id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
178,657,939 |
From in front of us 3 or 4 more persons came and one of them whose name is Sanjay and is present in court (Sanjay accused correctly identified) caught hold of me.Another person whose name is Raju and who is also present in court (Raju accused correctly identified) gave me a knife blow towards the left of my abdomen.While we were running after Priya Swami, Ravi Dutt was ahead of us.Behind him was my brother Surinder.I was behind Surinder and Hari Prakash was just behind me.While we were chasing Priya Swami, Sanjay accused had given a lathi blow to Hari Prakash.It was thereafter, the Sanjay accused had caught hold of me and Raju accused had given me knife blow.On receiving the knife blow, I had fallen down.My brother Surinder and Hari Prakash took me in the scooter of Hari Prakash to my house from where my brother Surinder and my brother in law Mange Ram took me to Hindu Rao Hospital, where I was admitted.Later I came to know that Ravi Dutt had been murdered."On careful analysis of the evidence of PW14 Khushi Ram, it would show that on 04.07.1984 between 11-11:15 p.m., when he was Crl.Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 5 of 10 returning back, three persons had signalled him to stop his scooter taxi.Above referred appeal is directed against the impugned judgement dated 04.10.1999 convicting the appellant Priya Swami under Section 302/392/397 Indian Penal Code and order on sentence dated 16.10.1999 awarding the appellant to undergo life imprisonment for the offence committed under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years each for the offences under Section 392/397 Indian Penal Code.The prosecution case as it emerges from the record is that on 05.07.1984, Surinder Kumar made a complaint to the police that his brother Khushi Ram ply (sic) a three wheeler scooter; that on 04.07.1984 at about 11:30 P.M. his brother Khushi Ram came back to the house and informed him and his uncle Ravi Dutt that his Crl.Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 1 of 10 H.M.T. Kohinoor watch and Rs.25/- have been robbed by four persons, as a result of which he (Surinder Kumar), his brother Khushi Ram, uncle Ravi Dutt and neighbour Hari Prakash left for searching the said four boys; that on reaching Tapkana Pul, Delhi, they found appellant; that on pointing towards him, appellant started running; that while chasing appellant other 3/4 boys came in front of them and out of them one co-accused Sanjay caught hold of Khushi Ram and other co-accused Raju gave a knife blow toward the left abdomen of Khushi Ram and Sanjay gave lathi blow on the leg of Hari Prakash but Surender Kumar and others did not give up chasing them and when they reached near them his uncle apprehended one of the boys and the boy stabbed on the neck and body of his uncle Ravi Dutt, who fell on the ground; that Surinder and Hari Prakash took Khushi Ram in a three wheeler scooter to Hindu Rao Hospital, got him admitted there and returned to the spot and found that the dead body of his uncle Ravi Dutt was lying there near the Jhuggi and that those four boys have murdered his uncle.Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 1 of 10On the basis of above statement of Surinder Kumar, a case under section 302/307/392/341/34 Indian Penal Code was got registered against the accused persons.Initially the charges were framed against six accused persons, i.e. Mohinder, Lekhraj, Lakhan, Priya Swami, Raju, Panna, Puran and Sanjay.Accused Mohinder and Lekhraj were not committed to the court of Session while accused Raju and Panna died during the trial.Accused Sanjay died during the appeal and his appeal stands abated.Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 2 of 10To bring home guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and after the prosecution closed its evidence, statement of the four accused persons i.e. Puran, Priya Swami, Sanjay and Lakhan were recorded under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure.All the accused persons denied the prosecution story in toto and claimed to be tried.Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the recovery against the accused persons is highly suspicious on the ground that the police did not join any public witness before interrogating the accused persons, regarding their disclosure statement and making recoveries from them.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused were produced for Test Identification Parade in the court without muffled faces and as such the identification is not legal and that the prosecution has failed to produce the material witness.Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that learned Trial Court has convicted and reached the conclusion of the guilt with regard to the appellant merely on the basis of statement of the complainant Surender recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Trial Court has relied upon the statement made by Maheshwar Prasad Singh recorded before learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no case under Section 397 Indian Penal Code is made out as there is no evidence on record to suggest that knife was used to commit the robbery.Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 3 of 10Prosecution has further proved the recovery of belongings of khushi ram and weapons of offence from the possession of the accused person as per the disclosure statements made by them.We heard the counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions.We may notice that the FIR was registered on the basis of statement given by Surender, the complainant who died during the pendency of the trial.Thus, the FIR was not proved.In the present case, we may also notice that the statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded of Maheshwar Prasad Singh, but, he was not produced in court.PW14 Khushi Ram is the star prosecution witness as he was admittedly present with Surinder Kumar and Hari Prakash at the time of incident and was caught hold off by the accused Sanjay and was stabbed with knife by accused Raju on the left side of abdomen.He also identified Raju,Sanjay and Priya Swami in court and also deposed about the Lathi blow given by accused Sanjay to Hari Prakash.He stated nothing about the murder of Ravi Dutt as he fell down on being stabbed and while that Ravi Dutt was still chasing the accused people.Since, the entire case of the prosecution rests on the witness PW14 Khushi Ram, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the entire Crl.Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 4 of 10 evidence of PW14 Khushi Ram who was robbed and stabbed, which reads as under:Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 4 of 10"In July, 1984 I used to ply scooter taxi.On 4th of July, 1984 at about 11 or 11:15 p.m. while I was coming back home from the side of Tri Nagar three persons gave signal to me to stop near the Tapkana bridge.Thinking that they were passengers, I stopped my scooter.Priya Swami accused who is present in court today (correctly identified) asked me for a match box.He also asked me as to what the time was.I told him the time.Thereupon Priya Swami, the accused took out a knife and robbed me off Rs.25/- in currency notes and a challan chit relating to my scooter taxi.I was also robbed of my wrist watch.Thereafter, I went away to my house and told my uncle Ravi Dutt and brother Surinder as to what had transpired.On coming to know of the incident Ravi Dutt and Surinder along with me came back to the place of occurrence in the three wheeler scooter of Hari.Hari was our neighbour and the scooter was driven by him.When we reached Tapkana Bridge I found Priya Swami, the accused there.I pointed out towards him to my companions.On that Priya Swami ran towards the canal.We ran after him.Under the impression that they were passengers, he stopped his scooter on which the appellant, who had been identified by him in court, requested him for a match box and also asked the time.There upon, the appellant took out a knife and robbed Rs.25/-, his wrist watch and a challan chit relating to his scooter taxi.This part of his statement had not been shaken during the cross examination.Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 5 of 10PW14 Khushi Ram identified the appellant herein as the person who had robbed him and also had a knife in his hand.Based on the statement, we are of the view that learned Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for the offences committed under Section 392/397 Indian Penal Code.Further reading the evidence of this witness would show that when he reached his house, narrated the entire incident to his uncle Ravi Dutt and brother Surender.With the help of their neighbour Hari Prakash, Ravi Dutt, Surender and PW14 Khushi Ram went to the spot of incident in three wheeler scooter of Hari Prakash.The witness thereafter narrated that when the above persons reached Tapkana Bridge, they found the appellant, when the witness pointed towards appellant on which appellant ran towards canal and they chased him, thereafter, 3-4 persons came out.He identified one of them as Sanjay (since died), who had caught hold Khushi Ram and another person as Raju ( since died) gave a knife blow towards the left of abdomen of Khushi Ram.This witness also testified that when appellant were chased, lathi blow was given by Sanjay to Hari Prakash.After receiving the knife blow, this witness was removed by his brother Surender and Hari Prakash to the house and thereafter to the hospital.PW14 has ascribed no role to the appellant for causing Crl.Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 6 of 10 injury to him.He has also not described any role to this appellant for inflicting any injury to any other person.Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 6 of 10Since, the knife was Crl.As the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, such statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence."Learned Trial Court while convicting the appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code has relied upon the statement made by the Crl.Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 9 of 10 complainant under Surinder (since deceased) under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and of Maheshwar Prasad Singh recorded before learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, who was not produced in court as a witness.Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 9 of 10Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part.The nominal roll of appellant has been called, as per which he has already undergone 6 years 29 days of sentence.He has also earned remission of 4 months and 19 days.The appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.Appellant is present in court today.The appellant shall be taken into custody to enable him to serve the sentence for remaining the period.G. S. Sistani, J Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J January 15, 2015 gr Crl.Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 10 of 10Appeal No. 299/2000 Page 10 of 10
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,661,542 |
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A.Brief facts are that the complainant Smt. Munni Devi had lodged a report with the allegation that on 28.08.2008 at about 09:00 A.M. Awadhesh came to her house and had lunch at her house.At about 05:00 P.M. he took her husband Satyaram on account of some work at Dhumari and stated that he will return tomorrow.The next day when her husband did not return, she went to the house of Awadhesh where the inmates of Awadhesh told that they are with each other and they have gone to Aliganj from Dhumari.She awaited for another two days but her husband did not return.He again went to the village of Awadhesh where she was told that Awadhesh is living in the village.So, she started searching for her husband then Ajaipal and Satyendra of the village told her that on 28.08.2008 at about 05:30 P.M. they had seen Awadhesh along with Kashmir Singh, Satyaram, Kripal Singh and Pramod.She felt that her husband was kidnapped for murder by Awadhesh.She gave an application at the police station to register a case but the case was not registered.Then she presented the application before S.S.P. at which the case was registered but the I.O. did not record her statement and send the final report.The complainant filed a protest petition against the final report.Learned Magistrate on perusal of the case diary and after hearing the counsel for the complainant and perusal of the affidavits of witnesses Ajaipal and Satyendra, allowed the protest petition and, orders, for further investigation on 19.12.2012 were passed.
|
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,786,658 |
JUDGMENT Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 10th March, 1998 passed by Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal( in short ' the Tribunal'), New Delhi, whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner.Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as a clerk-cum-cashier with the respondent bank.He was found involved in a fraud as an accomplice of one Jagbir Singh Yadav.An account was opened jointly by the petitioner and Jagbir Singh Yadav in Bank of India, Kamla Nagar Branch and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was transferred to this account by playing fraud with the petitioner bank.Out of sum of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 5000/- came into the share of the petitioner, which was deposited by the petitioner in his own account.This fraud was discovered and an FIR was lodged against Jagbir Singh as well as petitioner under Section 420/419/420 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the petitioner and trial started against Jagbir Singh Yadav.Thereafter the bank issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.5.1979, observing that the petitioner bank had reasons to believe that the petitioner was associated in fraud with Jagbir Singh Yadav.He received half share out of the amount of Rs. 10,000/-.Because of involvement of the petitioner in the fraud, bank has lost confidence in him and considered that it was not fit to retain him in the service of the bank.He was asked to show cause as to why his services be not dispensed with due to loss of confidence.The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed.The petitioner raised an industrial dispute but the Central Government refused to refer the same to the Industrial Tribunal.The petitioner, against the order of the Central Government of refusing to refer the dispute, went up to Supreme Court.Vide an order dated 14th January, 1985, a consent order was passed and it was directed that the appropriate Government will make a necessary reference under Section 10 of the Act. As a result of this, following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal:The Industrial Tribunal, after considering pleadings of parties framed the following issues:There was contravention of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal had not given any finding on this issue despite the petitioner having raised the same in statement of claim.The petitioner was discharged by the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and that itself showed that no cae was made out against the petitioner.The enquiry officer wrongly held the petitioner guilty.The entire enquiry was vitiated and was perverse.The T.P.O. with which the amount was transferred by B/o Kamla Nagar to to B/o Civil Line, Delhi.ii) T.P.O. book containing the above T.P.O.'s counter foil amounting to Rs. 15,677.80p.iii) A/c opening form of Shri Ram Charan at B/o Civil Liens relating to S.F. A/c opened on 5.7.1974 with a deposit of Rs. 50/-.The show cause notice, which was served upon the petitioner, gives in detail each and every ingredients of the charges leveled against him and why the confidence of the employer was shaken in him.He sought these documents as a tool to further delay the proceedings and there was no reason to supply these documents to him nor these documents were material.Non supply of these documents did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner in his defense.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,671,263 |
Hari Chand received a distress call from Laxmi, his daughter in the intervening night of September 1 and 2, 2011 at around 2.00 AM, a further call by Ajay and then by his brother informing of the death of Laxmi.He along with his wife left the house at about 4.30 AM in the morning for CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 1 of 15 Nangli Sakrawati where they found the dead body of their daughter Laxmi in front of her matrimonial house, a room in the field which was taken by accused persons on contract basis for agriculture.He noticed that two teeth of the lower jaw of his daughter were broken and blood was oozing out.He made a call to 100 number and Police reached the spot.PW-5/A of Hari Chand, FIR No.299/2011 was registered under Section 498A/304-B IPC at PS Najafgarh and investigation was carried out.CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 1 of 15Hari Chand stated that he was residing at village Siraspur for the last one year.He had married his daughter Laxmi on May 11, 2011 with Sunder Pal, S/o Bishan.On September 02, 2011 in the night at around 2 O'clock his daughter called on the mobile phone and wanted to talk to her mother.He gave the phone to his wife when his daughter stated to his wife that 'Mummy aaj yeh mujhe nahin chodengey.Thereafter the phone got disconnected.Again the phone rang up and this time Ajay @ Sunder Pal abused him.When his wife asked him to make her talk to their daughter Laxmi, Ajay stated that their daughter was lying unconscious.After some time another call came and they were informed that their daughter had died.At about 5.00 AM in the morning they left their village Siraspur to village Nangli Sakrawati where on reaching they found that their daughter had died.His son-in-law used to demand dowry and he suspected that his daughter had been murdered by his son-in-law and his sister.Statement of Kamlesh PW-6, mother of the deceased was also recorded on the same day who stated that in the night at about 12.00 or 1.00 AM, her husband received a telephonic call who handed over the mobile phone to her.She talked to Ajay @ Sunder Pal who handed over the phone CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 2 of 15 to her daughter Laxmi who stated 'Mummy jaldi aaja yeh mujhe nahin chodenge', 'mein jaa rahin hoon yeh mujhe maar denge' and the phone was disconnected.She heard the noise of falling down of the phone.Thereafter again Ajay @ Sunder Pal called her and told that her daughter had expired.It is stated that prior to the incident Ajay demanded two-wheeler but the demand could not be fulfilled due to their poor economic condition.Lower right central incisor tooth broken (missing) with active bleeding (clotted and free) present with adjoining, bruising and laceration of socket and gum;Upper right lateral incisor, canine and first premolar teeth dislocated with active free bleeding present with adjoining extra vacation of blood present in the gums;Contusion of front upper and lower gums present diffusely (blueish colour)Parvinder Singh opined the cause of death to be due to asphyxia following ante-mortem smothering and time since death was approximately 11-12 hours.In the further opinion Ex.PW-2/B Dr.Parvinder Singh opined that the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report were homicidal in nature.The viscera was preserved and as per the FSL report :"On chemical & TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C && 1D.Ashish Mohan PW-11, the SDM Najafgarh who recorded the statement of Hari Chand vide Ex.PW-5/B and Kamlesh vide Ex.PW-4/B. The CDRs of the mobile phone of Hari Chand showed as under:Call-date-time Type Secs.A-Number B-Number IMEI First Cell ID 2/9/2011 0.20 'MO '292 919718373583 9873552411 355650045762260 Baki camp 2/9/2011 1.02 'MO '637 919718373583 9873552411 355650045762260 Baki camp 2/9/2011 1.30 'MO '67 919718373583 9873552411 355650045762260 Baki camp 2/9/2011 2.26 'MO '58 919718373583 9873552411 355650045762260 Baki campTarif Singh PW-8 in whose farm Ajay @ Sunder Pal used to work stated that he had given mobile phone No.9718373583 to Rinku who was the cousin of Ajay @ Sunder Pal.In cross-examination he stated he had employed 7-8 labourers.He was an agriculturist and used to cultivate around 3 acres of land and for that purpose he had employed Arjun, Arun, Vinod, Deeepak, Rinku, Vakil @ Lambu, Yadav and Ajay @ Sunder Pal.He used to grow mushrooms from August to March and Ajay @ Sunder Pal was working with him for the last 6-7 years prior to the incident.He had attended the marriage of Ajay in the month of May 2011 being his employer.There were around 40-50 baratis and he had no knowledge whether any car, motor-cycle or other vehicle being given in the dowry.It was a simple marriage with normal gifts like TV, bed, almirah and sofa and no dowry demand was made in his presence.CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 4 of 15He further stated that mushroom harvesting used to start at about 5.00- 6.00 PM and continued till 12.00-1.00 AM in the night.On September 01, 2011 Tarif along with Ajay @ Sunder Pal and other labourers were working in the field till 11.45 PM and thereafter he had gone to his house.After he reached, in 15 minutes he received information from Rinku regarding wife of Ajay becoming unconscious.He reached at the house of Ajay within 10 minutes of receiving the information where he found other labourers, brother and uncle of Ajay and two more residents.Ajay and his brother along with the deceased had started from the fields to the hospital.Tarif and Ajay's maternal uncle accompanied them.When they were on the way Ajay's brother told that wife of Ajay had expired.So they returned to the field instead of taking the wife of Ajay to the hospital.What have you to say?It is correct.Q.9: It is in evidence against you that after receiving the above mentioned call PW-5 Hari Chand reached your house and he found the dead body of his daughter Laxmi in front of Kothra (room) in the field which was taken by you on the contract basis for agriculture.What have you to say? Ans.It is correct."Ajay @ Sunder Pal in response to the last question stated that a false case has been foisted on him and his explanation was:"I was working in the field of Tarif Singh in Nangli Sakrawarti for the last many years with 7-8 more labourers.At the time of incident, there was a season of mushroom crop and all labourers used to work till late night i.e. 12.00 - 1.00 AM.On the day of incident, we left the field at about 11.15 PM and I went to my house where I found my wife in injured and unconscious condition outside the house.I informed my brother and relatives about her condition and on this they came to my house.My brother informed to landlord Tarif Singh about the condition of my wife deceased Laxmi and he also reached at the spot.From the evidence on record it is amply clear that mobile phone No.9873552411 though in the name of Ravinder was being used by Hari CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 8 of 15 Chand and he received four phone calls in the intervening night of September 01 and 02, 2011 from mobile phone No.9718373583 which though in the name of one Smt.Brahmwati was being used by Rinku who was the cousin of Ajay @ Sunder Pal, however at the time of incident was with Ajay.Though Hari Chand in his deposition stated that the first call was received from his daughter at 2.00 AM but PW-6 Kamlesh clarifies that the call from the daughter was received in the night at about 12.00 or 1.00 AM on her husband's telephone when she spoke to her.Thus it is established that Ajay @ Sunder Pal was at home when the deceased spoke to her parents.The plea of Ajay @ Sunder Pal that on reaching home he found his wife injured and unconscious outside the house is thus unsubstantiated.On the basis of statement Ex.She also stated about the threats extended by the sister of Ajay.CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 2 of 15Post-mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr.Parvinder PW-2 who noted the following injuries:Hari Chand and Kamlesh deposed in sync with their statements CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 3 of 15 recorded by the SDM.PW-6/A also appeared in the witness box and deposed about the proceedings conducted.CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 3 of 15PW-4 Surender Kumar, Assistant Nodal Officer IDEA Cellular Phone exhibited the call details vide Ex.PW-4/A along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act as Ex.He told Ajay's maternal uncle to inform the father of the deceased.After the death again intimation was given to the father of the deceased.Parents of deceased reached at the house of Ajay at around 6-7 AM.At around 9.00 AM the father and other relatives informed the Police which arrived at 10.00 AM.The SDM of the area also reached and remained on the spot for half an hour.Ajay @ Sunder Pal in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the phone call made to Hari Chand and his wife however admitted the call made by his elder brother Rajinder to Hari Chand.Thus, though Ajay denied the first call but in answer to question No.5 admitted that the second call was made by his brother to Hari Chand.He also admitted that Hari Chand spoke to his maternal uncle on the phone where after it was disconnected.The version of Ajay @ Sunder Pal in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the phone calls made is :"Q.2: It is in evidence against you that on 02.09.2011 at about CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 5 of 15 2:00 am father of deceased PW5 Sh Hari Chand received a telephonic call from her daughter Laxmi and asked her "Laxmi kya baat hui itni raat ko kaise phone kiya" and deceased Laxmi told her father "Papa baat mat pucho, meri baat jaldi se mummi se kara doo".What have you to say?CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 5 of 15It is incorrect.Q.3: It is in evidence against you that thereafter Hari Chand handed over his mobile phone to his wife Smt Kamlesh and deceased Laxmi asked her mother "mummy tum in logo se chup kar aaoo aaj ye log muzhe nahi chodege" and in the meantime the mobile phone was disconnected.What have you to say? Ans.It is incorrect.Q.4: It is in evidence against you that PW Sh Hari Chand heard that somebody had snatched the mobile phone from her hand and got switched off and PW 5 Hari chand also heard the said conversation as he was sitting nearby his wife.What have you to say?It is incorrect.Q.5: It is in evidence against you that after 5-7 minutes thereafter a call was again received on mobile phone of PW-5 Hari Chand and the said call was made by your elder brother Rajinder and he called Hari Chand to the matrimonial house of his daughter.What have you to say?It is correct.Q.7: It is in evidence against you that your maternal uncle also talked with PW-5 Hari Chand and thereafter the phone was disconnected.Q.8: It is in evidence against you that after 10-12 minutes a telephonic call was again made by your elder brother Rajinder to PW-5 Hari Chand and thereafter he handed over the said mobile phone to you and you also asked parents of deceased Laxmi to come and said "abhi gadi karke aa jaaoo, agar nahi aaye to mein dekh lunga, agar paise nahi hai to main de dungo, tumhari ladki mar gai hai".What have you to say?CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 6 of 15It is correct that my brother had called the parents of the deceased to inform about the death of deceased Laxmi but it is incorrect that thereafter my brother handed over the said mobile phone to me and I asked parents of deceased Laxmi to come and said "abhi gadi karke aa jaaoo, agar nahi aaye to mein dekh lunga, agar paise nahi hai to main de dungo, tumhari ladki mar gai hai"In the meantime, some of my relative intimated to my in-laws on phone about the condition of my wife.Thereafter immediately I along with my brother, landlord and one more person left for hospital for treatment of my wife on motorcycle.When we were on the way my wife expired and we brought her back to the house.My brother and my maternal uncle made few mobile calls to my in-laws about death of my wife.They intimated that last ceremony may be performed but on repeated request of my maternal uncle and brother they agreed to come to my house, hence, in the morning hours the CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 7 of 15 parents of deceased came to my house and again directed us to perform last rites of deceased.Thereafter, the father of deceased left our house for his house.In the meantime, some relatives of the deceased also reached there and one of them who claim to be a police personal made a call at 100 no. I have never demanded anything from my in-laws or from my wife nor I treated my deceased wife with any cruelty.It is un unfortunate incident which shocked me and ruined my married life.It is a false case.I am innocent.CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 7 of 15Assailing the impugned judgment learned counsel for the appellant contends that the present is a case of blind murder.The appellant was not present when his wife was injured and only on reaching home at night, he found her injured and unconscious outside the house.The onus was on the prosecution to prove that the appellant was present at his house when the incident took place which it failed to discharge.Section 106 of the Evidence Act would have application only when the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant was present at home.Reliance is placed on the decision reported as 168 (2000) DLT 406 Balbir Singh Vs.It is further stated that if there are two views possible than the one in favour of the accused should be accepted and the accused is entitled to an acquittal in such a case.Referring to question No.2 in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. noting the statement of Hari Chand PW-5 who deposed that the first call was received at 2.00 AM, it is stated that the call at 12.20 on the intervening night of September 1 and 2, 2011 has not been put to the appellant and thus cannot be used against him.The version of both Hari Chand and Kamlesh is consistent that in the said phone call Laxmi hurriedly spoke to her mother, the same being a distress call wherein she stated 'Mummy jaldi aaja yey mujhe aaj nahin chodenge'.The next call was made by Rajinder brother of Ajay @ Sunder Pal calling them at the matrimonial home of Laxmi informing that their daughter had become unconscious.In the further calls information regarding death of Laxmi was given.CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 8 of 15Kamlesh PW-6 clearly stated that in the first call she first spoke to Ajay @ Sunder Pal who handed over the phone to his daughter where after the phone was disconnected and she heard the noise of falling down of the mobile phone.As per the suggestion put to this witness, Ajay @ Sunder Pal was working in the mushroom field of Tarif Singh till 11.30 PM where after he returned at home.Thus, in any case Ajay @ Sunder Pal reached his house before 12 midnight on September 01, 2011 and the distress call by his wife was made at 0.20 hrs.At 0.20 hours of September 02, 2011 before deceased Laxmi spoke to her parents, Ajay @ Sunder Pal spoke to her mother.The statement made by the deceased on 20th or 21st March that he was setting out to the place where the accused lived, and to meet a person, the wife of the accused, who lived in the accused's house, appears clearly to be a statement as to some of the CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 14 of 15 circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death.The statement was rightly admitted."Kamlesh Ex.PW-6/A and the phone call records have been duly put to Ajay in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any prejudice caused.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 22, 2016 'ga' CRL.A. 79/2016 Page 15 of 15
