be truth in her assertion that the Head Constable of police out-post Runkata used to harass her and her husband.There appears no infirmity in the statement of Hari Prakash Sharma.The appellant's counsel pointed out that he took position in a pit and that the appellant would have seen him.This contention is not correct because the back of the appellant was towards the pit in which Hari Prakash Sharma took position.Reference may now be made to the testimony of Jaibir Singh constable (C W. 1).He has stated that on 5-5-1977 at 9. A. M. he left Runkata police outpost along with the appellant and Komal Prasad, that they went together to villages Runkata, Nagla Murli, Arsena and Raipura Ahir, that in all these villages they served summonses and that after having served the summonses they reached at the police out-post at 3.42 P. M., that they found Matlpob Ahmad and Ram Gopal constables at the police out-post, that the appellant asked Mat-loob Ahmad to produce the general diary, that Matloob Ahmad told him that the general diary had been taken away by the officers of the C. I. D. and then the appellant sent Bachan Singh constable to bring the general diary.In cross-examination he stated that they remained in village Runkata up to 9.30 A. M, that then they reached Nagla Murli at 10.30 A. M., that Nagla Murli is 4 kilometers from.Runkata, that they, stayed in Nagla Murli for half an hour, that in Nagla Murli notices under Section 107/117, Cr, P. C. were served on 5-6 persons, that he made no writing on the said notices, that the appellant wrote reports on the said notices in village Arsena which is 3 kilometers from Nagla Murli, that they reached Arsena from Nagla Murli within 40-45 minutes, that they stayed in Arsena for half an hour, that one notice summons was served at the Chabutra of Ramji Lai Mukhia in Arsena, that the appellant wrote report about its service, that he did not remember if signature or thumb mark of Ramji Lai was taken or not, that Raipura Ahir is 4-5 kilometers from Arsena, that they went from Aresena to Raipura Ahir, that processes were served upon Sunder Singh and Gajodhar Singh of village Raipura, that the Head constable wrote reports on their summonses, that they stayed in Raipura Ahir for about 50 minutes and that from Raipura Ahir they straightway returned to the police out-post.Then he stated that Raipura Ahir via Arsena is 8-9 kilometers from Runkata out-post and that this distance was covered in about l 1/2 hours.The statement of Jaibir Singh goes to support the version of the appellant, but for the reasons set out below the statement of Jaibir Singh does not help the appellant:(1) The appellant did not get summoned notices/summonses which were served in Runkata, Nagla Murli and Arsena.In this way, there is no corroboration of the statement of Jaibir Singh in respect of effecting service of notices in these three villages, Jaibir Singh has not given out the names of the persons who were served with notices/summonses in villages Runkata, Nagla Murli and Arsena.(2) Yadupal Singh, investigating officer stated that he inspected (he record of the case of Sheocharan and Ors.in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and found that no summons of this case was served in Arsena, that he inspected records relating to Nagla Murli and that he could not find any case in which summons was served in this village, that he found that summonses were served upon Sunder Singh and Gajdhar in village Raipura Ahir on 5-5-1977, and that Raipura Ahir is 6-7 kilometers from police out-post Runkata.His statement shows that no service was actually effected by the appellant along with Jaibir Singh and Komal Prasad in village Nagla Murli and Arsena and that process was served in Raipura Ahir only.(3) Distance between Raipura Ahir and Runkata out-post can easily he covered in about l'/s hour's time.In case the appellant left the out-post on the date of occurrence at 9 A. M. to serve processes in Raipura Ahir, the appellant could easily return from Raipura Ahir to Runkata by 12 O'clock.In view of the above, it cannot be said on the basis of the testimony of Jai-bir Singh that the appellant could not have been present in Runkata at about 12 O'clock noon.In this way the testimony of Jaibir Singh is not of help to the appellant.It has been indicated above that Kalicharan and Subhash Chand Katara are quite independent persons and it does Dot appear that they have perjured themselves against the appellant.He had gone to arrest her husband.Her husband was not available.Therefore, to harass Smt. Kailash Pati he carried her to a place outside the village Abadi of Raipura Ahir.The appellant demanded money just for 1releasing" "Ke Section 161 C.R.P. C. envisages the case of a person who obtains or accepts any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempt-ng to render any service or disservice lo any person.In the present case the art of the appellant in taking away Smt. Kailash Pati from her house to a place outside the village Abadi was not an official act.The view expressed above gets support from the case of Dalpat Singh y. State of Rajasthan 1968 Cri App R 29 (SC): (1969 Cri LJ 262) cited by the appellant's counsel.In this case the appellant No. 1 was Havaldar and appellant No. 2 Subedar in Rajasthan Armed Constabulary.They were posted at Sajan-Ka-Par police out-post, a border out-post, 2 miles from Pakistan Border.The appellant compelled one Mohammad to give them Rs. 100/-.A trap was laid and the first appellant only was apprehended because the second appellant on account of being unwell could not come and take the money.It was held that the appellants had committed no offence., under Section 161, X, P. C. because The gratification was not obtained as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to the person in question in the exercise of their official functions and that the appellants had simply extorted the money.Section 5 defines 'Criminal misconduct' on the part of a public servant.Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) reads, "if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage." In the instant case it is evident that the appellant took money from Smt. Kailash Pati by abusing his position as Head constable of Runkata Police out-post.At this stage it may be mentioned that from the beginning Smt. Kailash Pati was complaining against the Dewanji (Head constable) of Runkata out-post.She did not know his name.At the time of occurrence the appellant was the only Head constable posted at the out-post Runkata.Therefore, there is no doubt about the identity of the appellant who demanded illegal gratification from Shri-mati Kailash Pati.The appellant was arrested by Hari Prakash Sharma but the appellant ran away.No doubt the appellant was not got identified by any of the prosecution witnesses.But in view of the facts stated just above this lacuna does not help the appellant,The appellant's counsel lastly urged that the sentence was severe, that the appellant would lose job and that fine only be imposed on him.The appellant's counsel referred to the case of B. C. Goswami v. Delhi Administration .In this case the appellant was storekeeper of Sewa Kendra run by Delhi Addministration for the benefit of beggars and Madan Singh complainant was Thekedar of supply of vegetables to the Sewa Kendra.Appellant demanded bribe from Madan Singh saying that if he paid the money then all sorts of vegetables supplied by him would be acceptable and that if he did not pay no vegetable brought by him would be received.On the complaint of Madan Singh a trap was laid.Rs. 50/-were paid as illegal gratification and recovered.The Supreme Court heard the appellant's appeal after 7 years.The appellant was holding a responsible post of Head constable and he was in charge of a police out-post.The appellant was aged about 38 years at the time of occurrence. | ['Section 161 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.