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,786,730 |
He is the life-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the concern.Till 1937, he was the Managing Agent, but, in that year, he transferred the managing agency to Ramgopal Ganpatrai, the first appellant who converted the managing agency into a private limited concern consisting of himself and members of his family.In 1943, the first appellant floated two private limited concerns under the name and style of (1) Ramgopal Ganpatrai and Sons as the Managing Agents and (2) Ramrikhdas Balkisan and Sons Limited, as the selling agents.Thus, the first appellant came to have control of the managing agency and the selling agency as also of the Mills, all inter-connected.The complainant had six annas share in the managing agency and the remaining interest therein was owned by the first appellant and his family.Differences arose between the complainant and the first appellant in respect of the affairs of the Mills.The complainant's suspicions were aroused with respect to the accounts of the Mills, and as a result of his private enquiries, he claims to have discovered that " there were large defalcations committed in the management of this Mill".It appeared to him that during September to December, 1945, the first appellant as the Managing Agent, in the course of his large purchases of cotton bales for consumption in the Mills, had " dovetailed in these transactions about 20 bogus entries of socalled purchases of 3,719 cotton bales from fictitious merchants in the Bombay market." Against the customary practice of the 621 Mills, the first appellant made payments in respect of those fictitious purchases by bearer cheques which were cashed by his men and the cash, thus obtained was misappropriated by him to his personal use and account.In order to cover up those fictitious and bogus purchases, false entries had been made in the books and registers and the receipts, kept by the Mills In order to balance the stock-in-hand of cotton bales the first appellant and his associates in the crime like the second appellant, who is described as the office manager, showed bogus sales of an equal number of bales said to contain deteriorated cotton at reduce rates.The sale- price of such bogus sales amounted to Rs. 4,19,000, thus, causing a loss of over four lacs of rupees to the shareholders.The sale price is also said to have been received in cash by bearer cheques which have, likewise, been cashed by the employees of the Mills and similarly misappropriated to the appellant's account.A third series of bogus purchases are said to have been in respect of stores, dyes an chemicals, etc., approximately of the value of five lacs of rupees " by falsely debiting various sums of money to a number of non-existent parties".The record as prepared at the instance of the appellants and as it stands now, runs into eleven big volumes running into over 5,700 closely printed pages.Of these volumes, only the first three have been referred to in the course of the arguments at the Bar-only portions of them.P. R. Das, S. A. Desai, Shellim Samuel and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.B. D. Boovariwala, Jindra Lal and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.In order to conceal the fraud, thus perpetrated on the Mills other false entries in the books of account and other documents relating to those bogus transactions were alleged to have been made by the first appellant and his underlings.It was, further, alleged that the complainant's suspicions were further strengthened by the false statement made at a Directors' meeting that there was a strike and that the strikers had burnt some records of the Mills.Three persons, namely, the first appellant, Harprasad Gupta, the second appellant and A. R. Mulla Feroz who was subsequently discharged by the magistrate, were named as the three accused persons concerned in the crime of embezzlement in respect of the funds of the Mills.During their investigation, the Police had taken possession of the relevant books of account from the precincts of the Mills.The names of 40 witnesses appear in the charge-sheet.The learned Presidency Magistrate, Shri C. B. Velkar, passed a I preliminary order' in which he considered the question whether the enquiry against the accused persons should take the form of the procedure for summons trial or for a warrant trial or commitment proceedings preliminary to their being placed on trial before a Court of Session.After a consideration of the police charge-sheet and his own powers adequately to punish the offenders if their offence were made out, and the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, he recorded the following order: "......... I hold that this case is governed by s. 207 Criminal Procedure Code and as such I order that this case should be proceeded with on Sessions Form.He also considered the written statements of the accused persons, filed in October and December that year and a very large volume of documentary evidence, which was exhibited in the case, numbering many hundreds of exhibits and running into thousands of pages, as will presently appear.On December 17, 1949, after hearing counsel for the parties and considering their respective versions as contained in the oral and documentary evidence, the learned magistrate recorded the following order: "......... I agree with this view and order that accused No. 3 should be discharged.As regards accused Nos. 1 and 2 1 hold that there is a prima facie case to charge them and for reasons already mentioned I restrict the charges to the following counts:".Then, he framed seven separate charges in respect of much smaller sums against the two accused persons under s. 409, read with s. 109, Indian Penal Code.The State Government of Bombay moved the High Court against the order aforesaid of the learned Presidency Magistrate deciding to try the case himself on the seven mutilated charges framed by him.The application in revision was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Bavdekar and Chainani, JJ.The High Court by its order dated March 1, 1950, remitted the proceedings to the learned magistrate, after reframing the charges which are as under: "That you, accused No. 1 Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia being an agent of the Dhanraj Mills Ltd., and in such capacity entrusted with property, viz., the amount of Rs. 6,06,661-3- 6, being the proceeds of the cheques Nos. Exhibits J/22, J/23, J/25, H/3, H/4, J1, J/2, J/4, J15, J/30 to J/32, J/33, J/34, J/10 to /J13, belonging to the said Mills, committed at Bombay, between the dates of the 21st August, 1945 and the 31st of December, 1945, criminal breach of trust with respect to the above property, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Session of the City of Greater Bombay.On September 9, 1950, after hearing the arguments, he wrote a very elaborate judgment running into more than 30 pages in print.Though in form it is an order passed in commitment proceedings, it reads like a judgment after a full trial.The learned magistrate stated the prosecution case in all its details, setting 625 out the documentary evidence on which the charges were based, running into 33 paragraphs and ten pages in print.Then, he proceeded to state the defence version equally elaborately, and embarked upon a very detailed examination of the evidence in the case, to find which version is the more acceptable one.In the result, be passed the following order in the last paragraph of this judgment:The Government of Bombay moved the High Court in revision against the aforesaid order of discharge against the two appellants.The revisional application was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench by its judgment and order, dated June 22, 1951, which is almost as long as that of the learned Presidency Magistrate, running into about 30 printed pages.The High Court expressed their conclusions in these terms:" We have referred to the evidence on which the prosecution relies and also to the evidence on which the defence relies.During the period of 1948 to 1951 , the case traveled to the High Court of Bombay four times on interlocutory matters.Only two of those revisional proceedings have been noticed above, the other two not being necessary to be referred to for the purposes of this appeal.The remaining eight volume,% have all gone waste.Even after the receipt of the records, the parties between them have succeeded in preventing the case from being put up for final hearing and disposal for another three years.It is not necessary to go into any further details, but the Court must look with great disfavour upon, and publicly denounce the way in which the appeal has 630 been prosecuted during the last more than 5 years that the case has remained pending in this Court.They have largely to thank themselves for this result.Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,679,513 |
It is also undisputed that in the early morning of 15.04.2017, both the accused had gone to the house of Jaipal (PW.9) asking for liquor, and when the mother of accused-appellant Bhagwani came there, they went away.It is also an admitted fact that the deceased had gone to the house of accused Satish to keep blanket and shawl.The prosecution case, in nut shell, is that in the intervening night of 14.04.2017 and 15.04.2017, the accused kidnapped the deceased who was aged 11 years and after committing gang rape on her, throttled her to death.It is alleged that on 14.04.2017 at around 9 PM, the deceased, aged 11 years had gone with her parents to attend the chowk ceremony, from where she went missing .She was last seen going to the house of accused Satish to keep blanket and shawl.The facts in the case indicate that the deceased was aged about 11 years on the date of incident.P.C.examination has denied going to Anil Maravi's house, but in reply to question no.47 put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination has admitted that deceased had come to his house to keep the blanket and shawl.In view of this specific admission by accused Satish, it is clearly established that the deceased was last seen in his company.As per Nandita Dubey, J.:This death reference and connected appeal arise out of the Judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Dindori holding the accused persons guilty of the charges levelled against them in the trial.It is undisputed that the deceased and the accused persons are resident of the same village and on 14.04.2017, the family of the deceased as well as the accused Bhagwani had gone to attend the Chowk 3 ceremony at the house of one Anil Maravi.Her father Brajlal (PW.2) and mother Kalawati (PW.1) searched for her all through the night, but their efforts were rendered futile.At 5 AM on next morning i.e.15.04.2017 her dead body was ultimately found lying near a hand pump situated near the road.Her slacks were drawn below the knee and there were injuries and scratches on the neck and different parts of body of deceased, her genitals were 4 blood soaked.It was suspected that between 11 PM to 4 AM some unknown person has kidnapped the deceased and committed the heinous offence of rape and after silencing her dumped the body near the hand pump.During the investigation,from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it transpired that the accused persons who were absconding from the village had a verbal altercation with Brajlal, a day prior to the incident.The accused were taken into custody on suspicion of being involved in the horrendous crime.Thereafter, based on their memorandum, button and blood stained soil, packet of kurkure, etc. were seized from the spot vide Ex.Spot map (Ex.P/13) of the place of occurrence was made.On the disclosure statement of accused Bhagwani, one shirt with some missing button, blood stained vest and jeans were seized vide Ex.The trial Court, after meticulous consideration of the material on record had concluded that the chain of circumstances has been established beyond any reasonable doubt and found that the accused committed the heinous offence of gang rape and murder of the deceased.The trial Court found both the accused guilty on each count and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment, but so far as offence punishable under Section 376 A and 302 of IPC, the trial Court awarded capital punishment, hence this reference for confirmation of death sentence and appeal by accused-appellants Bhagwani and Satish.The case of prosecution entirely hinges on circumstantial evidence.When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be satisfied that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established.On the age of girl there was some dispute.Parents of deceased, Kalawati (PW.1) and Brajlal (PW.2) have stated that their daughter 8 was 11 years' old at the time of incident.As per the admission register (Ex.P/16C), date of birth of the deceased was 06.04.2006 which was duly proved by Surendra Kumar (PW.7), Headmaster of the Primary School,Gunjhiyari, hence, it is clearly established that on the date of incident the deceased was aged 11 years.Basis of the prosecution case was that both the accused persons were seen at the "chowk ceremony", and the deceased was last seen going to the house of accused Satish.The prosecution has examined five witnesses; viz; Kalawati (PW.1) mother of the deceased, Ashok Kumar (PW.3), Chainsingh (PW.4), Bhagat Singh (PW.5) and Jaipal (PW.9) in this regard.A careful examination of statements of Kalawati (PW.1), Ashok Kumar (PW.3), Chainsingh (PW.4) and Bhagat Singh (PW.5) show that both the accused were present at the house of Anil Maravi on the date of incident.Both Kalawati (PW.1) and Bhagat Singh (PW.5) have clearly stated that the deceased had gone to appellant Satish's house to keep a blanket and shawl.Chainsingh (PW.4) who runs a shop near the house of Anil Maravi, has stated that the deceased came to his shop for purchase of kurkure carrying a blanket and shawl and thereafter accused Bhagwani 9 came to his shop asking for Namkeen.Though accused Satish in his 313 Cr.Jaipal (PW.9) had testified that in the morning on 15.04.2017, both the accused came to his house asking for liquor.However, when Bhagwani's mother Munnibai came there, both of them went away.He has clearly stated that at the relevant time eyes of the accused were red and their hair were disheveled.They sounded very nervous and had stated that big blunder had been committed by them.Thereafter, about half an hour the dead body of deceased was recovered.It is pertinent to note that both the accused have corroborated the statement of Jaipal (PW.9) in their Section 313 Cr.P.C.examination.Both of them have admitted that they had gone to the house of Jaipal and 10 when mother of Bhagwani came there, they went away.Accused Bhagwani had also admitted that at that time his eyes were red and hair were disheveled.Both the accused have admitted that they were together since 9 AM in the morning of 14.04.17 when they had gone to Sudgaon for working, from where they returned in the evening.Accused Satish had stated that he had gone to his house and accused Bhagwani went to attend the chowk ceremony.Accused Bhagwani in his 313 Cr.P.C.examination has admitted that after coming back, both he and Satish had taken liquor with Hemsingh and Moolchand and thereafter Satish went to his house and he went to the house of Anil Maravi, from where due to his intoxicated condition he was asked to leave.Thereafter, he went to the shop of Chainsingh (PW.4) from where his mother took him to home and he went to sleep at the house of his neighbour Deepa, which is highly improbable.Eye-closed, mouth-closed, fiest-half open, cornea congested, pupil dilated,face- cyanosed, lip-cyanosed, finger and hand- cyanosed.Blood mixed froth present over the both nostril.Blood mixed saliva both angle on mouth up to lower margin of mandible.Four contusion mark over left side of neck, medial aspect of neck.Three contusion mark on left side of neck middle third size of contusion between 1 cmx 1 cm.1 cm x 1 cm.contusion over both cheek, 1 cm x 1 cm.Infraorbital left side.1 cm contusion on the left side of xiphisternum.One infrascapular contusion 1 cm two cm x cm contusion over the left buttock.Clotted blood found over the pink colour aspect dry clotted blood present over the perineal area lower middle third of both thigh all around anal area.Blood present in the vaginal opening three 3 cm.anterior to posterior and full thickness of muscle and skin.Dry clotted blood present over the anal opening and inner aspect of anus.Opening is dilated 2 fingers easily admitted.The doctor gave the opinion that cause of death of deceased was due to asphyxia with neurogenic shock due to injuries over the vital organ of the body neck, vagina and anal area.The injuries caused may be due to throttling and forceful sexual intercourse.The autopsy report, thus, establishes her death to be homicidal.Accused persons were also examined by Dr. Vijay Pegwar (PW.11) who found the following injuries on 15 their person vide Ex. P/21 and P/22 :-"Injury report of Satish(i) Abrasion size 1 cm x 1 cm on right elbow (post).(ii) Abrasion size 1" x 1" on right knee.(iii) Abrasion size 1 1/2" x 1 cm on left knee.(iii) Various abrasions size 1 mm x 1 mm to 1 cm x 1 cm on left side of lower elbow.(iv) Linear abrasion size 1" over right lower chest, all are caused by hard and rough object, duration within 2- 3 days, heals in 2-3 days, all are simple in nature.Injury report of Bhagwani(i) Abrasion linear 1" on left upper shoulder.(ii) Linear abrasion size 1/2" on left lower scapulary region.(iii) Liner abrasion size 1/2" on lower lumber region.(iv) Linear abrasion size 1/2" on right scapulary region.(v) Linear abrasion size 2" on right upper shoulder.(vi) Abrasion size 1 cm x 1 cm on right cheek.(vii) Abrasion size 1 cm x 1 cm on right upper parietal region.(viii) Abrasion linear 4" each on right lower lateral rib, all are caused by hard and rough object (may be nails), duration within 2-3 days, heals within 2-3 days, all are simple in nature."The clothes found on the body of deceased along with the vaginal slides, rectal slides, sample of dry clotted blood were duly seized.Along with the blood sample of the accused persons, the seized articles were forwarded to the State Forensic Laboratory for chemical examination and corresponding reports were obtained.The DNA report (Ex.P/25) reads as under :-"All the alleles observed in the male DNA profile of Accused Satish (Article U) were found same with the male DNA profile observed from 16 the source of deceased Durgeshwari, Article Q,R and S.Same female autosomal STR DNA profile was detected on the source of deceased Durgeshwari (Article R) and Dhoti (Article G), and Underwear Stain2 (Article P).Same autosomal DNA profile was detected on the source of article T, Article C, article L and article M.Note: Packet J and E are being referred to physics section for required examination."The DNA profile generated from the slides of deceased matched with DNA profile generated from the blood sample of Satish, blood stained dhoti , underwear recovered at his behest.DNA profile generated from the blood sample and clothes of accused Satish recovered at his behest and consistent with that of the deceased is an unimpeachable evidence incriminating accused Satish in the occurrence.However, the DNA profile of accused Bhagwani did not match with the DNA profile observed from the source of deceased.But, the admission by accused Bhagwani that he was together with accused Satish in the evening and had liquor with him, his further admission that he went to the shop of Chain Singh (PW.4) asking for Namkeen coupled with lack of explanation by accused Bhagwani about scratches on 17 his body and their admission about being together on 14.04.2017 and his going with accused Satish to Jaipal's house asking for liquor in the early morning of 15.04.2017, in their Section 313 Cr.P.C.statements, provide a firm link in the chain of circumstances.The accused Bhagwani has failed miserably in discharging his burden of proving that the was not in the company of accused Satish during the commission of crime.Further, the testimony of Chainsingh (PW.4) and Jaipal (PW.9) firmly establishes the commission of crime by the accused persons.Apart from this, disclosure statements of accused persons before the police relating to recovery of buttons and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence which was exclusively within the knowledge of the accused and the recovery of shawl and blanket of deceased from the house of accused Satish, and shirt, jeans, sando baniyan from accused Bhagwani, in pursuant to their memorandum which was duly proved by the seizure witnesses Ashok Kumar (PW.3) and Bhagat Singh (PW.5), and the DNA report makes the chain of circumstances complete in every respect, consequently leading to the conclusion that the accused were responsible for sexually assault and murdering the deceased.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,679,927 |
The applicant has filed copy of cheque issued by the husband of the prosecutrix in favour of the applicant.C.C. as per rules.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.138/2016 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506-B, 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.When the cheque was dishonored and notice of demand was given to the husband of the prosecutrix, a false FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix, therefore, no offence under Section 376 of IPC is made out against the applicant as alleged in the case.Consequently, no offence 2 M.Cr.C. No. 2534/2016 under Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST (prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the applicant.Hence, prima facie prohibition of Section 18 of the Act shall not apply.The applicant assures that he will cooperate during the investigation.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature.2 M.Cr.C. No. 2534/2016Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature.Consequently, the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the present applicant Rakesh Rathore be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees FortyThousand Only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).3 M.Cr.C. No. 2534/2016This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period so that the evidence received against the applicant during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider his application under Sections 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,681,390 |
( 11 /07/2019) The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 31.03.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura, District Mandsaur, in Session Trial No.166/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489-A and 489- D read with 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 6 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/-each with default stipulation.(2).The prosecution story in short are that on 05.08.2002 Station House Officer Vikram Singh Bhadoriya, ,Police Station Bhanpura District Mandsaour received a source information that dealing of counterfeit note will take place at bus stand Bhawani Mandi by accused Kabbu.On the way they took two panch witnesses Gajraj Singh and Arjun together.Thereafter they reached to the Bus Stand Bhesoda Mandi.After seeing the police force appellant run away however co-accused Jakir apprehended by the police.Upon search 18 counterfeit currency notes of 500 denomination and 12 counterfeit currency notes of 100 denomination was recovered from the possession of the co-accued Jakir.These articles were seized in presence of independent witnesses Gajraj and Arjun Singh.(9).Vikram Singh Bhadoriya (PW-15) deposed that on 05.08.2002 he was posted as Station House Officer, Bhanpura.On the said date he received source information that two person namely Kabbu and Jakir are coming down bus stand Bhesodamandi and they will hand over counterfeit notes to some other person.The aforesaid information was recorded in the Rojnamsanha and after that he alongwith some other police personnel proceed to Bhesodamandi.On the way two independent witnesses Gajraj and Arjun met them they were informed them about the source information and accompanied them reached to the bus stand Bhesodamandi.After seeing the policy party appellant-Kabbu fled away whereas co-accused Jakir apprehended from the spot.On search 7 pieces of denomination of 100 rupees, 10 pieces of denomination of 50 rupees and photocopies of denomination 500 rupees and 100 rupees each were 6 recovered from his possession.Police interrogated Jakir and he disclosed the name of absconded accused Kabbu then police reached the house of Kabbu and on search recovered two counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination, 100 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.50/- one counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/-,32 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/-,91 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.50/- 100 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.10/-, one Rs. 10/- Pakistan Currency, from the house of the appellant.Police recorded the statement of witnesses.The counterfeit notes were sent to the General Manager, India Security Press, Nasik for examination and verification whether these notes are genuine or counterfeit.Thereafter a report was received from the 3 aforesaid press in which it was opined that suspected notes are counterfeit currency.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura, District Mandsaur.(3).The trial court on the basis of material placed on record, framed the aforesaid charges against the applicant.The accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.(4).The prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and placed exhibits P/1 to P/34 of documents on record.The defence of appellant is that nothing has been seized from his possession and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.(5).The Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned above.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the appellant has preferred this petition.(6).The prosecution has not collected any evidence to establish that the house from where counterfeit notes has 4 been recovered is owned or in possession of the appellant.It is further submitted that even at the time of search and recovery, the appellant was not present in the house and according to the prosecution's own story other members of the family was found.The appellant Kabbu is implicated in the present crime on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Jakir which is not admissible in evidence and except the said statement there is no cogent evidence available against the appellant to establish any nexus between the alleged offence.The prosecution case has not been supported by the independent witnesses.The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and misread the evidence on record.The trial court has also ignored the material contradiction discrepancies and exaggeration came to the statements of witnesses.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction by submitting that evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to seizure of counterfeit currency from the house of the appellant is consistent and therefore ought not to be discarded.He also submitted 5 that at the time of preparation of seizure memo numbers and their particulars relating to the seized counterfeit currency were recorded in the seizure memo and same sent to the General Manager, India Security Press, Nasik and it would be evident from the report itself that seized notes are counterfeit, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of appeal.(8).I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.This recovery has been effected in presence of independent witnesses Gajraj and Arjun.Jakir was arrested and brought to the police station.Mr. Bhadoriya (PW-15) further deposed that after reacing the police station, he recorded the FIR bearing crime No.153/2002 and registered the offence under Section 489-A and 489-D read with section 34 of I.P.C against accused persons.He also prepared a panchnama regarding the absconsion of accused Kabbu.He recorded the statement of witnesses.Thereafter, he reached the house of Kabbu but he was not present there.He made search of the house of Kabbu and recovered the counterfeit notes and seizure memo Ex.-6 was prepared in the presence of maternal nephew of the accused Kabbu and it bears his signature.The seized currency notes was sent to the General Manager, India Security Press, Nasik for examination and according to the report received from India Security Press, Nasik, the currency seized from the house of the appellant Kabbu was found to be counterfeit.(10) The evidence on record particularly the official witnesses namely constable Dharmveer (PW-8), Senior constable Rajkumar (PW-11), Constable Kailash Singh (PW-12) and ASI Rajendra Sikarwar (PW-14) stated that a secret information received by Station House Officer, Vikram Singh Bhadoriya that two persons would coming towards bus stand Bhesoda mandi with counterfeit 7 currency.They reached to the spot and seeing the policy party the present appellant Kabbu fled away whereas co- accused Jakir was apprehended and upon search a large number of counterfeit notes of Rs. 50, Rs. 100 and Rs. 500 denomination was seized from his possession and seizure memo was prepared.He was brought to the police station with the seized notes.Thereafter police went to the house of Kabbu and on search counterfeit notes was recovered from his house.(11).No neighbor of the present appellant was examined to prove that the police 8 arrived to the house of appellant Kabbu and recovered counterfeit currency.It is also pertinent to note that before taking search of the house of the appellant, the investigation officer has not gave search of himself as well as independent witnesses and the police party to the nephew of the appellant.The findings of the court below that search list (Ex.P-5) was prepared legally and it was properly proved.The prosecution was based solely on the Ex.Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the recovery of counterfeit notes from the possession of the appellant and also unble to prove that the appellant was preparing the counterfeit currency notes in his house.(12).Under these circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges punishable under Section 489-A and 489-D read with 34 of I.P.C. against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and he acquitted from the aforesaid charges.Let record of the trial court be sent alongwith judgment for information and compliance.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2019.07.11 10:46:45 -12'00'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,786,840 |
This is a reference made to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, Broach, for quashing the conviction of the two accused persons who have been convicted by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Broach of offences under Section 24(4), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. Accused No. 1 has also been convicted of the offence under Section 504, I.P.C.The complainant in this case is a tenant of the ground floor of a building of which accused No. 2 is the landlady.When on 18-6-1952 the complainant went to protest, accused No. 1 abused him.The defence which the accused persons adopted at the trial was that the complainant never had got either water connection or electric connection.The learned trial Magistrate went to the place and found that there were in the complainant's premises fittings which showed that there must have been formerly both a water-connection as well as electricity connection.Inasmuch as there was no water connection and the electricity connection at the time of the trial and inasmuch as the learned trial Magistrate found that the two connections were cut off by accused No. 2 occupying the complainant's storey he convicted the two accused persons.The accused persons went to the learned Sessions Judge in revision, whereupon he came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the accused to justify the cutting off of the water connection and the electricity connection.It appears that the southern wall of the building of accused No. 2 needed repairs.The learned Judge held that the Municipality had given, notice to accused No. 2 to repair the building and inasmuch as it was necessary to cut off the water connection and the electricity connection for repairing the wall, the learned Judge held that the prosecution had failed to prove that accused No. 2 had not got sufficient cause for cutting off of the water connection and the electricity connection.So far as accused No. 1 is concerned, he said that in any case there was no evidence that accused No. 1 had abetted accused No. 2 in the commission of the offence.Finally he held that the abuse which was given by accused No. 1 was an ordinary abuse which did not fall within the purview of Section 504, I.P.C.It appears to me however that the learned Sessions Judge has overlooked that the charge against the accused was not merely that they cut off water connection.The charge was that they withheld the supply of both water as well as electricity.Even upon the footing therefore that there was sufficient cause for temporarily cutting off from the premises of the complainant electricity and water, what the accused persons had to show was either that they had not withheld the supply of water and electricity afterwards or that there was sufficient cause for them not to connect the complainant's premises to the connections giving the building water and electricity.The two accused persons have not done so.On the contrary the attitude which they adopted was that there was no water connection or electricity connection to the complainant's premises.It is not contended before me any more that the complainant's premises did not have either water connection or connection to the electricity installation.It is said however that both water and electricity had been restored to the complainant.I shall take it for granted that subsequently the electricity connection of the building must have been restored.It does not follow therefrom that the complainant had got electricity and water.It is exceedingly improbable that the complainant would have filed a complaint if electricity connection as well as water connection had been restored to him.But the matter docs not even rest there.The learned trial Magistrate visited the premises of the complainant and found that even though the electric connection had been restored to the building of accused No. 2, so far as the complainant's premises are concerned electric fitting installation was not connected to the electric connection of the rest of the building.There is no reason whatever for not accepting this statement in the learned Magistrate's judgment.It does not appear to have been challenged subsequently in the application for revision.On the other hand in the written statement which accused No. 1 filed and accused No. 2 adopted they specifically stated that the complainant's premises had never got any electric light and there was no electric light in them at the time when the written statement was given.So far as the conviction of accused No. 1 of the offence under Section 504 is concerned, it appears from the evidence that accused No. 1 gave abuse to the complainant involving aspersions on the chastity of his mother and sister.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,599,777 |
Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the objector.Heard, Case-diary perused.As per prosecution story, on 07/11/2018, complainant filed a missing person report regarding her daughter.On the basis of which FIR was registered for the aforesaid offences.It is alleged that the applicant took the prosecutrix and co-accused Dinesh in his motorcycle and dropped them at Kalibai's house.At that time he was not having any knowledge that co-accused Dinesh has taken the prosecutrix forcefully.Even if the allegation made against the applicant is taken at its face value, at the most, offence under Section 363 or 366 of Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2020.08.29 13:27:18 +05'30' M.Cr.C. No.23322/2020 2 IPC, will be made out against the applicant, which is bailable in nature.The investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed.Conclusion of the trial will take sufficient long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.C. No.23322/2020 2This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2020.08.29 13:27:39 +05'30'
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,602,871 |
Heard on admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Learned P.L. takes notice of the appeal on behalf of the State.Record of the Trial Court is available.Heard on I.A.No.10576/15 and I.A.No.10614/ 15 applications under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant No.2 Horilal and appellant No.1 Ramjilal @ Munna.The appellants No.1 and 2 have been convicted and sentenced as under:-Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the 2 CRA.1014/2015 appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them.They are ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court.Initially the charges of offence under Section 307 of IPC were framed for the victims Roop Singh, Shiv Narayan, Vaikundi and Veer Singh.However, the trial Court did not give any observation as to whether Veer Singh, Vaikundi and Shivnarayan have sustained any fatal injury or not.According to the evidence given by Dr. S.K. Kaarkur (PW-3), Veer Singh, Vaikundi and Shivnarayan did not sustain any fatal injury.It is not made clear by the trial Court as to appellants No.1 and 2 have been convicted for four counts of charges of Section 307 of IPC.However, it would be apparent that there was allegation upon the accused Brijesh that he assaulted the victim Roop Singh with an axe on his head causing fatal injury.The vicitm Roop Singh sustained two injuries, one was on his head and another was on right leg which was simple in nature.It was not alleged against appellants No.1 and 2 that they assaulted the victim Roop Singh with any weapon and, therefore, if they assaulted the other victims then their common intention cannot be presumed with the co- accused Brijesh for offence under Section 307 of IPC 3 CRA.1014/2015 relating to the victim Roop Singh.Remaining offences are not so grave and sentence recorded by the trial Court may be reduced for other offences.Under these circumstances, there are fair chances of success in the appeal.If the appellants No.1 and 2 are not released on bail then the present appeal filed by them may turn infructuous.Under these circumstances, appellants pray for bail and suspension of their jail sentence.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.He has submitted the objection filed by the State on the applications.Learned counsel for the objector also opposed the applications.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case where the appellants have been released on bail by the trial Court, it would be appropriate to accept the applications of the appellants No.1 Ramjilal @ Munna and appellant No.2 Horilal.Consequently, applications I.A. No. I.A.No.10576/15 and I.A.No.10614/15 are hereby allowed.Subject to deposit of the fine amount and if the appellants furnishes a bail bond in the sum of 4 CRA.1014/2015 Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) each along with one surety bond each to the satisfaction of the trial Court that they shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 18.03.2016 and on subsequent dates given by the office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeal then the appellants shall be released on bail and execution of jail sentence is suspended till the disposal of this appeal.as per rules.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,606,197 |
Heard on I.A. No. 4413/2017, which is an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant during the pendency of this appeal.The appellant has been convicted vide impugned judgment dated 7.5.2015, passed in Sessions Trial No. 273/2014 under Section 304-II/34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of which suffer further RI for six months.The eye-witnesses had deposed that all the three accused persons have been throwing stones and one or two stones had hit the deceased, there is no categorical evidence that the deceased was died due to the injuries caused by the present appellant.Prima facie there seems to be parity between the present appellant and two accused persons, who have been granted suspension of sentence.C.C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE ss
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,460,679 |
And In the matter of : Arunava Singha. ... Petitioner.Mr. Samiran Mandal... for the Petitioner.Ms. Purnima Ghosh... for the State.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Samapti Chatterjee, J. ) 3
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,606,837 |
The appellants are A3 and A4 in S.C.No.235 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-3), Virudhachalam.They were convicted and sentenced as tabulated below:Conviction under SectionSentence of imprisonmentFine1323 IPC6 months simple imprisonmentRs.500/- i/d three months simple imprisonment2341 IPC1 month simple imprisonmentRs.200/- i/d one week simple imprisonment3353 IPCsix months simple imprisonment Rs.1,000/- i/d three months simple imprisonment The trial Court ordered the sentences imposed on the appellants/accused to run concurrently.The appellants/A3 and A4 were acquitted of the other charges framed against them.All the other accused persons were acquitted of all their respective charges framed against them.It is the case of the prosecution leading to conviction of the accused, that on 23.07.2000 at about 11.30 a.m, while P.W.1/complainant was working as Inspector of Police at Ramanatham Police Station, Virudhachalam, he, along with Head Constables went for a prohibition raid.While so proceeding for raid in a Jeep near a lake-bund on the Eastern side of Orangur Village, they witnessed the accused persons and others preparing illicit distilled arrack (I.D. arrack).Hence, P.W.1/complainant, along with Police party, surrounded them on that day and arrested and took them to the Police Station; on the way near Orangur Bus Stop, the accused persons including appellants/A3 and A4 and other unidentified accused persons who were subsequently identified on their examination, intercepted the vehicle along with iron pipe and other dangerous weapons with an intention to attack the Police officials and in order to retrieve the accused persons from the jeep, they pulled P.W.1, who was sitting in left front seat of the said Jeep and made an attempt to stab him with M.O.2 knife on his chest.Since P.W.1 moved and escaped from getting stab injury, A3 Pandian pulled out P.W.1 and caught hold of his uniform.A3 attacked P.W.1 with iron pipe on his chest, but P.W.1 moved and escaped from the attack.When A4 Anbazhagan attacked P.W.1 on his head with iron pipe, in order to avoid further attack, P.W.1 managed and moved towards his left and while moving so, the iron pipe hit the right portion of his shoulder and caused internal injury.The other accused persons prevented the driver of the said Jeep from driving the vehicle and another accused Chinnasamy attacked the driver with iron pipe.When the driver moved to avoid attack, the iron pipe hit the right portion of his chest.After this incident, all the accused persons ran away from the place.Subsequently, P.W.1 along with other police officials, came to the Police Station along with the other accused who were earlier arrested and lodged a complaint (Ex.P-1).Thereafter, P.W.1 and the driver of the Jeep were sent to Thittakudi Government Hospital, where P.W.7 Doctor treated them for their injuries.P.W.11 Inspector of Police conducted investigation, examined witnesses, prepared observation mahazar(Ex.P-5), drew rough sketch (Ex.P-8) and recovered the necessary weapons including M.O.1 knife.After completion of investigation, P.W.11 laid charge-sheet against the accused persons.The trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 353, 332 and 307 IPC.The case was taken on file in S.C.No.235 of 2002 and trial was conducted.During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked and M.Os.1 and 2 were produced.When the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the crime and they neither examined any witness nor marked any document.On an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellants/A3 an A4 as tabulated above and acquitted other accused persons.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, A3 and A4 have preferred this Criminal Appeal.When the Criminal Appeal is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the appellants/A3 and A4 submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 2000, the trial Court convicted the appellants in 2003, on which year, they have preferred this appeal and he submitted that he is arguing only on the question of sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellants, and not on the merits of the case.He prayed that since 13 years have lapsed from the date of filing the appeal, the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellants/A3 and A4 may be modified to the period already undergone by them.4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-Police.Considering the nature of the offences as well as considering the fact that 16 years have lapsed from the date of filing of this appeal, I am of the opinion that at this distant point of time, instead of confirming the sentences of imprisonment, it would be appropriate to modify the sentences imposed on the appellants/A3 and A4 to the period of sentence already undergone by them.Accordingly, while confirming the conviction imposed on the appellants/A3 and A4, this Court modifies the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellants/A3 and A4 to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them.With this modification, the appeal is partly allowed.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Virudhachalam.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District.The Record Keeper, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.R.SUBBIAH,Jcs Crl.A.No.939 of 2003 05.08.2016
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,611,593 |
The petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andShri Jitendra Singh, counsel for the complainant.Perused the case-diary.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Accordingly, without expressing opinion on merits of the case, I 2 Mcrc.3072.2016 Sanjay Tyagi Vs.deem it appropriate to allow this application u/S 438 Cr.P.C in the following terms:It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.This order shall remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the petitioner :-The petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.Till conclusion of investigation, the petitioner shall mark his attendance at the concerned Police Station twice a week.A copy of this order be sent to the Police Station concerned for compliance.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
946,249 |
Index: YesInternet: YesRaoTo1.The Chief Secretary to Government ofTamil Nadu,Fort St.2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,Home Department, Fort St.3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Forest Cell CID.,Vellore District,Vellore.4.The Forest Range Officer,Alangayam, Vellore District.The above criminal original petition has been filed underSection 4 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the recordsrelating to the order dated 18.6.2003 made in Crl.Rule 3(1) of the SandalwoodPossession Rules; that during investigation, the respondents seized andproduced 48 sandalwood items before the Court as case property, which were inturn entrusted to the second respondent by the Court for safe custody; thatafter full trial, the said criminal case ended in acquittal by the judgment ofthe trial Court dated 28.9.2001, but since the trial Court has orderedconfiscation of the said case property, the petitioner herein has preferred aCriminal Appeal No.114 of 2001 before the Court of the Principal SessionsJudge, Vellore and the said Court, by its judgment dated 24.4.2003, hasallowed the appeal setting aside the order of confiscation passed by the trialCourt further ordering return of the properties, seized and produced beforethe trial Court, to the petitioner herein and since the respondents have notpreferred any revision against the judgment of the appellate Court, the saidorder has become final.It further comes to be known that thereafter, thepetitioner has filed a petition in Crl.On such grounds, therespondents would pray to dismiss the above criminal original petition.In the said criminal miscellaneous petition, thepetitioner herein would submit that the trial Court ordered Items 1 to 36, setout in C.P.1516 of 1992 be kept in the custody of the second respondent; thatthe Sessions Court has ordered return of the said properties and hence hewould pray to return the said properties concerned with C.P.1516 of 1992 onthe file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate for Sandalwood Offences,Thirupattur.In the s aid petition, the learned Magistrate has passed a crisporder stating that 'as per the reply of the Forest Range Officer, Alangayam,the properties concerned in the case have been destroyed by accidental fire.In result,(iii)The Government of Tamil Nadu shall initiate disciplinary proceedingsagainst both the respondents and the Public Prosecutor of the Court ofPrincipal Sessions Judge, Vellore, who appeared in Crl.A.No.11 4 of 2001before the said Court, for having thrown the case of the prosecution at thefeet of the petitioner, without properly projecting the same on merits and inaccordance with law for their dereliction of duty.Consequently, Crl.5.The Principal Sessions Judge,Vellore.6.The Special Judicial MagistrateTirupattur,Vellore District.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,638,111 |
Heard on point of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Requisition record of the lower court.Heard on I.A. No.7658/2015, which is first application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant- Shahnawaz @ Afzal @ Shanu S/o Iqbal Khan.The present appellant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merit, the application is allowed.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.30,000/- and solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 07.01.2016, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.C.C. as per rules.(Alok Verma) Judge Kafeel
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
983,669 |
The deceased Mst.Laltibai, mother of P. W. 6 Dwarka Prasad and mother-in-law of P. W. 11 Sudamabai, lived in village Hirdayanagar, district Mandla, with the aforesaid witnesses.The village is at a distance of about nine kilometers from Mandla.Nearabout mid-day on 28-1-1971, the deceas-sed, an old woman aged about 65 years, whose mobility had been considerably impaired on account of a paralytic attack, left her house and soon thereafter was seen standing near the house of accused Murarilal.That was the last time she was seen alive.ORDER J.S. Verma, J.This judgment shall also govern the cross appeal, i.e., Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 1971, (Murarilal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh), filed by the present respondents against their conviction under Section 411, I. P. C, and the consequent sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years to each of them.The present appeal by the State is against the acquittal of both these persons for the alleged offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 201 and 394, IPCApparently, the deceased was quite affluent and When she left the house that day, she was as usual bedecked with several ornaments.She was also fond of chewing pan and it appears that she had left home at that time to get pan.Admittedly, the accused Murarilal is a Chaurasia and he carried on business of selling pans; and the other accused Darbarilal was his servant at the relevant time.The house of accused Murarilal is located at a short distance from the house in which the deceased lived along with her son and his family.The deceased not having returned till late at night on 28-1-1971, a search was made for her by her sons P. W. 6 Dwarka Prasad and Badri Prasad along Vith others, but to no avail.On failing to find his mother in the village or near about, P. W. 6 Dwarka Prasad considered the only remaining possibility that she might have gone to his sister's place in Jabalpur and so he, along with his elder brother Badri Prasad, went to look for her in Jabalpur.However, on failing to find her there also, P. W. 6 Dwarka Prasad, immediately on return from Jabalpur, lodged on 30-1-1971 a report (Ex. P-2) in Police Station Mandla, In that report it was stated that Mst.The ornaments detailed in Ex. P-2 included a gold hasli (Article 1), weighing about 14 tolas; three gold mohars each weighing one tola, (one of which is Article 8); a silver todar (Article 9), weighing about one kilogram; and a gold nose-ring (Article 10).Article 1 gold hasli, Article 8 gold mohar, Article 9 silver todar and Article 10 gold nose-ring in this case have been identified as belonging to the deceased which were worn by her when she last left her house, some time after which she was, admittedly, done to death.On 5-2-1971, in a well situate in the outskirts of the village, at a distance of about six furlongs from the house of accused Murarilal, a dead body was recovered sewn in a gunny bag which was alsp filled with some bricks, apparently to keep it under water.The dead body was in a highly decomposed state.It was identified as the dead body of Mst Laltibai.On recovery of the dead body, police being already in the village to enquire about the missing woman, a dehati nalishi (Ex. P-3) was recorded the same day (i. e. 5-2-1971).The investigation led to the arrest of these two accused and their consequent trial for the aforesaid offences.Admittedly, Mst.Laltibai died as a result of violence, as is apparent from the several injuries found on her person which are detailed in the post mortem report (Ex. P-22) and proved by P. W. 15, Dr. D. L. Ayyar.According to the medical opinion, the death was due to aspyxia as a result of strangulation.There is no dispute that the offences of robbery, murder and concealing the evidence of murder have been committed.The only dispute is about the identity of the culprits.Shri A. P. Tare, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State, relies on several circumstances to indicate that the present accused alone were the real culprits, responsible not only for the murder of Mst.Laltibai but also for having concealed her dead body and having robbed her of the aforesaid ornaments which were subsequently recovered on the basis of information given by them.The circumstances on which reliance is placed are mainly that the deceased, when last seen alive on 28-1-1971 at mid-day, was going towards the house of accused Murarilal and was actually seen standing near his house; that she was very fond of chewing pan which she always purchased from the accused Murarilal; that a half-chewed pan was actually found in the jnouth of the dead body of the deceased, indicating that she was done to death soon after she had taken pan; that she had left home at that time to get pan; that the gold hasli (Article 1) belonging to the deceased and which she was wearing when last seen alive Was sold by accused Murarilal in the shop of Murarilal Siharey, P. W. 3, at Mandla the same evening that Mst.Laltibai, having become lame as a result of a paralytic attack, was not very mobile and could not have gone far; that the statement of accused Murarilal on the night of 28-1-1971 to the sons of the deceased thai she would not return now indicated that he Was then aware of her death; and that the dead body was found in a gunny bag which indicated that she had been done to death at a place of convenience i. e. a house where arrangements for disposing of the dead body in this manner could be made and not that she had been waylaid.It is also suggested that the house in question could only be that where she would have voluntarily gone during that part of the day and since she had left home to get pan which she always purchased from the accused Murarilal, she must have gone only to the house of accused Murarilal where she was killed.Another circumstance, treated as a connecting link, is the concealment of Rs. 1,485/-, suggested to be a part of the sale proceeds of the gold hasli (Article 1), in the embankment of a field which is an unusual place for keeping money, for which act no explanation has been given.The argument is that these circumstances taken together lead to the only inference that accused Murarilal was one of the persons Who had committed the aforesaid crimes.So far as the other accused Darbarilal Is concerned, the additional circumstances suggested are that he was present in the house of Murarilal at that time, being his servant; and that he was in very recent possession of the gold mohar (Article 8) silver todar (Article 9) and the gold nose-ring (Article 10), also proved to have been worn by the deceased when last seen alive and which he had concealed in the manner already indicated; and the fact of several injuries being found on the person of the deceased as also the manner of disposing of the dead body which indicated that it was the work of more than one person.The trial Court accepted that the alleged discoveries had been made at the instance of the two accused, and came to the conclusion that the accused Murarilal had sold the gold hasli (Article 1) in the manner alleged and the co-accused Darbarilal had concealed the other three ornaments as stated.However, it was of opinion that the circumstances led only to the conclusion that an offence under Section 411, I. P. C, and none of the alleged offences, was proved against any of the two accused.Accordingly, both of them have been convicted only under Section 411, I. P. C, as already stated.As for the sentence, in our opinion, rigorous imprisonment for life to each of them for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,368,370 |
The genesis of the petition culled-out in brief is that, the first informant Mithan Mohan Barse i.e. present petitioner filed the FIR on 03-07-2015 to the Police of Bhusawal Police Station and cast the allegations that on 03-07-2015 in the morning at about 8.30 to 9.30 p.m. he accompanied with his father Mohan had been to Sant Tulshiram Market Bhusawal to look after the work of the contract of public toilet allocated on pay and use basis.The first informant Mithun and his father after enjoying the tea started returning to home.However, the assailant Anil Chabildas Chaudhary arrived on his motorbike.He reprimanded the father Mohan by putting the revolver on his head and gave threat to eliminate him.Thereafter, assailant Anil Chaudhary took out the weapon knife and dealt a blow of weapon at::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 ::: 5 WP-1619-15 the abdomen of Mohan Barse.Meantime, other assailants Nattu Chawariya, Gopal Shivram Shinde, Bunty Parshuram Pathrode, Vijay Parshuram Pathrode, Jacky Pathrode all came running at the spot of incident.They were armed with weapons sword, iron pipe, chopper etc. They all exhorted to kill father Mohan.In the fight, assailants attacked on the head of Mohan with sword, iron pipe and chopper etc. The assailant Bunty Pathrode and Vijay Pathrode were having revolver in their hands.They were giving threats to the public by flashing the revolver.The assailant also attempted to attack on the first informant::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::-Mithun but he flung the bricks towards assailants.The on-lookers thronged at the spot.Thereafter, assailants made their escape good from the scene of occurrence.The injured Mohan was escorted to the Hospital of Dr. Manavkar but he was declared dead.Eventually, the first informant filed the FIR, pursuant to which, the Police of Busawal Police Station registered the crime No. 128 of 2015 under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") as well as section 3, 4 read with section 25 of the Arms Act and set the criminal law in motion.The Investigating Officer (for short "IO") carried out the investigation.He recorded statements of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.The assailants, namely, Nattu Chawariya, Gopal Shinde and Jacky Pathrode were apprehended in this crime for the sake of investigation.03 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 17@07 39404 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 45@07 39402 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 69@07 363It is also imperative to mention that the impugned charge-sheet reflects statements of following witnesses recorded by the IO under section 161 of Cr.P.C during the course of investigation.These witnesses divulged the names of assailants in their statements, which were also considered and verified by this Court, the details of which are as under:-(b)Statement on 2.8.2016 before (1)Anil Choudhary CID (2)Gopal Shinde (3)Nattu Chavariya (4)Jacky Pathrode (5)Bunty Pathrode (6)Vijay Pathrode(c)Letter dated 9.8.2016 Denied earlier Affidavit and all Statements(d)Statement u/s.164 -JUDGMENT :- ( Per : K.K. Sonawane, J.)1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard the learned counsel for appearing parties finally, with consent.The petitioner Mithun Mohan Barse resident of Bhusawal, District Jalgaon preferred the present writ petition by invoking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with following prayer:"A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, Writ of certiorari or any such other::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 ::: 4 WP-1619-15 appropriate writ or order thereby directing the concerned respondents to institute or cause to be instituted a fresh/further investigation into the crime registered by the Bhusaval Bazar Peth Police Station, Bhusaval, vide C.R. No. 128 of 2015 dated 03-07-2015 for the offences punishable u/s 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of IPC and section 3, 4 r/w section 25 of the Arms Act against all the original accused persons named therein viz (1) Anil Chhabiladas Choudhary, (2) Nattu Chaurasiya (3) Gopal Shivram Shinde (4) Bunty Parshuram Pathrode, (5) Vijay Parshuram Patrode and (6) Jacky Indal Pathrode all resident of Bhusaval; to handover the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation or to a Special Investigation Team headed by a responsible superior officer as may be constituted by this Hon'ble Court or to any other independent investigating agency outside the district of Jalgaon to be carried out under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court."::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::The weapons were recovered from their custody under section 27 of the Evidence Act. After completion of investigation, IO preferred the charge-sheet against three accused/assailants, namely, Nattu Chawariya, Gopal Shivram Shinde and Jagdish @ Jacky Indal Pathrode.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::6 WP-1619-15Being dissatisfied with the mode and manner in which the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Agency, the petitioner approached to this Court by invoking remedy under Artciel 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to redress his grievance.According to petitioner, the names of prime assailants Anil Chabildas Chaudhary, Bunty Pathrode and Vijay Pathrode were shown deleted from the array of accused in the charge- sheet.Moreover, Investigating Agency did not apply sections 143, 144, 147, 148 and section 149 of the IPC in this crime.It has been contended that these alleged accused persons have an high level political connection and influential persons.Therefore, Police of Bhusawal Police Station failed to conduct investigation of the present crime in proper manner.The IO allowed the prime assailants to scot free from the charges pitted against them.It has been submitted that the petitioner is one of the eye witness and first informant of the incident.The assailants Anil Chabiladas Chaudhary, Nattu Chawariya, Gopal Shinde, Bunty Pathrode, Jacky Pathrode and Vijay Pathrode all brutally attacked his father by lethal weapons.He figured all these assailants in his FIR as well as described their overtacts in detail.The FIR came to be filed immediately after the occurrence of alleged incident.The IO also recorded statements of witnesses.The supplementary statement of first informant was recorded by the IO, in which he divulged about the involvement and participation of all these assailants in the alleged incident.There were circumstances to show prima facie complicity of these accused persons in this case.But, the Investigating Agency did not arrest the prime culprit nor proceeded to::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 ::: 7 WP-1619-15 interrogate them in regard to the alleged crime.According to first informant, the alleged incident was occurred in the broad day-light.According to petitioner, the entire investigation carried out in this crime is dishonest, tainted and biased, as such needs to be transferred to CBI or State Agency i.e. CID for further investigation.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::In order to substantiate contentions propounded on behalf of petitioner, attention of this Court was invited to the offences registered against alleged assailants, which are as under:vfuy Nfcynkl pkS/kjh] jk- HkqlkoG HkqlkoG cktkj Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye lífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 66@87 Hkknfo 324] 504 Ukk 'kkchr 02 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 168@88 Hkknfo 147] 148] 149] 504] 506 Ukk 'kkchr 03 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 52@92 Hkknfo 353] 332] 504] 34 Ukk 'kkchr 04 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 177@95 Hkknfo 353] 323] 504] 34 Ukk 'kkchr 05 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 90@2000 Hkknfo 147] 148] 149] 341] 506 vkeZ vWDV Ukk 'kkchr 4@25 06 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 118@01 Hkknfo 147] 148] 149] 427 Ukk 'kkchr 07 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 164@06 Hkknfo 143] eqiksvWd 135 U;k;izfo"B 08 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 166@06 Hkknfo 143] 341 eqiksvWd 135 U;k;izfo"B 09 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 179@06 Hkknfo 143] 147] 148] 149] 427] 324] U;k;izfo"B 504] fdz- ykW- vW d 7 10 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 181@06 Hkknfo 143] 147] 148] 149] 395] 323] 504] fdz- ykW- vW d 7 11 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 182@06 Hkknfo 143] 147] 148] 149] 395] 307] U;k;izfo"B 354] 323] 294] 504] 506] 427] fdz- ykW- vW d 7] eqa iks vW d 135 12 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 192@06 Hkknfo 143] 147] 148] 149] 353] 186] 332] U;k;izfo"B 427] fdz- ykW- vW d 7::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 ::: 8 WP-1619-15 13 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 26@11 Hkknfo 395] 384] 386] 504 vkeZ vWDV 25 ek- lqfize dksVZ] U;q o 27 fnYyh] ;kaps vkns'kkUo;s rikl Lfkfxrh 14 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 249@11 Hkknfo 387] 109 U;k;izfo"B 15 Hkkx 6 xq-j-ua- 71@11 Ekq iks vWDV 141] 142 U;k;izfo"B 16 Hkkx 6 xq-j-ua- 3008@13 EkqacbZ iksyhl vWDV dye 142 U;k;izfo"B 17 i- uk- dk- 100@11 Hkknfo 504] 506 U;k;izfo"B HkqlkoG rkyqdk Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye LífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 19@04 Hkknfo 353] 332] 323] 504] 506] 186 lg 'kkfcr 2 o"kZ lDr etqjh o yks- iz- dk- d- 130 3000 # naM 02 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 25@11 Hkknfo 307] 143] 147] 148] 120c] 323] ek- lqfize dksVZ] U;w fnYyh 504] 506] vkeZ vWDV 4@25 lg eq-iks-dk-d- ;kaps vkns'kkuqlkj rikl 135 Lfkfxrh HkqlkoG 'kgj Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye LífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 89@00 Hkknfo 307] 323] 504] 506] vkeZ vWDV 'kkfcr 2 o"kZ lDr etqjh o 3@25 2000 # naM 02 Hkkx 6 xq-j-ua- 40@05 eq-iks- vWDV dye 37¼1½¼3½ ps mYya/ku 135 U;k;izfo"B izek.ks 03 Hkkx 6 xq-j-ua- 43@06 izkWiVhZ MWest vWDV 1984 ps dye 3 U;k;izfo"B lkeusokyk fo#?n nk[ky vlysys vn[kyik= xqUgs v-ua iksyhl LVs'ku vn[kyik= xqUgk uksan dzekad vf/kfu;e o dye 01 Hkq- cktkjisB iks-Lvs- 461@10 Hkknfo d- 323] 504] 506] 02 Hkq- cktkjisB iks-Lvs- 100@11 Hkknfo d-504] 506] lkeusokyk fo#?n dsysyh izfrca/kd dk;Zokgh v-ua iksyhl LVs'ku gíikj izLrko dzekad@pW-ds-dz- Vf/kfu;e o dye 01 HklkoG cktkjisB pW-ds-dz-193@06 Lkhvkjihlh 110 ¼bZ½¼x½ 02 HklkoG cktkjisB pW-ds-dz-247@06 Lkhvkjihlh 107 03 HklkoG cktkjisB pW-ds-dz-47@09 Lkhvkjihlh 110 ¼bZ½¼x½ 04 HklkoG cktkjisB g-iz-dz-2@04 eq-iks-vWDV dz- 56¼c½¼MªkWi½ 05 HkqlkoG 'kgj LFkkuc?n dkjokbZ 01@11 Lkhvkjihlh 151 ¼3Z½izek.sk 06 HklkoG cktkjisB g-iz-dz-1@11 eq-iks-vWDV dz- 57¼v½¼1½ caVh ij'kqjke iFkjksM] jk- HkqlkoG HkqlkoG cktkj Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye lífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 60@05 307] 147]148] 149] 324] 323 02 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 85@06 294] 504] 506] 34::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 ::: 9 WP-1619-15 03 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 17@07 394 04 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 45@07 394 05 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 85@07 395] 147] 148] 149] 384] 323 06 Hkkx 6 xq-j-ua- 3020@15 vkeZ vWDV 4@25 07 i-uk-dk-jft-ua-99@15 323] 504] 506] 34 HkqlkoG 'kgj Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye LífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 11@07 147] 148] 149] 02 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 69@07 363 03 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 141@10 363] 376¼x½ HkqlkoG yksgekxZ Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye LífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 55@2012 394] 34 fot; ij'kqjke iFkjksM] jk- HkqlkoG HkqlkoG 'kgj Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye lífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 85@07 395 02 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 04@04 396 03 i-uk-dk-jft-ua-99@15 323] 504] 506] 34 tWfd mQZ txnh'k bany iFkjksM] jk- HkqlkoG HkqlkoG cktkjisB Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye lífLFkrh 02 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 180@06 143] 147] 148] 149] 395] 307] 324] 504] 506 03 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 183@06 143] 147] 148] 149] 395] 427] eq-iks- vW-d 135 o fdz-ykW- vW-d- 7 04 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 184@06 143] 147] 148] 149] 395] 452] 427] 435 eq-iks- vW-135 05 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 186@06 143] 147] 148] 149] 436] 427] 395]::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 85@07 39502 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 04@04 396iks- vW- 135 HkqlkoG 'kgj Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye lífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 89@2000 Hkknfo 307] 323] 504] 506] vkeZ vWDV 3@25::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 ::: 10 WP-1619-15::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::It has been asserted on behalf of petitioner that all these assailants are habitual offenders and history-sheeters.Therefore, the independent witnesses of the crime found reluctant to come forward for giving evidence against these perpetrator of crime due to their fear and terror.These assailants are very well connected with political party i.e. Nationalist Congress Party and they are enjoying sufficient political clout.Therefore, the investigating Agency did not venture to lay their hands for arraigning these assailants in this case.Per contra, the learned prosecutor raised objections for transfer of investigation to any other Agency at the behest of petitioner and submits that the Investigating Agency has conducted the investigation promptly after registration of crime No. 128 of 2015 at the instance of petitioner.The IO recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.Thereafter, IO picked up accused Nattu Chawariya, Gopal Shinde and Jacky Pathrode for the sake of investigation.So also, the weapons were recovered from their custody under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The investigation carried out uptil this date was not tainted and biased.The investigation was carried out by local Police as well as State CID in proper manner for collecting the evidence in this crime.The learned Public Prosecutor added that initially investigation was carried out by the local Police, however, in view of directions from the State Government, investigation came to be transferred to State CID and since then CID had taken charge of investigation into the crime.According to learned Prosecutor, the purpose of filing present petition has already been sub-served as::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 ::: 11 WP-1619-15 investigation has been transferred to the State CID.The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that, in view of investigation conducted by the State CID, petitioner might have satisfied with the investigation, and therefore, he sought withdrawal of the present petition.But, the act of seeking permission for withdrawal was objected by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the investigation was ordered to be carried out under the supervision of this Court.According to learned Public Prosecutor, on appreciating the allegations nurtured on behalf of petitioner, this Court by virtue of judicial order has supervised and monitored the investigation till date and also recorded its satisfaction in regard to the quality of investigation.Therefore, there are no any extraordinary circumstances for requisite directions of transfer of the investigation of crime to CBI.The learned prosecutor prayed to dismiss the petition.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::We have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides.We have also delved into the factual aspects as well as relevant documents produced on record.The record adumbrates that this Court on 01-02-2016 issued notice and directed the concerned IO to remain present before this Court along with relevant documents of the investigation.Thereafter, on 15-02-2016 after verification of the entire investigation papers of the crime, this Court expressed displeasure and issued directions to the Superior Police Personnel i.e. Additional Superintendent of Police to file affidavit to evaluate the attending::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 ::: 12 WP-1619-15 circumstances of the investigation.This Court also sought explanation as to why charge-sheet was not filed against so called assailants, who are figured in the FIR and not arrested in this crime.Pursuant to directions of this Court, the concerned Additional Superintendent of Police has filed the affidavit and disclosed that investigation was carried out under his supervision and the same was not concluded though the charge-sheet came to be filed against three accused persons.He asserted that the investigation is in progress.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::It is worth to mention that during the course of hearing in the petition, on 09-06-2016, it was brought to the notice of this Court that in view of directions from the State Government, investigation of the crime came to be transferred from the local Police to State CID, but the issue of transmission of investigation to CID or CBI is subjudice before this Court.Therefore, the State CID found reluctant to take over the charge of investigation into the crime.Thereafter, this Court was pleased to direct the concerned State CID to accept the responsibility of investigation into the crime and proceed further for collecting evidence.The liberty was also granted to the concerned CID to file supplementary charge-sheet, if any, required in this crime.It is strange to appreciate that pending petition before this Court, learned counsel Mr. Jivan J. Patil appearing for the petitioner sought discharge and advocate Mr. Yogesh L. Dalal seeks permission to continue his appearance on behalf of petitioner in this mater.But, the said prayer of withdrawal of petition was objected by the learned Public Prosecutor.However, this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction called the detail report from the Investigating Agency as well as directed the concerned Investigating Officer of the State CID to remain present in the Court.It was advised to carry out meaningful investigation into the present crime.It was further revealed from the record that on 11-08-2016, this Court expressed its satisfaction about the manner in which investigation was carried out and adjourned the matter for further hearing.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::The aforesaid factual scenario impelled to arrive at the conclusion that prayer of the petitioner to the extent of transfer of investigation to the State CID has already been redressed after requisite directions from the State Government itself.As such, his prayer to that extent has rendered infructuous one.Thereafter, the petitioner himself prayed for withdrawal of the present petition without mentioning any cause for the same.These circumstances are indicative of redressal of grievance of the petitioner in relating to mode and manner in which the investigation was carried out into the crime.It is evident from all these circumstances that most of the part of investigation was carried out under the supervision of this Court.In such background, if the pleadings of the petitioner are considered and scrutinized, the allegations of political influential as well as perfunctory::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 ::: 14 WP-1619-15 and bias investigation nurtured on behalf of petitioner appear not sustainable and considerable one in this case.There are no prima facie circumstances available on record to show the necessity of investigation into the crime by the Central Agency like CBI.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::(b)Second Statement on 30.7.2015 (1)Nattu Chavariya before CID (2)Gopal Shinde::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 ::: 15 WP-1619-15 C Vivek Sarsar (1)Nattu Chavariya::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::(a)First Statement on 11.7.2015 (2)Gopal Shinde(b)Second Statement on 10.8.2016 (1)Nattu Chavariya (2)Gopal Shinde D Vishnu Sokiya (1)Nattu Chavariya(a)First Statement on 7.8.2015 (2)Gopal Shinde(b)Second Statement u/s. 164 on Nobody's name 14.8.2015 E Pralhad Gharu Anil Choudhary and 5E Pralhad Gharu Anil Choudhary and 5(a)Affidavit on 10.12.2015 unnamed persons(b)Statement before Police on (1)Anil Choudhary 23.2.2016 (2)Nattu Chavariya (3)Gopal Shinde (4)Jacky Pathrode (5)Vijay Pathrode (6)Bunty Pathrode(c)Statement on 27.8.2016 before (1)Anil Choudhary CID (2)Nattu Chavariya (3)Gopal Shinde (4)Jacky Pathrode (5)Vijay Pathrode (6)Bunty Pathrode(c) Letter dated 9.8.2015 Denied earlier affidavit and all Statements(d)Statement u/s. 164 F Vinod Ghengat Anil Choudhary and 5F Vinod Ghengat Anil Choudhary and 5(a)Affidavit on 10.12.2015 unnamed persons(b)Statement by Police on 10.2.2016 (1)Anil Choudhary (2)Gopal Shinde (3)Nattu Chavariya (4)Jacky Pathrode (5)Bunty Pathrode (6)Vijay Pathrode::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 ::: 16 WP-1619-15::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::(c)Statement on 23.7.2016 before (1)Bunty Pathrode CID (2)Vijay Pathrode (3)Nattu Chavariya (4)Gopal Shinde (5)Jacky Pathrode(d)Letter dated 9.8.2016 Denied earlier Affidavit and all StatementsAt this juncture, in view of recitals of the FIR and supplementary statement of first informant Mithun recorded by the IO, we find it painful to accept the proposition putforth on behalf of IO that there is no sufficient evidence against the assailant Anil Chaudhary, Bunty Pathrode and Vijay Pathrode.It is the settled principle of law that the sole evidence of solitary witness, if found credible and trustworthy, would base the conviction.Admittedly, the FIR recorded under section 154 of Cr.P.C. is an vital and important piece of evidence and it can be used under section 157 of the Evidence Act for corroboration to the version of first informant being an former statement recorded by the Police prior to registration of crime.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:16 :::Be that as it may be, it is also worth to mention that the Courts of law are not powerless and in case, during the course of trial the Sessions Court come across with circumstances that the persons who are not arraigned in this crime, found guilty of the offence, they could be tried together with other co-accused.The provisions of section 319 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates the powers to proceed against other persons found guilty of offence which reads as under :Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence -(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:17 ::: 18 WP-1619-15 into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:17 :::Moreover, learned trial Court may also call for report directing further investigation if any required into the matter.In such circumstances, we do not find it just and proper to entertain the petition at the behest of petitioner for any relief as prayed.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:17 :::23 WP-1619-15It is evident from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement that the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court have every power to order further investigation, fresh or de-novo investigation into the matter, provided appropriate case to that effect is to be made out.In the instant case, there is no justifiable circumstances on record to issue directions for fresh investigation.In contrast, most of the investigation was carried out under the supervision of this Court.The Criminal writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,372,985 |
No.1/State.This second Criminal Appeal for grant of bail has been filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (in short the Act) against the order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Vidisha, whereby bail application filed by the appellant for grant of bail has been rejected.First Criminal Appeal No.5681/2018 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.8.2018 with liberty to file afresh after investigation is complete.The statements of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded after one year of lodging of the report.Learned counsel submits that appellant has been falsely implicated.He is in custody since 20.6.18 and trial is likely to take time.On such premises, learned counsel for the appellant prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal.Certified copy as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-Digitally signed by MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Date: 2018.10.05 18:53:54 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,373,462 |
1 C.R.R. No. 2381 of 2016 Chiranjit GhoshThe State of West Bengal & Anr.Mr. Sandip Bhattacharjee, Mr. Anjan Datta, Mr. Joydip Chatterjee.for the appellant.....Mr. Kallol Mondal, Mr. Rajarshi Das, Mr. Krishan Ray, Ms. Amrita Chel.for the state.......This is an application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as filed by the accused in Phoolbagan P.S. Case No. 296 dated 13-10-2009 under Sections 376/312/417/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code which is now pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Sealdah to transfer to any other law court for trial and disposal.It may be noted that this has reference to Sessions Trial No. 01(02) 10 of that court.One application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, South 24 Parganas, being Criminal Misc.Case 3163 of 2016 under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as the said Code) wherein the present petitioner-accused prayed for transfer of that case from the court mentioned above to any other court.Certified copy of the impugned order has been annexed with the record which goes to show that in that petition it was urged that the learned Trial Judge was failing to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case properly and therefore, the petitioner-accused is apprehending of not getting fair and impartial trial from the said court.I have considered the entire scenario of this case as I have depicted in the early part of this order.There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation that the learned trial court directed the accused to change his advocate.Considering the order dated February 26, 2016 (copy of which is taken on record).
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,381,515 |
(2).They overtook them and stopped their motorcycle.Thereafter one person came and robbed his wrist watch, one mobile phone of Redmi 4-A company, and his mother's gold chain, gold tops, gold ring valued Rs. 61800/-.The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") against the judgment dated 26.07.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat District Alirajgarh in Session Trial No.7/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 (two counts) of I.P.C. and sentence to undergo 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each counts with default stipulation.After that they fled away.The complainant lodged FIR at police station Bori District Alirajpur on the same day.On the basis of which crime number 40/2017 for commission of offence under Section 392 of 2 I.P.C. was registered against the unknown persons.(3).On production by the complainant, police seized the bill of mobile Redmi 4-A. Police apprehended the accused persons and on the basis of memorandum of accused Manoj @ Bhayau one mobile phone, gold chain was seized whereas on the instance of the present appellant Aalam one gold ring, wrist watch and a motorcycle bearing registration MP-45-MA-1499 was recovered.Their test identification parade was also conducted in which complainant Girish Devda identifed the accused persons.Identification of seized article was also conducted.After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was presented before the Judicial magistrate First Class, Jobat who committed the case to the court of Session Court and ultimately it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat, District Alirajpur.(3).Appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.Trial Court, after considering the submissions advance by the counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 392 (two counts) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- for each counts.(5).(9).So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the fact that the the appellant is the first offender, was facing the trial for more than 2 years and he has 4 served 2 years 10 months in custody out of his three years jail sentence, therefore,the jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him whereas the fine amount of Rs.1,000/-each imposed by the trial court is affirmed.(10).Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part to the extent the impugned judgment and order has been modified.The appellant is in jail.Office is directed make arrangement for issuance of supersession warrant against the appellants so that appellant be released from jail forthwith, if he has deposited the fine amount.A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with record for information and compliance.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE praveen PRAVEEN Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION KUMAR COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c45471 5d6eccc5a350c9111fb019b34dace6d05 NAYAK b8fd5, cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2020.05.31 08:05:30 -12'00'
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,383,512 |
/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Mostafijur Rahaman ... ... petitioner Mr. Kaushik Chatterjee, Mr. Tirthankar Dey ... ... for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Imam, Mr. S. Kundu ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Chanchal P.S. Case No. 159 of 2018 dated 24.03.2018 under Sections 448/354/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner claims that upon the de facto complainant failing to repay a loan and demands being made by the petitioner's finance company, a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner.The State refers to the injury report and the marks of strangulation on the neck of the de facto complainant's father.If the de facto complainant's father was, indeed, assaulted, the petitioner has been identified.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
983,969 |
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byDR ANAND, J.- On October 10, 1970, in Village Changel,District Muzaffarpur, Harbansh Narain Lal Das, father of theappellant herein, was murdered and respondents Ram BrikshRai, Giani Mandal and Mohinder Baitha along with KusheshwarRai (since deceased) were tried for the said offence ofmurder under Sections 302/34 IPC.The learned AdditionalSessions Judge by his judgment dated March 31, 1973convicted the three respondents herein for the offence underSections 302/34 IPC and sentenced each one of them to sufferrigorous imprisonment for life.Giani Mandal, respondent 2was also convicted for an offence under Section 379 of theCode for stealing certain articles from the person of thedeceased.However, no separate sentence was awarded forthis offence.The respondents preferred an appeal againsttheir conviction and117sentence in the High Court of Judicature at Patna.The HighCourt after reappraisal of the entire evidence on recordconcurred with the findings recorded by the trial court asregards the guilt of the respondents.In the words of theHigh Court:"From the scrutiny of the evidence discussed above, we feel no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution story revealed by the two witnesses and corroborated by the other witnesses, namely, Mohan Jha (PW 1), Yashoda Devi (PW 7) and the village Choukidar (PW 10) as well as the evidence of the Investigation Officer and the doctor is fully established beyond all reasonable doubts."However, the High Court found that the conviction of therespondents for an offence under Sections 302/34 IPC, in thefacts and circumstances of the case, was not justified andthat the respondents could be convicted only for an offenceunder Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC.Theconviction was, by the judgment of the High Court datedJanuary 28, 1977, accordingly altered and the sentence forimprisonment for life was substituted by a sentence of sevenyears' rigorous imprisonment.The conviction of GianiMandal for the offence under Section 379 was maintained butagain no separate sentence was awarded for the same.Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, theappellant, son of the deceased, filed a special leavepetition in this Court in 1984 after nearly seven years ofthe order of the High Court and 81 days even after the HighCourt declined to grant a certificate of fitness applied forin 1984 itself, for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court.Along with the special leave petition, an application forcondonation of delay was also filed on January 15, 1985.This Court by an order dated January 17, 1985, condoned thedelay and granted special leave to appeal.He took us through therelevant portion of the evidence on the record.Accordingto the appellant, the respondents surprised the deceased,who was going to his paddy fields and after relieving him ofa loaded pistol, assaulted him with fist blows, slaps andkicks and then the neck of the deceased was tied with a ropeand he was dragged with a premeditated intention to killhim.The appellant submitted that the murder was a gruesomeone and since the method of "hanging" was used, therespondents had shared the common intention to commit themurder of the deceased and they should not only have beenconvicted for an offence under Sections 302/34 IPC but alsoawarded the capital punishment of death.The respondents onthe other hand have submitted through their learned counselthat from the established circumstances on the record,intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder ofthe deceased is not at all discernible.The sentence hadbeen reduced by the High Court from that of lifeimprisonment to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, afteraltering the conviction from the one under Sections 302/34IPC to the one under Sections118304 Part II/34 IPC.These are some of the factors which the court willhave to take into consideration while appreciating thesubmissions made by the appellant.There is no doubt that the respondents along withKusheshwar Rai (since deceased) assaulted the deceased onthe fateful day.The prosecution has successfullyestablished on the record that the respondents 1 to 3committed the crime and we agree with the findings to thateffect as recorded by both the courts below.It is found from the evidence on the record, that RamBriksh Rai, respondent 1 is alleged to have been armed witha lathi and rope while Giani Mandal, respondent 2, is statedto have been in possession of a knife, with which he cut thebelt to remove the pistol from the person of the deceased.According to the prosecutionwitnesses, who have been believed by both the courts below,injuries were caused to the deceased only by kicks and fistblows.Keeping in view the ocular testimony and the medicalevidence, we find it difficult to hold that the accusedrespondents had intended to cause the injuries on thedeceased which were sufficient in ordinary course of natureto cause his death.Had the accused shared the commonintention to cause the death of the deceased, nothingprevented them from using the pistol.Comingnow to the question of sentence.The High Court has awarded7 years' RI.Keeping in view the nature of the assault andthe attendant circumstances on the record, that sentenceappears to us to be rather lenient and119calls for an enhancement.However, keeping in view the factthat respondents 1 to 3 would have undergone the 7 yearssentence almost a decade ago, we do not propose to enhancethe substantive sentence of 7 years' RI but in the peculiarfacts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion,that the ends of justice would be met, if respondents 1 to 3are also sentenced to pay fine.We, accordingly, enhancethe sentence on each one of the three respondents from 7years' RI to 7 years' RI and a fine of Rs 2,500 each.Indefault of payment of fine, each of the three respondentsshall suffer further RI for six months.The total fine (Rs7,500) when realised shall be paid to the appellant.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,402,318 |
Prayer allowed.With the aforesaid liberty, Criminal Revision No.3002/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,404,324 |
Crl. A. No.872/2012 Page 1 of 12The abovesaid information was assigned to SI Upender Singh for preliminary inquiry.SI Upender Singh alongwith Ct.Chanderbhan had reached to the spot i.e. 1120B, G-1, Phase VI, Aaya Nagar, Delhi and found a woman lying dead on the floor of a room constructed on a plot.Name of the deceased was disclosed as Bhuli.She was having injury mark on her throat and head.One Vishwajeet Sarkar found at the spot handed over the accused Ashok Paswan to the police.In his statement, Vishwajeet stated that he was serving with Volvo Car Corporation as Driver.In the neighbouring plot Ashok Paswan along with his wife and children was living and did labour job.There Ashok Paswan quarrelled with his wife and had been beating his wife after taking liquor for the last two days.Yesterday also Ashok had beaten his wife a lot.Today at about 4.45 pm he was present at his house and he had heard cries of children from the house of Ashok Paswan.He had rushed to the house of Ashok Paswan and saw that Ashok laid his wife on the floor of his room and throttled her.On seeing him, Ashok ran away from there.He cried and with the assistance of the neighbours caught hold Ashok.He had seen the wife of Ashok who was not breathing and was dead.He informed the police.PCR vehicle had reached.Ashok murdered his wife by throttling.PW-4 has categorically deposed that he came out of the house after hearing the cries of children of the deceased, he had seen the accused had laid his wife on the floor and pressing her throat and on seeing him, he fled away and only thereafter accused had been apprehended with the help of labour.Therefore, when he had seen the wife of the accused dead, he called police.Moreover, the accused has not denied the evidence in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. Rather he has admitted the fact about the quarrel erupted between his wife and him on the previous night and got recovered the sari, pant and brick having blood stains, which he had hid after the quarrel.His version is that he did not know how his wife died but it is the fact that his wife had died at his hand.In order to deal with the contentions of both the parties, it would be appropriate to examine the testimonies of the material witnesses including the testimonies of PW3 Raj Kumar and PW4 Vishwajeet Sarkar who had witnessed the incident.PW3 Raj Kumar (son of the deceased and the appellant) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on the day prior to the fateful day, there occurred a quarrel between his parents and during that quarrel; the appellant hit the deceased with a brick as a result of which she sustained injury on her head.On the next day, in the evening at about 4.00 pm, PW3 saw the appellant pressing throat of the deceased.PW3 in his cross-examination stated that on the previous day of the incident, the appellant accompanied the deceased to the Doctor.PW3 also stated no one came to rescue the deceased when the appellant was throttling her.Another eyewitness, PW4 Vishwajeet Sarkar (neighbour) deposed in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 15.09.2011, at about 4.45 pm or 5.00 pm, upon hearing cries of the children, he went towards the house of the appellant and saw that the appellant had laid his wife on the floor and was throttling her.PW4 further deposed that on seeing him, the appellant tried to flee from the spot.When he tried to catch hold of him, the appellant escaped and was later apprehended with the help of some persons after raising an alarm.Thereafter, he returned to the house of the appellant and found her dead.PW4 further deposed that he immediately called up the police at 100 no. Police reached the spot and the appellant was handed over to them.PW4 further deposed that the appellant had a habit of consuming liquor or drug like substance.Rigor-mortis were present all over the body.The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.At the outset, Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has instructions not to assail the judgment on conviction but he submits that a case under Section 302 of IPC is not made out.He pleads that having regard to the evidence on record, a case under Section 304 Part II of IPC would be made out and he prays that the judgment be modified in the above terms as also the order on sentence be modified to the period already Crl.A. No.872/2012 Page 1 of 12 undergone which is about 7 years which includes the remission earned by the appellant.The abovesaid statement was got endorsed and police registered the case and arrested the accused.After completion of the investigation, police had filed the chargesheet against the accused.Vide order dated 22.12.2011, accused was charged for the offence under section 302 IPC.Accused pleaded not guilty Crl.A. No.872/2012 Page 2 of 12 and claimed trial."Crl. A. No.872/2012 Page 2 of 12The prosecution examined 20 witnesses in all; no evidence was led by the appellant in his defence.Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it was admitted that he had placed his hand once upon the deceased but thereafter he had removed his hand.He also admitted that a quarrel had erupted between him and his wife and his son (PW3) had witnessed the quarrel.The appellant further admitted that Vishwajeet Sarkar (PW4) had produced him before SI Upender stating that he had killed his wife.The appellant pleaded ignorance as to how her wife died in his hand.The counsel submits that the case in hand has almost identical facts to the aforestated case.The unfortunate incident seems to have erupted at the spur of the moment and stemmed from marital discord.It has emerged in evidence that the appellant would frequently quarrel with his wife for obtaining money to purchase liquor as he would largely remain unemployed.No weapon was used for committing the offence.It, thus, stands proved that unfortunate incident took place on account of sudden quarrel between the deceased and the appellant; there was no pre-mediation; no animus and motive to kill the deceased.answer to question No.3 to show that the appellant admitted that he pressed the throat of his wife.The question reads as under:"Q.3 It is further in evidence against you that at that time, PW-4 Vishwajeet Sarkar heard noise of weeping and crying of children and on hearing this he came out of his house and went towards your house and saw you had laid your wife on the floor of the house and was pressing her throat.What have you to say?It is correct.But my mind was not with me.A. No.872/2012 Page 6 of 12 continuation of the incident which took place a day earlier.Crl. A. No.872/2012 Page 6 of 12We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions, carefully examined the testimonies of the witnesses on record and the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court."15..... From the postmortem report Ex.PW5/A, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the fact that the deceased was died due to asphyxia caused due to manual strangulation (throttling).On 14.09.2011, the appellant had also quarrelled with the Crl. A. No.872/2012 Page 8 of 12 deceased and beaten her.In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not lodged any complaint on 14.09.2011 as quarrels usually took place in the house of the appellant and the deceased.He denied the suggestion that the appellant was not throttling the deceased; further denied the suggestion given to him that he had wrongly called the Police under misconception.Crl. A. No.872/2012 Page 8 of 12Besides the above public witnesses, PW13 Lady Const.Shyam Kaur has proved the copy of PCR form which is Ex.PW13/A. PW12 HC Kedar Prasad has proved the copy of FIR, which is Ex.PW12/A and also proved copy of DD entry as Ex.PW12/C. PW19 SI Jitender Kumar (In-Charge Crime Team) who inspected the spot has proved his report vide Ex.PW19/A. PW20 Insp.Anil Sharma was the Investigating Officer in the present case and had conducted the inquest proceeding and proved the same as Ex.PW20/C.Before deciding the appeal in hand, we deem it appropriate to analyse the medical evidence in detail.In this regard testimonies of PW21 Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary and PW5 Dr. Munish Sharma assume importance.PW21 Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary, who has proved the MLC of the deceased as Ex.PW5/A. PW5 had found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:"1. Lacerated wound of size 6x1 cm irregular and contused margins present over the occipital region of the scalp in the midline.It was muscle deep.It was present 148 cms above the left heel and 15 cms from the tip of right mastoid process and 14 cms from the tip of left mastoid process.Scratch abrasion of size 1x1 cm was present over Crl.A. No.872/2012 Page 9 of 12 anterior aspect of neck in the midline.It was 6 cms below chin and 10 cms above suprasternal notch.It was 12 cm and 13 cms from the tip of right and left mastoid processes respectively (reddish brown in colour).A. No.872/2012 Page 9 of 12Reddish brown scratch abrasion of size 0.5 x 0.5 cms was present over the right lateral anterior aspect of neck.It was 5 cms from midline and 10 cms from tip of right mastoid.Reddish brown scratch abrasion of size 1 x 0.5 cms was present over the right lateral anterior aspect of neck.It was 5.5 cms from midline and 9.5 cms from tip of right mastoid.Reddish brown scratch abrasion of size 0.5 x 0.5 cms was present over the right lateral anterior aspect of neck.It was 5 cms from midline and 6 cms from tip of right mastoid.Reddish brown scratch abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm was present over the right lateral anterior aspect of neck.It was 6 cms from midline and 5 cms from tip of right mastoid.On dissection of neck extravassation of blood and sub facial haemorrhages were present.Thyrohyoid complex was intact and tracheal mucosa was congested.Face was congested.Bluish discolouration of nails was present.Post-mortem lividity was present over back and dependent parts except over pressure areas.All the internal organs were congested."A. No.872/2012 Page 10 of 12Crl. A. No.872/2012 Page 10 of 12After post-mortem examination, PW5 Dr. Munish Sharma opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to manual strangulation (throttling) and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature.From the post-mortem report, it is abundantly clear that the deceased did not suffer any other fatal injury apart from a lacerated wound of size 6 x 1 cm found on the occipital region of the deceased.The explanation to this injury was given to be a quarrel which took place one day prior to the incident.No fresh marks of violence were found upon the body of the deceased.The Thyrohyoid complex of the deceased was intact which is suggestive of this fact that the pressure exerted by the appellant while throttling was not excessive.It is evident from the testimony of PW4 Vishwajeet Sarkar (neighbour) who categorically deposed that it was quite common that the appellant and the deceased quarrel with each other.The ends of justice would be met if we modify the sentence awarded to the appellant and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years.Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part, the conviction and order on sentence recorded by the Trial Court is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.The appeal stands disposed of.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,404,410 |
(2) The appellants have challenged judgment dated 30-01-1999, being aggrieved with their conviction of offence under Section 302 or 302 r/w 149 and Section 148 of IPC, whereas each of them have been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and three years' rigorous imprisonment respectively.(3) Prosecution's case, in short, is that on 23-03- 1994 at about 09:00 pm complainant Shivcharan (PW-1) along-with deceased- Bhaiyalal etc. were present at their field at Village Sakatpur.They were sitting near the well.At about 09:00 pm, appellants- Kallu, Harkishan and Jai Singh went to that field having a bullock cart.They tried to pass the bullock cart through the field of deceased Bhaiyalal and, therefore, Bhaiyalal went near the bullock cart and prohibited them to pass the bullock cart through his field.The appellant-Kallu gave a blow of ''ballam'' causing injury near the ear of deceased- Bhaiyalal.On shouting of Bhaiyalal, witnesses Shivcharan (PW-1), Radheshyam (PW-5) and Jamunalal (PW-8) went to the spot.When they asked the appellants as to why Kallu assaulted deceased-Bhaiyalal, then they started quarrel.On shouting of Kallu, other appellants, namely, Haricharnan, Kamal Singh, Laxman Singh, Lal Singh, Mangilal, Bhagwanlal, Toran and Ramcharan came to the spot.Bhagwanlal and 3 Mangilal exhorted their companions and they started causing assault upon Jamunalal, Bhaiyalal, Radheshyam and others.R.K.Jain (PW-7) examined victim- Jamunalal radio-logically and gave a report Ex.A fracture of fifth metacarpal bone was found to the victim Jamunalal.(5) The SHO- Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-10) picked up the blood stained and ordinary soil from the spot and seizure memo Ex.P-5 was prepared.(10) According to witnesses-Shivcharan (PW-1), Ganga Vishan (PW-4), Radheshyam (PW-5) and Jamunalal (PW8), initially deceased Bhaiyalal, Jamunalal and Radheshyam were present to watch the crops standing in the field and they were sitting near the well.Delivered on 10/02/2017 Per N. K. Gupta, J:-All the appeals are connected with the common 2 judgment dated 30/01/1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Guna (MP) in Sessions Trial No.111/1994, hence, the present appeals are hereby disposed off, by the present common judgment.Appellants-Toran Singh and Harkishan gave blows of sticks on the deceased Bhaiyalal, whereas the remaining appellants caused injuries to other victims like Shivcharan, Radheshyam and Jamunalal etc. Due to such assaults done by the appellants, Bhaiyalal had expired at the spot.Shivcharan could not visit the police station due to fear of the appellants, whereas the appellants ran away with the help of a tractor of Man Singh.He prepared the memo of position of the dead body of deceased Bhaiyalal as Ex.P-3 and the body of deceased Bhaiyalal was sent for postmortem, whereas the injured persons were sent for their medico-legal examination.Dr. S.O. Bhola (PW9) performed postmortem on the body of deceased- Bhaiyalal and gave a report Ex.He found only three injuries to deceased Bhaiyalal, one was on his left pinna, second was on back of left ear, which was bone deep, and third was a contusion on tempo-parietal region.On opening the body, he found that below the third injury there was a fracture of tempo-parietal bone and due to head injury, deceased- Bhaiyalal had died.Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain (PW-13) examined victims Lalliram, Shivcharan(PW-1) 4 and Jamunalal (PW-8) and gave reports Ex.P/47-A to Ex.P/49-A. He found as many as ten injuries to victim Jamunalal.He arrested various appellants and recorded their memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Various weapons like ballam, luhangi and lathis (sticks) were recovered from various appellants.The seized articles were sent for Forensic Science analysis.Ultimately, the charge-sheet was filed before JMFC Raghogarh, Guna, who committed the case to the Court of Session.(6) The appellants took a plea that they were the victims in the case and in defence, Dr. Somprakash Arora (DW-1) was examined to prove the injuries found to appellants-Harkishan, Kalluram and Toran.The document (FIR) Ex.D/5 was also referred to SHO Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-12).(7) The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.(8) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.In the meantime, appellants- Kallu, Harkishan and Jai Singh came with a bullock cart and started crossing the same through the field of deceased- Bhaiyalal and, therefore, Bhaiyalal went to stop them.Then, appellant- Kallu gave a blow of 6 ballam to deceased- Bhaiyalal causing injury on pinna of his ear.Appellants- Toran and Harkishan also assaulted deceased - Bhaiyalal with lathis causing injuries on back of his right ear and head.When the witnesses- Radheshyam and Jamunalal had tried to stop the appellants, Kallu shouted and remaining appellants came to the spot and started assaulting deceased Bhaiyalal, complainant- Shivcharan (PW-1) and injured witnesses Radheshyam (PW-5) and Jamunalal (PW-8).These witnesses have categorically mentioned that Bhaiyalal sustained the injuries caused by appellants Kallu, Toran and Harkishan.The witnesses have given a description of overt act done by remaining appellants towards the injured witnesses Shivcharan (PW-1), Radheshyam (PW-5), Jamunalal (PW-8) and Lalliram.Injuries of these witnesses were proved by Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain (PW-13).He proved MLC reports Ex.P.47-A to Ex.P.49-A respectively for the victims- Lalliram, Shivcharan and Jamunalal.Out of these victims, Jamunalal sustained ten injuries.It is unfortunate that the trial Court did not frame any charge of offence under Section 325 or 323 of IPC against the appellants relating to victim Jamunalal and others and, therefore, there is no use of making a detailed description of injuries caused to injured witnesses Shivcharan, Jamunalal and Lalliram.For consideration of offence under Section 148 of IPC, it would be sufficient to mention that Shivcharan, Jamunalal and Lalliram have sustained injuries in the incident caused by various accused persons like 7 Kamal Singh, Haricharan, Jai Singh, Harkishan, Laxman and Ramcharan etc. (11) The testimony of these witnesses is duly corroborated by the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 lodged with SHO, Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-12).Also, the version of these witnesses is duly corroborated by postmortem, Ex.P-25, proved by Dr. S.O. Bhola (PW-9) and MLC reports of various injured persons proved by Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain (PW-13).Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the counter FIR, Ex.D/5, was registered at Police Station Vijaypur at about 11:30 pm in the night of 23-03-1994 itself, whereas complainant- Shivcharan (PW-1) had lodged the FIR i.e. Dehati Nalishi of the incident on the next day at about 06:30 am.However, contention of learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted because the witnesses have stated that when Bhaiyalal was killed and he was lying at the spot, they had no courage to visit Police Station Vijaypur and to lodge the FIR, however, they sent the intimation and appellant- Kallu, who sustained injuries along with appellants Harkishan and Toran, could visit to the Police Station by a tractor because there was nobody to stop them and, therefore, they were examined medically in the night itself.On the other hand, number of assailants were more and out of them, remaining were not the injured persons, hence, the reason given by the witness- Shivcharan can be accepted that due to fear he could not visit the Police Station in the night and on giving the 8 intimation when SHO Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-12) came to the spot he lodged a Dehati Nalishi.Under these circumstances, proper explanation has been given by complainant Shivcharan for the delay in lodging the FIR and, therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR was lodged with unnecessary delay or it cannot be said that that FIR can be discarded on the ground of delay.Similarly, various injured persons are found to have sustained injuries on particular part of body where they claimed to get the assaults done by the appellants and, therefore, their version was duly corroborated by medical evidence.Hence, testimony of the witnesses Shivcharan, Ganga Vishan, Radheshyam and Jamunalal is acceptable and it is proved beyond doubt that appellants- Kallu, Toran and Harkishan assaulted deceased- Bhiayalal causing injuries to him and consequently, he died, whereas it is proved beyond doubt that the appellants, namely, Kallu, Harkishan, Jai Singh, Laxman Singh, Ramcharan, Haricharan, Kamal Singh, Toran etc. have assaulted various injured witnesses like Jamunalal, Lalliram and Shivcharan.(12) Before considering the object of unlawful assembly etc. it is to be considered as to who killed deceased Bhaiyalal.According to witnesses Shivcharan (PW-1), Radheshyam (PW-5) and Jamunalal (PW-8), only three appellants assaulted deceased Bhaiyalal and hence, except these three appellants, there was no special role of other appellants in causing death of deceased Bhaiyalal.When the incident took place in a spur of moment while appellant- Kallu was taking bullock cart through the field of Bhaiyalal, then the incident was not pre- planned and remaining appellants came on the call of appellant- Kallu.They did not assault the deceased Bhaiyalal and, therefore, their common intention or common object cannot be presumed with appellants Kallu, Toran and Harkishan.Hence, it cannot be said that they participated in the crime of murder.So far as the constitution of unlawful assembly is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that since the appellants had a right of private defence, then no unlawful assembly was constituted.If such contention is examined on the evidence advanced by the parties, then it would be apparent that appellant Kallu had lodged the FIR, Ex.D-5, that at about 09:00 pm deceased- Bhaiyalal and witnesses- Shivcharan, Radheshyam and Jamunalal went to the field of Kallu and started making quarrel as to why they were transporting their bullock cart from the field of Bhaiyalal.The FIR indicates that from the side of victims only four persons were blamed that they participated in the crime, whereas in Dehati Nalish Ex.P-1, complainant Shivcharan (PW1) has mentioned the role of as many as eleven persons, who are the appellants and participated in the crime.In comparison with eleven persons it was not possible for Bhaiyalal and other three persons to visit the field of Kalluram to take a revenge or to teach a lesson.(13) For the sake of argument if it is accepted that in quarrel Bhaiyalal had died, then there is no description in the FIR Ex.D-5 as to how the dead body of deceased- Bhaiyalal was taken by other witnesses from the field of Kallu.If Bhaiyalal was aggressor and he was killed in the quarrel, then either his dead body should have been found in the field of Kallu or there must be some allegations made by Kallu as to how the dead body of deceased- Bhaiyalal was taken from his field.It is apparent that Bhaiyalal, Jamunalal, Shivcharan and Radheshyam were only four persons on that field whereas the appellants were more than ten in number.If Bhaiyalal etc. were aggressors, then they would have visited the field of Kallu with the planning of having deadly weapons, whereas the appellants have luhangi and ballam etc. with them.Hence, due to death of deceased- Bhaiyalal, Shivcharan etc. could not go to lodge the FIR in time and Kalluram had an opportunity to lodge the FIR first.Still by looking to the facts and circumstances that the dead body of deceased- Bhaiyalal was found near his field where he objected appellant Kallu when he was transporting a bullock cart from the field, SHO Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-12) had collected blood- stained soil and plain soil from the spot which indicates that he found the blood on the soil near the dead body of deceased- Bhaiyalal and if Bhaiyalal was aggressor and he would have visited the field of appellant- Kalluram, then blood stained soil could not be obtained by SHO Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-12) 11 at the place where the incident was caused according to complainant- Shivcharan in his Dehati Nalish Ex.Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the appellants specially Kallu and Harkishan were aggressors.(14) Learned counsel for the appellants mainly have argued that no explanation has been given about the injuries of Kalluram, Toran and Harkishan, hence, they had the right to private defence.If such contention is considered in the light of evidence advanced by the parties, then it would be apparent that deceased Bhaiyalal had sustained fatal injuries and he fell down and died, then it was not possible for Bhaiyalal to assault Toran etc. It is stated by witness Jamunalal (PW-8) in para 9 that appellants Toran, Harkishan and Kallu had sustained injuries in the incident because when Bhaiyalal was killed, Radheshyam and Shivcharan reiterated and they had beaten appellants- Kallu and Toran, etc. In this connection, the independent witness Ganga Vishan (PW-4) has accepted in para 8 of the evidence, on a suggestion given by defence counsel, that firstly the appellants assaulted the complainant party and, thereafter, the complainant party had also used the lathis in defence.Explanation about the injuries of the accused persons 12 can be given by the witness when he was asked.Hence, the plea of right of private defence was not available to the appellants when they started beating deceased Bhaiyalal when he went to the spot to stop appellant Kallu from transporting the bullock cart through his field.(15) So far as the right of private defence in generally is considered, it is accepted by various witnesses that when the witnesses started beating appellants Kallu and Toran, then on shouting of Kallu, various accused persons came to the spot and they started beating Jamunalal, Shivcharan and Lalliram.When Kallu shouted and other appellants came to the spot, at that time the incident which took place with deceased- Bhaiyalal was over and injured witnesses Jamunalal and Shivcharan were beating appellants Kallu and Harkishan.It would be apparent that from the side of the appellants only three persons were injured who were present at the spot in the beginning.No one, who came after the call of appellant- Kallu was found injured.When the remaining appellants who came to the spot after the incident of Bhaiyalal which was over, then it cannot be said that they were the members of unlawful assembly to kill the deceased Bhaiyalal.It appears 13 that at the time of first quarrel only three persons were present out of the appellants, namely, Toran, Kallu and Harkishan.Hence, when remaining appellants neither assaulted deceased Bhaiyalal nor they were part of unlawful assembly at the time of incident, then the remaining appellants cannot be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 149 of IPC.(16) As discussed above, when the remaining appellants came to the spot they found the witnesses Jamunalal and Shivcharan were beating appellant Kallu, Toran and Harkishan.Therefore, the overt act of remaining appellants falls within the purview of right of private defence as those have tried to save Toran, Kallu and Harkishan.Hence, the remaining appellants shall get the advantage of right of private defence that when they arrived to the spot they tried to save Kallu Toran Singh and Harkishan.Hence, no crime has been committed by them.Since, the trial Court did not frame the charge of offence under Section 325 or 323 of IPC relating to victim Jamunalal or victim Shivcharan etc. there is no need to consider the right of private defence of remaining appellants.However, since they came to save appellants- Kallu and Harkishan, etc., therefore, it cannot be said that they were the part of unlawful assembly constituted for voluntarily causing hurt to Jamunalal etc. (17) The incident started when three-four persons were present in the beginning who have tried to pass 14 the bullock carts through the field of Bhaiyalal and thereafter, when Jamunalal and Shivcharan had assaulted the appellant-Toran etc. then other appellants came to the spot on call of appellant- Kallu.Therefore, in the light of evidence, the remaining appellants were entitled to get the advantage of right of private defence and it is not proved beyond doubt that they participated in an unlawful assembly to cause the death of deceased- Bhaiyalal or to cause injuries to any of the victims including Jamunalal, Shivcharan etc. Hence, the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the remaining appellants for offence under Section 148 or 302 with the help of Section 149 of IPC.It is not proved beyond doubt that at the time of death of deceased- Bhaiyalal, there were five accused persons who participated in the crime.Dr. S.O. Bhola (PW-9) who performed the postmortem on the body of deceased- Bhaiyalal found only three injuries on his body and, therefore, at the most, three persons had assaulted deceased- Bhaiyalal and, therefore, it cannot be said that any unlawful assembly was constituted.Under these circumstances, it is not proved beyond doubt that any unlawful assembly was constituted at the spot.Hence, none of the appellants can be convicted under Section 148 of IPC or the lower offence of same nature i.e. Section 147 of IPC.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 148 of IPC.(18) As discussed above, it is proved beyond doubt that appellants- Kallu, Toran and Harkishan assaulted deceased Bhaiyalal and he succumbed to the injuries at the spot.Therefore, mainly now it is to be considered as to whether these three appellants can be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC.It is true that initially it was the appellant- Kallu who tried to transport the bullock cart from the field of Bhaiyalal and Bhaiyalal prohibited him to do so.Therefore, when the incident took place in a spur of moment, initially intention of Kalluram would be to teach a lesson to deceased- Bhaiyalal so that he should not obstruct him.It is not alleged that after giving a blow to deceased- Bhaiyalal on the pinna of deceased Bhaiyalal, appellant Kallu gave a second blow and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that he intended to kill deceased- Bhaiyalal.Since the incident was not pre- planned and the intention of appellant Kallu was not to kill deceased- Bhaiyalal then his common intention cannot be presumed with appellant Harkishan who gave the fatal blow to the deceased Bhaiyalal on his head.SO Bhola (PW9) in his post mortem report Ex.P-25, has cleared the position that there was a lacerated wound on left pinna of ear found to deceased- Bhaiyalal.Though appellant Kalluram had used a ballam but it was not so sharp so that it can be said that the injury was caused by sharp-cutting or stabbing weapon.Hence, at the most, intention of appellant- Kallu may be considered that he voluntarily wanted to cause hurt 16 to deceased Bhaiyalal to remove his obstruction and hence, the appellant- Kallu shall liable only for offence under Section 323 of IPC.In absence of his common intention with co-accused Harkishan and in absence of any unlawful assembly he cannot be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC, however, he can be convicted of offence under Section 323 of IPC under the same head of charge of Section 302 of IPC because it is an inferior offence of the same nature.On the same analogy, appellant- Toran can not be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.He is also liable for offence under Section 323 of IPC for his act i.e. he voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased Bhaiyalal.(19) It is clearly mentioned by the witnesses that it was the appellant- Harkishan who gave a fatal blow to deceased Bhaiyalal causing a contusion on tempo parietal region and Dr.S.O.Bhola (PW-9) found that bones below the wound were broken and brain was also found damaged.The deceased Bhaiyalal died due to head injury.Hence, appellant Harkishan was responsible to cause death of deceased Bhaiyalal.But as discussed above, none of the appellants wanted to kill deceased Bhaiyalal.A quarrel started in the spur of moment when Kallu was obstructed by deceased Bhaiyalal to pass his bullock cart from the field of Bhaiyalal and, therefore, it cannot be said that appellant Harkishan had intended to kill 17 deceased Bhaiyalal.Also, it would be apparent that there is no allegation against appellant- Harkishan that he repeated the assault to deceased- Bhaiyalal and hence, when he gave only a single blow to deceased Bhaiyalal then it cannot be said that he intended to kill him.However, by that single blow deceased Bhaiyalal sustained fatal injury and he had died.Appellant- Harkishan should know that by giving such a forceful blow he would kill the deceased Bhaiyalal and, therefore, he should be liable for his overt act that he gave a powerful blow to deceased Bhaiyalal on his head causing his death though he did not intend to kill deceased- Bhaiyalal.(20) In this connection, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of ''Manjeet Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh'' [(2014) 5 SCC 697] may be referred in which in similar circumstances the crime of Section 304 of IPC was found to be constituted.In this connection, the judgment passed by the Apex court in the case of ''Sarup Singh vs. State of Haryana represented by the Home Secretary" [AIR 1995 SC 2452] may also be referred in which the accused was convicted of offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC in similarly circumstances.Hence, appellant- Harkishan was also wrongly convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC.In all such cases, the accused was sentenced for approximately eighteen months' to three years' for offence under Section 304( Part- II) of IPC whereas in the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Manjeet Singh(supra), has recorded seven years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304 of IPC.By considering various judgments passed by the Apex Court, it is apparent that the incident took place in a spur of moment and no deadly weapon was used by appellant- Harkishan.Hence, it would be appropriate to sentence him for three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-.(23) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by appellant- Bhagwanlal, Lal Singh, Laxman Singh and Ramcharan, Kamal Singh, Haricharan, Mangilal and Jai Singh are hereby allowed.Therefore, their conviction and sentence of offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 of IPC are hereby set aside.They are acquitted from all the charges.The appeal filed by appellant- Toran is hereby partly allowed.His conviction and sentence of offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 of IPC are hereby set aside.He is acquitted from the aforesaid charges.However, under the head of charge of Section 302 of IPC, appellant Toran is convicted of offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced with jail sentence of the period for which he already remained in custody.The appeal filed by appellant- Harkishan is partly allowed.His conviction and sentence of offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 of IPC are hereby set aside.He is acquitted from the aforesaid charges.(25) A copy of the judgment be also sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and to prepare the super-session warrant relating to appellant- Harkishan and to get the sentence executed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,405,228 |
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus,directing the respondents to release the petitioner's Tractor bearingRegistration No.TN-49-AF-8788 with Trailer, within a time frame.The remedy with the petitioner, therefore, is to move the learnedJudicial Magistrate for release the vehicle on the terms and conditions to beimposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.The writ petition, to release thevehicle impounded in crime, is not competent.4.No merit.However, this order shall not be a bar thepetitioner to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate for seeking release ofvehicle being owner of the tractor by moving appropriate application under Codeof Criminal Procedure.5.No costs.1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District.2.The Inspector of Police, Thookur Police Station, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,406,154 |
(i) Bail Application No.1482 of 2019, is allowed and disposed of;(ii) Applicant Roshan Sunil Pawar, is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.I- 291 of 2018, registered with Panvel City Police::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 01:02:03 ::: rpa 6/6 902-ba-1482,1483-19.doc Station, Navi Mumbai, on his eiecuting P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 01:02:03 :::(iii) Applicant Roshan Sunil Pawar, shall attend the concerned police station once in a month on frst Saturday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till the conclusion of the trial;(iv) Bail Application No.1483 of 2019, is rejected.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 01:02:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2019 01:02:03 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,408,418 |
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.389 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 342, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of TNWH Act, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.S.P.Yuaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.9. Having heard the learned Senior Counselhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 CRL.O.P.No. 24172 of 2017 and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2017, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.389 of 2017 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.24172 of 2017 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ebsi receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.04.06.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ebsi ToThe Sub Inspector of Police, Magudanchavadi Police Station, Salem.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No. 24172 of 2017 and Crl.13984 of 2017http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
930,482 |
Facts not disputed are that Bheru Singh (P.W. 1) is the elder brother, Ram Kunwarbai (P.W. 2) is the sister and Kumari Kalpna (P.W. 3) is the daughter of the deceased Narayan Singh.Appellant Gokul Singh resides in the neighbourhood of the Bherusingh (P.W. 1) at Village Sihodakhurd, P.S. Kanvan, District Dhar (M.P.).3 (a).Briefly stated the case of prosecution is that on 8-11-1994 at about ten O'clock in the night, Bheru Singh (P.W. 1) was at his house when the appellant came there and abused him and the deceased, and challenged them to come out.Bherusingh (P.W. 1) tried to pacify him and he took him to his house but the appellant came again and threaten that he will kill Narayan Singh.Bheru Singh (P.W. 1) again took him to his house and closed the door from outside.After a shortwhile, the appellant came out with knife and he struck deceased Narayan Singh who was sitting outside his house, with the knife at his chest.3 (b).The blow of the knife caused the injury on the chest of the deceased and blood came out from the injury.Bheru Singh (P.W. 1) with the help of villagers took Narayan Singh to hospital but he succumbed to his injury on the way even before reaching the hospital.Bheru Singh (P.W. 1) then went to Police Station, Kanwan and made First Information Report (Ex. P-1) there.The police sent the dead body of Narayan Singh to Hospital where Dr. R.K. Jain (P. W. 5) conducted the autopsy on the dead body and wrote post mortem report (Ex. P-9).3 (c).JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.The spot map (Ex. P-4) was prepared by the police during investigation and a bed sheet of the appellant which he had wrapped round his body at the time of incident was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-5).After due investigation the police submitted the final report and the appellant was put to trial.The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty before the Trial Court.The Trial Court after conducting the trial held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life, hence this appeal.The learned Counsel for the appellant has not given any challenge to the fact that the death of Narayan Singh was homicidal.Dr. R.K. Jain (P. W. 5) has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Narayan Singh.This witness has proved the post mortem report (Ex. P-9).It is evident from the testimony of this witness and from the post mortem report that Narayan Singh died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to lung.It is well established from evidence of prosecution that the death of the deceased Narayan Singh was homicidal.The next question that creeps up for consideration is that who caused the injury to the deceased.Bheru Singh (P.W. 1) has described the incident in his statement made before the Trial Court.He has deposed that when he was at his house in between ten to ten past thirty o'clock in night, the appellant came there and abused him and deceased Narayan.This witness has deposed that he sent the appellant back twice to his house and once he closed the door of the house of the appellant after leaving him inside the house, but the appellant some how came out with a knife and he struck Narayan with the knife.The witness has deposed that the blow fell on the chest of the deceased.Ramkunwarbai (P.W. 2) and Kumari Kalpna (P.W. 3) also witnessed the incident.Both the aforesaid witnesses have deposed that the appellant struck knife to the deceased before them.The testimony of the eye-witnesses can not be brushed aside just because they happen to be relatives of the deceased.Their presence on the spot is quite natural and probable.They have given the honest version of the incident.There is nothing in their cross-examination to suggest that these witnesses are not telling the truth.Ambu Singh (P.W. 6), though not an eye-witness, yet corroborates the prosecution story to some extent.He has deposed that exchange of abuse took place between the deceased and the appellant.He had deposed that the brother of Narayan Singh (deceased) Bheru Singh met him when he was coming after leaving the appellant to his house This witness has deposed that he invited Bheru Singh to smoke "Beedi" and while they were smoking, he saw the appellant coming out from house and moving towards the house of deceased.Ambu Singh (P.W. 6) depose that just at that moment he heard Bheru Singh saying that Gokul Singh has hit his brother Narayan Singh and he saw the appellant skipping off.All the eye-witnesses viz. Bheru Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Kunwarbai (P.W. 2) and Kumari Kalpna (P.W. 3) have given the honest version regarding the incident and they have been rightly believed by the learned Trial Court.Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity or discrepancy except some minor and natural discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which could create any doubt against their veracity.The contention of the learned Counsel for appellant has some force.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,260,845 |
Certified copy as per rules.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge b Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2018.08.07 05:12:24 -07'00'Heard on admission.Learned Special Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent - EOW; as such, no further notice is required.Let record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Heard on I.A. No.12990/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Rohini Prasad Yadav.A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 20.07.2018 passed in Special Criminal Case No.300047/2008 by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Seoni reveals that appellant Rohini Prasad Yadav has been convicted and sentenced as hereunder:THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.5695/2018 Rohini Prasad Yadav Vs.State of M.P.All substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the jail sentence of the appellant has already been suspended till 24.08.2018 by the trial Court; therefore, it has been prayed that the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the quantum of sentence 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.5695/2018 Rohini Prasad Yadav Vs.imposed upon the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, the substantive jail sentence of the appellant deserves to be suspended and he be released on bail.Consequently, I.A. No.12990/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Rohini Prasad Yadav, is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19-12-2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stands suspended and he shall be released on bail.
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,290,905 |
On 11.8.2000, Nand Lal, the deceased is stated to have lodged the FIR with the Police Station at Sindhauli district Shahjahanpur which was registered as case crime no.223 of 2000 under Section 452, 307, 504 IPC.It was disclosed in the FIR that Nand Lal was having dinner at his residence on the said date, at around 8 p.m. the appellants Krishna Pal @ Kresh Pal, armed with Ballam and Vijay Pal armed with country-made pistol (315 bore) entered the house of the deceased unauthorizedly and started assaulting Nand Lal, the first informant.Appellant Vijay Pal fired with his country-made pistol which seriously injured the informant while the appellant Krishna Pal @ Kresh Pal assaulted the informant with Ballam.On hearing the noise, the other family members rushed to the place of occurrence.On the arrival of the family members, the appellants ran away from the place of occurrence.On the basis of the said FIR, investigation was started.The injured/informant was examined by the doctor at District Hospital Shahjahanpur, he was admitted for treatment.During treatment, the first informant expired on 16.8.2000 at around 9.10 p.m. On information of the death of the informant being received, his inquest report of the dead-body was prepared and the same was forwarded for post-mortem.On the pointing out of the appellants, the fire arm used for assault along with one live cartridge was recovered.Similarly Ballam was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant Krishna Pal @ Kresh Pal.Fard recovery was prepared.Vijay Pal suspected that he was got arrested at the instance of Nand Lal.Because of the ill-will/motive, he assaulted Nand Lal along with Krishna Pal @ Kresh Pal, his real brother.The injuries caused resulted in death of Nand Lal.It was specifically stated that she was present at the place of incident and was serving food to her husband.She could identify the assailants in the light which was available because of the burning Lamp.She corroborated what was stated by the wife of the deceased.This injury was on a vital part of his body and was sufficient to cause death.Doctor Yogesh Kumar, P.W.3 who had performed the postmortem along with doctor V.K. Gupta, P.W.4 in his testimony specifically proved the postmortem report and the injuries found on the body of the deceased were as follows:-1& isV esa nkfguh vksj uhps ds fgLls esa cSxuh jax dk 13 ls0eh0x 9 ls0eh0 ds {ks= esa [kky ij cnjaxh fn;s gq;s ,d fulkuA 2& mijksDr izdkj ds nks cnjaxh fu'kku 7 ls0eh0x 4 ls0eh0 rFkk 9 ls0eh0x 6 ls0eh0 isV ds cka;h vksj uhps ds fgLls esa ftlesa Qyds Hkh iMs gq;s FksA 3& flyk gqvk rFkk MzSflax gkyr esa ,d vkijs'ku dk fulku isV ds chpks chp 16 ls0eh0 dk yEckbZ fy;s gq;s isV ds chp dh ykbu ls ckabZ vksj mij ls uhps dh vksjA 4& isV esa ckabZ vksj ukfHk ls 7 ls0eh0 dh nwjh ij 4 ls0eh0x 4 ls0eh0 dksyksLVkseh dk ?kkoA 5& mijksDr ?kko ds uhps isV esa Mkyh tkus ckyh yky V;wc lfgr ?kko 1-5 ls0eh0x 1-5 ls0eh0 6& oka;h tkax dh Hkhrj dh vksj 1 ls0eh0x 5 ls0eh0 [kjkl dk ?kko ftl ij iiMh iMh gq;h Fkh vkSj tks Hkwjs jax dh Fkh ;g ?kko ok;s ?kqVus dh dVksjh ls 23 ls0eh0 mij tka?k ij FkkA 7& mijksDr izdkj dh ,d [kjkl 10 ls0eh0x 5 ls0eh0 csMh fn'kk esa nkfgus ls pqupqd ls 11 ls0eh0 uhps ilfy;ksa ds fupys lhek ijA 8& izos'k dk >qdk gqvk xksykdkj fy;s gq;s ,d ?kko 1 ls0eh0x 1 ls0eh0 cka;s dwYgs ij gMzMh ds vxys mHkkj ls FkksM vUnj rd dsfoVh Mhi ftlds fdukjs vUnj dh vksj eqMs gq, Fks vkSj ftl ij ,czs'ku dkyj ekStwn FkkA It was specifically stated that Nand Lal had expired because of the gun-shot injury suffered by him which resulted in scepticimia and haemorrhage Metallic bullet was recovered from the hip bone of the deceased, and had been sealed.Dr. V.K. Gupta, P.W.4 supported what was stated by Dr. Yogesh Kumar P.W.3 and he also disclosed the cause of death as the injuries sustained by Nand Lal.The appellants who are two in number have been found guilty of the offence under Section 452, 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and 504 IPC.Both the appellants have been sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/-, each in default, of payment of fine, further R.I of two years and for the offence under Section 452 IPC, they have been sentenced for 6 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, of payment of fine, one year further R.I and for the offence under Section 504 IPC, they have been sentenced for two years R.I.Charge under Section 25 of Arms Act was also framed against the appellant Vijay Pal.After investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the appellants.Against Krishna Pal @ Kresh Pal and Vijay Pal charge sheet was filed under Section 452, 304/34 and 504 IPC, while against appellant Vijay Pal, charge sheet under Section 25 of Arms Act was also submitted.In addition thereto, the postmortem report, inquest report, challan list, photo lash, chick FIR, Charge Sheet etc. were produced as documentary evidence.Statement of the informant Nand Lal was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C at the district Hospital where he was under treatment.However, neither the FIR nor the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C of Nand Lal was treated to be dying declaration by the trial court.P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, reiterated the case of the prosecution as was disclosed in the FIR.It was stated by her that on that day, at about 8:00 p.m. while Nand Lal was having dinner in his house under the light of the Lamp, the assailants who are known to her since before, forcefully entered the house.Vijay Pal was armed with country-made pistol and Krishna Pal @ Kresh Pal was armed with Ballam.They used abusive language.Kresh Pal inflicted injury by Ballam while Vijay Pal fired a shot by the country-made pistol.The FIR was lodged at the Police Station on 11.8.2000 by Nand Lal himself.It was further disclosed that at the time of Holi festival, Vijay Pal was arrested by the police with an unlicensed fire-arm.The doctor who had examined the injuries of the deceased on 11.8.2000 namely Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, P.W.12, in his statement specifically stated that on 11.8.2000, while he was working as Medical Officer at the District Hospital, Nand Lal aged about 45 years was brought to the Hospital at around 11.45 p.m by a police constable.On medical examination of Nand Lal, it was found that injury no.1 had been caused by a sharp weapon while injury no.2 had been caused by a gunshot.The recovery was made from the house of Vijay Pal.Site-plan was prepared in respect of the recovery of weapon.He stated that on the pointing out of Krishna Pal @ Kresh Pal, ballam was recovered from the chappar of his house.The other formal witnesses proved the FIR, the inquest report, charge sheet and other documents.The appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the charges and claimed trial.The appellants/accused denied the charges and sought trial and stated that they have falsely been implicated because of the pendency of dispute pertaining to landed property.It was also stated that the deceased Nand Lal had murdered his real brother Sunder for which a case was registered against him.He was facing prosecution.The sons of Sunder bore enmity with him.The name of the father of the accused Paras is also Sunder who is a different person.It was further stated that the real brother of the informant, (deceased) namely Nathu had earlier lodged a report u/s 307 IPC against accused Vijay Pal and due enmity, they have been falsely implicated in the present case by the informant.The trial court after considering the case of the prosecution and the evidence brought on record as well as the defence of the accused came into the conclusion that the appellants had committed the crime with a common intention.The appellants have therefore held guilty for an offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as well as for an offence under Section 452 and 504 IPC.In addition, Vijay Pal was also found guilty of an offence under Section 25 Arms Act. Both have been sentenced as above for the offence so proved.Challenging the judgment and order of the Sessions Court on behalf of the appellant, it is contended before us that in the FIR, there was no mention of any source of light at the place of incident, therefore, the entire story of the prosecution is bad.The said submission of learned counsel is misconceived inasmuch as in the FIR lodged by Nand Lal, he had specifically stated that he was having dinner at the time of incident when the appellants had assaulted him.Moreover, the natural eye-witness the wife of the deceased namely Smt. Shanti Devi as P.W.1, as well as the adopted daughter of the deceased Smt. Ram Guni, P.W.2 had both specifically stated that there was sufficient light because of the burning of the Lamp at the time of the incident in the room.On behalf of the appellants, certain minor discrepancies as noticed in the statement of various prosecution witnesses were sought to be highlighted for contending before us that the prosecution had not been able to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt.In our opinion, minor discrepancies as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are too trivial and are not much significance so as to lead us to disbelieve the testimony of the natural eye witness i.e. the wife and adopted daughter of the deceased who were present at the time of incident.It was further established that the assailants were known to them prior to the incident as they were members of the same family and were residing in the same village.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the minor discrepancies in the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be the basis of disbelieving this specifically when on material facts of the eye-witnesses accounts supported by medical evidence.The deceased was found to have suffered the injury by a sharp weapon as well as a gun-shot injury.The death of the deceased as per the postmortem is an outcome of the injuries so received by him.Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, Additional Government Advocate has supported the judgment of the trial court and his case is that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.There is no reason for this court to take any other view.We find that the FIR was prompt and had been lodged by the injured himself within 1.20 hours of the incident.He succumbed to the injuries later.The occular evidence was fully supported in medical evidence.We are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.At this stage, counsel for the appellant Krishna Pal @ Kresh Pal submitted that the Krishna Pal @ Kresh Pal was armed with Ballam and only a minor injury is reported to have been caused because of the assault with the Ballam, therefore, offence under Section 324 I.P.C. alone is made out against him.We have examined the judgment of the Apex Court and we find that the same is distinguishable in the facts of the present case inasmuch as the appellant Krishna Pal @ Kresh Pal along with Vijay Pal both armed unauthorizedly entered the house of the deceased at night with a common intention to assault him.They caused injuries which resulted in death of Nand Lal.We see no reason to take any different view in the facts on record than that which has been taken by the Sessions Court.The present criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,439,765 |
C.R.M. 8836 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 03/10/2018 in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 623 of 2018 dated 28/09/2018 under Sections 143/342/325/436/427/379/506 of gd the Indian Penal Code and 9(b) of Indian Evidence Act and 25/27 of Arms Act.And In the matter of: Lakshmi Kanta Dolai @ Bapi & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. Sabir Ahmed ...for the petitioners.Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya ...for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 623 of 2018 dated 28/09/2018 under Sections 143/342/325/436/427/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code and 9(b) of Indian Evidence Act and 25/27 of Arms Act.The name of the petitioner no.9 be removed the array of the parties, since he has already been arrested.The petitioners no.1 to 8 and 10 to 12 claim that the complaint has been lodged because of political rivalry and because the petitioners oppose the present dispensation.The State refers to some of the witness statements and says that there was a gun which has been referred to in such statements, which gun should be immediately returned before the petitioners are shown in any latitude.Considering the material against the petitioners no.1 to 8 and 10 to 12, there does not appear to be much need to take such petitioners into custody at the moment.In addition, the petitioners no.1 to 8 and 10 to 12 will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is partly allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Suvra Ghosh, J.)
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,350,937 |
This is repeat bail application filed by the applicants-accused under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.54/15, Police station Chhaigaon Makhan, District Khandwa, offence registered under section 364K/34 of the IPC.The first bail application filed by the applicant-accused was dismissed by this court vide order dated 21.4.2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No.6014/15 as withdrawn with the liberty to file the bail application again after recording the statement of the victim before the trial court.Learned counsel for the applicants-accused submits that they want to withdraw the application as the applicants-accused have been acquitted by the trial court.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,544,574 |
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicants have been arrested in Crime No.167/2014 registered at Police Station, Dehat, District Ashoknagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506, 336, 34, 452, 325 of IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.As per prosecution case, the daughter of the complainant was playing in front of the house of Dinesh Lodhi on the sand.Dinesh Lodhi slapped her.On account of that, quarrel took place between the complainant and Dinesh Lodhi.Report was lodged by the complainant.On account of this enmity, on 10.4.14 at 4 p.m. when the complainant was standing in front of the house of Dinesh, Dinesh Lodhi, Sonu, Monu, Lakhan came and started abusing the complainant in the name of caste.When the complainant objected, they gave beating to him by means of Lathi.When the wife of the complainant came to save him, she was also beaten.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have not committed any offence.They have falsely been 2 M.Cr.Hence, prayed for bail.From the medical report of Rajaram, it appears that he has received four abrasions and one contusion.Ladobai has received two abrasions.On x-ray, Rajaram has sustained fracture of lower 1/3rd part of right femer bone and Ladobai has sustained fracture of medial end of right sided 11th and 12 ribs.Applicant has filed copy of the FIR bearing Crime No.164/14 lodged by Dinesh against complainant Rajaram and others upon which offence under Sections 341, 323, 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC has been registered.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
500,913 |
The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses, out of them three witnesses namely Dhanu Bai, Meharban Singh and Daryab Singh are examined from the parental family of the deceased.Dhanu Bai (P.W.6) the mother of the deceased is not the eyewitness of any incident of quarrel as alleged, which were happened in the family of the appellants.She categorically stated that after demise of first husband of her daughter Sauram Bai she was married with Babulal the son of appellant No. 1 before 111/2 months from the date of the incident.On the date of the incident his son-in-law Meharban Singh was going to Kangdakhedi whom she asked to visit the home of Sauram Bai, on which he went her home, where the appellants were also present along with Sauram Bai.JUDGMENT U.C. Maheshwari, J.This appeal is directed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24-11-1992 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No. 182/91 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 306 of IPC for which each one has been directed to under go for five years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of its further six months' RI has been awarded.The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the deceased Sauram Bai was married in the form of Natra with Babulal, the son of the appellant No. 1 and the brother of appellant No. 2 before nine-ten months from the date of the incident.On 16-3-1991, her head body was found in the well of family field at Village Bhawra.On receiving such information from Dilip Singh a merg intimation was registered at Police Station, Astha.On carrying out its inquiry it was revealed that she committed suicide on account of giving abatement by the appellants as the day before the recovery of her dead body some quarrel took place in between the appellants and deceased due to such inducement she committed suicide by jumping into the well, on which an offence under Section 306/34 of IPC was registered against the appellants.They were arrested and on completion of investigation they were charge sheeted for aforesaid offence.The case was committed to the Sessions Court on framing the charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC against the appellants; they abjured the guilty, on which the trial was held.After recording the evidence on appreciation the appellants were held guilty for such charge and punished with the above-mentioned punishment.Shri Ashish Shroti, learned Counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the alleged offence has not been proved against any of the appellants by the evidence led by the prosecution but the same has not been appreciated in accordance with the law.He further said that in the absence of any admissible and reliable evidence regarding offence of cruelty defined under Section 498A of IPC the provision of presumption enumerated under Section 113A of the Evidence Act could not be invoiced against the appellants.The story put forth by the prosecution has not been supported by any independent source of evidence.The Trial Court has not considered all these aspects while holding guilty to the appellants.With these submissions he prayed for acquittal of the appellants by allowing this appeal.It is undisputed fact on record that the deceased Sauram Bai died due to downing death as her dead body was found in the well from where it was taken out and on sending to the hospital the post-mortem was carried out by Dr. T.N. Chaturvedi (P.W. 1) who also prepared its report (Exh. P-l).As per his deposition and report Sauram Bai died by mode of asphyxia due to drowning, although viscera was preserved but the report of FSL is not found on the record.He further said that no ante-mortem injury was found on her body, although some part of body was eaten by the water animals.In view of such evidence, the Trial Court has not committed any error in holding her death as drowning death.Now the questions comes whether she committed suicide on account of any cruelty committed by the appellants by which she was abated or due to some other reason she committed such act or she accidentally slipped into the well and died.The appellants took the defence of her accidental death and in support of it a complaint (Exh. D-3), given to the police by Karam the son of the appellant No. 1 after ten days from the date of the incident has also been produced.She offered him for lunch, on which he set on a cot and Sauram Bai was preparing the food at the same time appellant No. 2 Shripa Bai told to appellant No. 1 Gulabbai that Sauram Bai prepared various Paratha with Ghee for Babulal on which Gulab Bai asked the Sauram Bai from where she brought the Ghee for preparation of Parathas, she replied that same was made available by his son Babulal on which Gulab Bai started quarrel and in continuation of it, both the appellants started her beating, then Meharban Singh requested them not to do so, then he was subjected to assault by Ghasiram the husband of the appellant No. 1 by means of stick, on which the Meharban Singh came back and mentioned the incident to her.On the next day, she went to village of her daughter where her dead body was found in the well and police officials were inquiring the case from the villagers.She also made the report to the police and carried out the cremation of her daughter after postmortem.Lastly she stated that whenever Sauram Bai visited her house in her lifetime she told her against the appellants.I have not found any report on the record made by the aforesaid witnesses to the police.Even after going through her cross-examination I have not found any evidence regarding any specific incident of alleged cruelty committed by any of the appellants which could be termed as harassment in respect of anything or to fulfillment any demand.According to her statement the incident was happened due to preparation of Paratha with Ghee by Sauram Bai for her husband, except it she has not stated any specific incident against any of the appellants.Meharban Singh (P.W.7) the brother-in-law of the deceased (husband of younger sister) deposed that Sauram Bai was married with Babulal son of the appellant No. 1 according to the custom of the community.On the date of the incident when he was going to Kangdakhedi then her mother-in-law Dhanu Bai asked him to go and met to Sauram Bai at her home, on which he went there and at her request he stayed in her house at the same time appellant No. 2 Shripa told to appellant No. 1 Gulab Bai that Sauram Bai has prepared Paratha for her husband with Ghee then Gulabbai asked to Sauram Bai from where she brought Ghee, she replied that the same was made available by her son, on which she was subjected to beating by the appellants then he came in between them to rescue her then Ghasiram assaulted on him by means of stick on which he ran away from such place and came to the house of her mother-in-law where he resides with his family and mentioned the incident to Dhanu Bai.In his cross-examination some material contradictions and omissions from the case diary statement (Exh. D-2) have come on the record.His testimony is challenged in his cross-examination by asking the question regarding his illicit relationship with Sauram Bai, which was seen by one Ram Prasad, although he denied such fact.In Paragraph 18 he said that he came to know for the first time that Sauram Bai is in trouble in her in-laws family.This witness also stated the dispute regarding preparation of Paratha with Ghee, except it no other specific incident or occasion regarding cruelty or abatement has been mentioned by this witness against any of the appellants.The other witness from the parental family of the deceased Daryab Singh (P.W. 5) the maternal uncle of the deceased (Mosa ji) and neighbour of the appellants stated that on the date of the incident Meharban Singh came to his residence.He offered him for lunch at the same time Sauram Bai came and said that Meharban Singh will take lunch at her home and she went to her home, after some time Meharban Singh also went to home of Sauram Bai for lunch.He was asked to go with him but he did not go.Subsequent to it, Sauram Bai told him that Meharban Singh has gone after taking the lunch and she is going to agricultural field.Thereafter on the way Ram Prasad told him that Meharban Singh is visiting the home of Sauram Bai frequently and asked to stop such practice whom he replied that after coming to Babulal he will tell him in this regard.Subsequent to it when Sauram Bai was not found then Ghasiram came and inquired about her, he replied that she is not at his home, she may be at agricultural field.Accordingly this witness did not speak anything against any of the appellants for committing any cruelty or harassment with the deceased.In Paragraph 15 of his cross-examination he said that on asking by Dhanu Bai the cause of Sauram Bai's death he did not state the version said by the Ram Prasad as he thought that Dhanu Bai may kill him on disclosing such information to her.The other witness Ghasiram, the father-in-law of the deceased deposed that on missing the deceased her search was carried out by him and his family members.The other witnesses of the village Lakhan (P.W. 3) also supported the testimony of said Ghasiram regarding sign of slipping at boundary of the well and lying the slipper there as he went there for watering to cattle.Except the aforesaid I have not found any evidence on the record showing any act of cruelty, harassment or abatement for committing suicide with the deceased by any of the appellants.The same appears to be an after thought.Therefore appellants could not be benefited in this count.It is apparent fact on record that the deceased died with unnatural death within seven years from the date of her marriage but her unnatural death is not only sufficient to invoke the provision of presumption enumerated under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. For invoking such provision some other reliable evidence regarding cruelty defined under Section 498A of IPC is necessary on the record as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab , in which it was observed as under:
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
500,918 |
The appellant-accused has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by the impugned judgment and order dated 12th January, 2000, for committing double murder on 3rd March, 1996, between 5.00 and 5.30 p.m. at a grocery shop situated within the area of Armed Forces Medical College, Wanwadi, Pune.The appellant, who was on duty at the relevant time and the place, suddenly started abusing the crowd and thereafter fired indiscriminately in the crowd and ran away.This resulted into the death of two persons viz. Gulshan Walchand Waghela and Radhelal and one Mr. Kamal Singh (PW8) was injured.The appellant was arrested by other colleagues.The complainant, after receipt of a phone call, had lodged the complaint (Exhibit-66).The crime was accordingly registered under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC.The necessary Panchanamas were drawn, including Spot Panchanama, Arrest Panchanama and Inquest Panchanama.The Death Certificate and Post Mortem Report are part of the record.JUDGMENT Anoop V. Mohta, J.The appellant-accused was charged, tried and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").Therefore, this Appeal against the order of conviction.The blood sample report of the accused contained 0.147% w/v of ethyl alcohol.The accused pleaded not guilty and, therefore, claimed for the trial.The prosecution has examined, in all, 12 witnesses.No evidence was led by the appellant.The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The learned Sessions Judge, based on the proved prosecution case and documents, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.However, he was acquitted under Section 307 of the IPC.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who basically contended that in view of the various contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, PW3 and PW10, on whom reliance has been placed by the prosecution, cannot be the basis for conviction.The prosecution witnesses are not natural witnesses and they are, in fact, tutored witnesses of the Police.The evidence of the complainant was not recorded.The non-examination of the ballistic expert is also a material lacuna.The other witnesses nowhere support the prosecution case fully.In view of this, the order of conviction and sentence is bad and unsustainable.The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly relied on [Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar].On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appeared for the State, resisted the above contentions of the appellant and submitted to maintain the order of conviction, as passed.We have gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the counsel appearing for the respective parties.After taking into consideration the material on the record, as well as, the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge, we have found that the following circumstances/material dislinks the chain of circumstances of the prosecution case as sought to be placed and relied, to maintain the order of conviction in question.Therefore, it is difficult to maintain the order of conviction as passed by the learned Judge.The prosecution, according to us, failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant had intentionally and knowingly committed the offence in question.There is no dispute about the homicidal death of the two persons and injury to PW8, as the same has been duly proved by the prosecution through PW4 Dr. Milind Sharad Vable and the relevant Post Mortem Notes and Medical Certificates.The bullet injury and the resultant death is not in dispute as, even as per the doctor's opinion - "Death was due to injury to the injured by the firearm."In the present case, basic reliance was placed on the evidence of PW3 Goyal, PW8 Kamal Singh and PW10 Shrikant Mane.The learned Judge has observed in paragraphs 8 and 18 that PW3 Goyal and PW10 Mane nowhere stated that the accused had opened fire by which the two persons were injured and later on succumbed to the injuries.It is clear from the record that both these witnesses were declared hostile.There was no material cross-examination of these two witnesses.The learned Judge, however, relied upon the statement of these two witnesses, read with the other evidence, and convicted the appellant.PW8 Kamal Singh has also been relied upon by the learned Judge in support of the prosecution case.It was PW3 Goyal in whose grocery shop the incident took place.He was in the shop along with his father Ramkumar and servant Shrikant Mane (PW10).The said Ramkumar was not examined by the prosecution.There is nothing in the evidence to show that the appellant had opened the fire.After hearing the sound of firing, he and his servant sat down on the ground to save themselves.They never saw outside.They were seated on the ground for about ten minutes.They only saw one injured person lying on the ground in front of the shop and another injured person was lying at some distance and both were bleeding.They came outside the shop after some time.This witness has deposed that he, along with one Pramod Agarwal, had informed the incident to the Police Chowky.When they returned back, the injured were shifted to the hospital.This witness, however, was declared hostile as he was not supporting the prosecution case against the appellant-accused.This witness had also denied the material statement made to the Police, marked "A" and "I", at that relevant time.PW10, the servant of PW3, was also declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case.This witness has also denied the statements made to the Police, marked "A".Both these witnesses nowhere supported the prosecution case as sought to be proved through these witnesses against the accused.It is, therefore, difficult to accept the prosecution case based on these two witnesses also.In this background, the conviction, based upon the evidence of these two witnesses, as relied by the prosecution and the learned Judge, is not correct.These two witnesses are difficult to believe and they nowhere support the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant alone and no one else, had committed the crime in question.The other main witness of the prosecution was PW8 Kamal Singh, working in Command Hospital, AMC, Pune, who was also injured because of the said firing.At the relevant time, as deposed, the accused was taking a round on the road, when this witness, along with Radhelal, were going towards the canteen to purchase beedis.There were 4 to 5 persons who were purchasing the goods from the same place/shop.This witness has deposed that he heard the noise of bullet from the back side and when turned around, saw that the accused was standing on the road.The said Radhelal was injured by the first bullet.A boy was hurt by the second bullet.This witness has deposed that he saw the bullet coming from the front side.He was also hurt by the third bullet, which struck on his lip, due to which his lip was torn.He was hospitalized for 15 days.This witness has deposed as under:"I saw the accused when he fired the second bullet from the rifle which was holding by him.I saw the accused when third bullet is struck to my lip.The accused before the Court is the same."However, his cross-examination is full of contradictions, omissions and improvements, some of which are as under:"The boy was in front of me to whom the bullet was struck.I again say, the boy was behind me when the bullet was struck to him.Radhelal was in front of me and the dead boy was in front of Radhelal.Radhelal and deceased boy were near to each other and there was no gap between them.I have not seen the accused while taking the round on the road, while proceeding to canteen."Radhelal was behind me while purchasing the bidi.I have disclosed before the Police that Radhelal was behind me while purchasing the bidi.I have not narrated before the Police that Radhelel was inside the door and near the counter and the boy was in front of both of us.I am not able to say why portion marked "A" is recorded in my statement.""I have narrated before the police that the bullet was strucked to my lip and the lip was torned.I am not able to say why it is not mentioned in my statement that the bullet was strucked to my lip and the lip was torned."Therefore, this witness has deposed that the portion marked "A" in the statement of PW10 is correct.This witness has attached the rifle, magazine and one live cartridge during the Panchanama.This witness has, in her cross-examination, stated that PW8 has deposed the portion marked "A".She has further deposed that PW8 had not stated in his statement before her that he heard the noise of bullet from the back side.He has also not stated that he saw the accused standing on the road when he turned his face towards the back side.She has deposed further that PW8 had not stated specifically that his lip was torn by the bullet and he was admitted in the hospital for 15 days.It is difficult to believe that this witness (PW8) could see the third firing/shot, as unless face is towards right or left, injury on the lip cannot be possible.He thereafter hid inside the counter.The weapon used in this case was a rifle and not the pistol.PW6 has stated that only one bullet can be fired from the rifle at one time.There is no evidence to link the fact of refilling or loading the bullets one after other and then firing.It is a positive case of the prosecution that 10 bullets were handed over to the accused being Guard Commandant.As per the record, only one unused bullet, one used bullet and one empty cartridge was found.There is no evidence to reflect the time gap between the three bullets firing.The Spot Panchanama was drawn from 9.10 p.m. to 22.20 p.m. (PW1).This witness's presence was not corroborated by any other witness, specially PW3 and PW10, who saw only two injured/deceased.PW7 has also heard the firing only of one bullet.PW9 has deposed that the accused was not in a position to fire the bullet while passing.This witness has referred only to one round of firing.The learned Judge has relied on the evidence of these witnesses in support of the prosecution and passed the order of conviction accordingly.We find that the testimonies of these witnesses are also quite shaky and raises various doubts.It is difficult to accept the whole testimony of these witnesses to convict the accused.PW7 K. Krishnan Unni has deposed that at about 4.30 p.m. Guard Commandant Varma (accused) took the rifle and after loading the same, was taking round in front of the Sentry.He has deposed that the accused Varma was in an angry mood while taking the round.The accused was abusing and threatening all the sentry persons in anger.This witness heard only the noise of firing.The accused was brought later on.This witness has denied that the accused was taking the rounds, just like a mad person.This witness, therefore, cannot be relied to maintain the order of conviction, independently or otherwise.Another prosecution witness PW9 Kariniar Honda Ayanna Pratap caught the accused from behind along with the others.However, in his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had not narrated before the Police that he saw the accused while he was in a position to fire the bullet.He further deposed that the accused was not in a position to fire the bullet while passing.PW11 Shailendra Raghunath Nagarkar, PSI, was attached to the Wanwadi Bazar Police Station.This witness has stated that at about 5.45 p.m., Rajkumar Goyal, the father of PW3 had informed about the firing and, therefore, he had reached at the spot.However, by that time, all the injured were taken to the hospital.This witness, thereafter, reported the incident to his superiors.He came to know, as informed; that the accused had fired bullets while he was under the influence of liquor and killed two persons and injured one; the accused was under the influence of liquor and was unable to talk and walk properly.The Arrest and Spot Panchanama were also drawn.This witness has sent the accused to Sassoon Hospital for examination and report.This witness has recorded the statement of PW3 Naveen and his father.This witness has deposed that the portion marked "A", as narrated by PW3, was true and correct.This witness, therefore, has proved the prosecution case to the extent that the accused was under the influence of liquor at the relevant time, apart from the Spot Panchanama and/or the Inquest Panchanama and not further.Another aspect which is very important in this matter is the non-examination of the ballistic expert.There is no dispute in this matter that the rifle, as well as, the seized bullets or cartridges were sent for analysis.No other bullets were seized from the surrounding area and/or the spot of the offence.PW7 has stated that he heard only one round of firing.PW8 stated that he heard three rounds of firing.The report shows that when the rifle was seized from the accused, there was only one live cartridge left.PW6 Chandran has deposed that rifle No. 2482 was handed over to the accused with ten round of bullets.Therefore, out of 10 bullets, only one live bullet was found in the possession of the accused [verify].There is nothing on the record to show as to what happened to the other 9 bullets and/or any seizure of such bullets.There is nothing on the record to show that the accused caused the death by using the rifle in question by firing the bullets from the same.This missing link and basic lacuna also, according to us, raises various doubts in the prosecution case.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on Suresh Chaudhary (supra) and basically on the principle of omission or contradictions which affects the prosecution case, specially when the ballistic expert was not examined and other anti-catalyst and bullets were not seized or detected.The various infirmities, lapses and omissions on the part of the prosecution creates suspicion about the prosecution case and, therefore, based on the same, also prayed for acquittal in this matter.The reference was made basically to paragraph 11 and 12 of the said judgment.However, he produced the same in the court without any mahazar in this regard.This empty cartridge was also not sent to the ballistic expert to establish the nature of the weapon from which this cartridge had been fired.It is relevant to note here that the three deceased persons have suffered multiple gunshot injuries and the failure on the part of the prosecution to collect the other pellets which had passed through the bodies of the deceased also casts grave doubt as to the actual place of the incident."We have also noted that no other colleagues of the accused, who were on duty along with the accused, were examined.PW7 had only heard the noise of the bullets.The father of PW3, who had reported the incident to PW11, was also not examined, even though his statement was recorded.We have also noted that the informant was also not examined.The Panch witness PW2 was also declared hostile.Therefore, the conviction order as passed, on the testimonies of PW8 and PW3 & 10, who were declared hostile, is unsustainable for want of material to support the prosecution case.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the Investigating Officer has not taken pains to send the rifle and the recovered bullet to the Forensic Expert for examination and report.However, The learned Sessions Judge misread 1953, Cri.L.J., 1761 (s.C.) [Mohinder Singh s/o Inder Singh v. The State].We have also noted that no defence of insanity was taken or suggested from the side of the accused.
|
['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.
|
50,098,586 |
395 of the Indian Penal Code.rejected (S.R.) And In the matter of: Sk.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.(Patherya, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
50,100,771 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.The applicant has filed this third application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, who has been arrested and is in custody since 30.12.2018, in connection with Crime No.48/2018, registered at Police Station Malanpur district Bhind, for the offence punishable under Sections 41 (1-4) and 102 of the Cr.P.C and 379, 411 and 413 of the IPC.His earlier two applications were dismissed on merits vide order dated 18.9.2018 and subsequently as withdrawn vide order dated 31.10.2018 respectively.Therefore, in changed circumstances, he cannot be termed as habitual offender on the basis of bail granted only and on the basis of long confinement for almost a year, the applicant seeks bail.He undertakes to cooperate in the trial and would make himself available as and when required.Therefore, applicant be released on bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State on the basis of case diary opposed the prayer made by the applicant and prayed for dismissal of this application.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant will regularly appear before the trial court and will cause his appearance on every Monday before the concerned Police Station between 10 AM to 2 PM till filing of charge sheet.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rks.Digitally signed by R. K. SHARMA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
50,108,996 |
The prosecution case in short is that on 26.10.2005, the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand was travelling in Village Gamakhar from his house to house of someone else.On the way, the respondents having sticks and lathis stopped him.The respondents asked as to why he has lodged the report against them and thereafter the quarrel started.The respondents assaulted him with lathis and sticks.The deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand went to the police station Basoda for lodging the FIR alongwith Chowkidar Dablu Khangar.He was sent for his medico-legal examination.Looking to his condition, he was referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal.However, on 21.12.2005, he was expired.Body of the deceased Buntu @ 2 Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2008 Prem Chand was sent for postmortem and thereafter on due investigation the charge-sheet was filed.(01/12/2016) PER JUSTICE N.K. GUPTA:The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 31.08.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in S.T. No.57/2006 whereby each of the respondents has been acquitted from the charge of Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Vidisha and ultimately it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda.The respondents abjured their guilt.They did not adduce any defence evidence.After considering the prosecution evidence, the trial court convicted each of the respondents of offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC but acquitted them for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.He found as many as fifteen injuries on the body of the deceased but he has categorically denied that there was any injury on front or back of the head of the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand.In query report, his denial was informed to the police.It is apparent that the deceased died in the month of December and Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (P.W.3) had performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand.Postmortem report Exhibit P-4 was prepared by Dr. Neelam Shrivastava.She gave description of various injuries.According to her, the deceased died due to the head injury.The date of incident and the date of death of the deceased are different.There is a time span of approximately seven weeks.When Dr. P.K. Jain (P.W.4) did not find any head injury to the deceased then prima-facie it could not be said that the deceased had died due to the injuries caused by the respondents in the incident.At present, the appeal filed by the respondents for their conviction under Section 307 of IPC is pending, therefore, it is not required in the present appeal to discuss the evidence of assailants etc. The prosecution has tried to fill up the gap between the aforesaid time period.3 Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2008Dr. Pankaj Agrawal (P.W.5) gave his report (Exhibit P-8) being in-charge of Parul Hospital, Bhopal that the condition of the deceased was bad due to his head injury.If report Exhibit P-8 is examined then it was given on 29.10.2005 i.e., approximately three days after the incident.The report was dependent upon the scan report Exhibit P-14 proved by Dr. Rajesh Mehra (P.W.9).Though, Dr. Pankaj Agrawal did not supply the treatment papers of the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand to show that his certificate was genuine.On perusal of scan report (Exhibit P-14), which is proved by Dr. Rajesh Mehra (P.W.9), it is proved that on 27.10.2005, it was found that the deceased sustained a fracture on his head caused at right temporal parietal region and also there was a diffuse cerebral edema, hence, the certificate given by Dr. Pankaj Agrawal may also be accepted.In this connection, the opinion given by Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (P.W.3) is important, that the deceased died due to head injury.It was for the prosecution to prove that head injury was caused in the incident.The deceased was taken to Hamidia Hospital for treatment but it is not established by the prosecution that what was the opinion of doctors of Hamidia Hospital who examined the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand, when he was referred by Dr. Pankaj Agrawal.There is a time gap between 26.10.2005 and 29.10.2005 while the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand was transported in the ambulance and thereafter he was taken to Hamidia Hospital and, thereafter to the private hospital.It is possible that due to mishandling by the attendants etc., he would have sustained his head injury and, therefore, on the basis of MLC report (Exhibit P-5) as prepared by Dr. P.K. Jain, it is clear that the 4 Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2008 deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand did not sustain any head injury during the incident and when head injury was not caused to the deceased then it cannot be said that death was caused due to the respondents who assaulted him on the date of incident.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, when the prosecution could not prove that the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand died due to injury which was caused in the incident, then the trial court had rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge under Section 302 of IPC because cause of death of deceased could not be connected with the overt act of the respondents.Under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed.
|
['Section 302 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.
|
127,657,679 |
Shri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.Prosecutrix is present in person and she has been identified by Shri P.K. Singh, Advocate.Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.289/2018 registered at Police Station Govindgarh Distt.As per prosecution story that father of the prosecutrix Raju Kol has lodged a report against the applicant that on 29.10.18 at about 5.30 pm the applicant has taken away the prosecutrix aged about 16 years by alluring her from his legal gaurdianship.On that basis offence under Section 363 and 366 of IPC has been registered against the applicant.On the false report of the complainant, the case has been registered against the applicant.It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.The applicant is in jail since 28.2.2019 and the trial will take long time for its final disposal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.CC as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge skm Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 13/03/2019 22:22:05
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,660,320 |
ad This is a repeat application for suspension of the custodial sentence awarded to the appellant for having committed an M offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,662,258 |
(i) In the event of her arrest in connection with C.R.No. 308 of 2019 registered with Hathkanangle Police Station, Kolhapur, till the next date, the Applicant be released on bail on her executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 02:42:33 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,671,436 |
"A/c 35531 Nudki Khan I have withdrawn Rs. 4500/-, 4000/- from the above account.This amount has been withdrawn by Nudki Khan.I had to pay Nudki Khan Rs. 2000/-.He had deducted that sum and gave the rest to me.From the remaining amount with me I installed one hand pump, repaired the house walls and repaid my loans etc. I destroyed the ledger folio and the voucher.I have stated the above without any pressure on me and I accept the above on the voice of my soul.Please grant me a loan of Rs. 8500/- which should be deducted from my salary.On 30th June 1988, an FIR was lodged, against the workman and Nudki Khan, by the Branch Manager of the Bank, at PS Nai Ki Mandi, drawing attention to the above alleged fraud committed by them.Consequent thereupon, the workman was arrested and, subsequently, released on bail.The petitioner contends that, on 30th June 1988, the workman stopped attending duties, whereas the workman, per contra, contends W.P (C) No. 8767/2004 Page 3 of 21 that, with effect from the said date, he was not permitted to report for work.Conciliation proceedings took place on 29th September 1994, 11th November 1994 and 27th March 1995, but remained fruitless.The Conciliation Officer, accordingly, sent a failure report, dated 9th May 1995, to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour.Resultantly, the Ministry, vide letter dated 21st January 1997, made a reference, of the industrial dispute raised by the workman, to the learned Tribunal, referring the following issue to it for adjudication:The impugned Award, dated 27th January 2004, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal") holds the termination, of the Respondent No 2-workman Devender Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the workman"), by the petitioner-Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"), on 30th June 1988, to be "neither legal nor justified".On 26th October 1985, the workman was appointed as a temporary messenger with the Bank.W.P (C) No. 8767/2004 Page 1 of 21It is further asserted that, following thereupon, an oral enquiry was held on the very same day, (i.e. 30th June 1988), during the course of which the workman addressed a letter, to the Manager of the Bank, which has become focal to the present controversy."Maine oopar khate mein se 4500, 4000, nikale hain.Yeh paise Nudki Khan ke dwara nikala gaya hai."These sentences would translate thus: "I have withdrawn 4500, 4000 from the above account.This amount was withdrawn by Nudki Khan." Clearly, these two sentences are inherently contradictory to each other, inasmuch as the first sentence amounts to a confession, by the workman, that he had withdrawn the amounts of Rs. 4500/- and Rs. 4000/-, whereas the second sentence states that the said withdrawal had been effected by Nudki Khan.Though the rest of the letter does seem to indicate that the withdrawal was, in fact, by the workman, this slight ambivalence, nevertheless, cannot be ignored.W.P (C) No. 8767/2004 Page 2 of 21The said letter, as translated into English, reads thus:The finding, of the learned Tribunal, in the impugned Award, is that the workman was terminated on 30th June 1988 and, this being a finding of fact, which is not seriously contested by the petitioner- Bank, I see no reason not to accept the same.W.P (C) No. 8767/2004 Page 3 of 21Consequent to the lodging of the aforementioned FIR, proceedings commenced in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Agra, before whom statements of witnesses were recorded, a sketch map of the place of incident was prepared and charge sheet was filed, against Nudki Khan and the workman, alleging commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").Copies of the charge sheet were given to Nudki Khan and the workman, who pleaded innocence and sought trial.Five prosecution witnesses (PWs) were examined during the course of trial.Having recorded their evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate proceeded to acquit the workman, of the charge against him.The reasoning of the learned Judicial Magistrate deserves to be reproduced, in extenso, as under (reproduced from the English translation of the order, as filed before this Court):"With regard to the first accused Devender Singh there is no eyewitness as against him and as per the prosecution all the evidence against him is his own statement.As per the accused Devender Singh has had not accepted to have committ any offence and the incident with regard to the Account No 35531 is mentioned and in the account No 35555 no fraud is stated to have taken place.The only evidence against Devender W.P (C) No. 8767/2004 Page 4 of 21 Singh is that on being asked by the Sr.Manager with him (Devender) he has admitted his guilt.The statement has been given under section 161 Cr. PC and in the statements of the witnesses available on the file there is contradictions.W.P (C) No. 8767/2004 Page 4 of 21As per the prosecution Devender Singh himself had enhanced the amount in his account and he himself had removed the record, whereas at the time of passing the withdrawal form it is the responsibility of the Paying officer and the concerned clerk and the concerned officers, specially when the check or withdrawal is for the amount more than Rs. 2000/-, as in this case the amount of withdrawal forms were Rs. 4500/- in Rs. 4000/- respectively.Therefore, by extinguishing all the probabilities it may be taken that the willful admission has been made.The statement of the accused Devender Singh is before the Sr.Although it has not come to the evidence that under that Memo any action was taken against the accused Devender Singh.In such circumstances when the accused is under the Sr.Manager of the same Bank, it cannot be said that the guilt must have been accepted on his own will or without any pressure.Thus this type of accused cannot be punished only be admitting his guilt, because in the criminal cases it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any doubt.The prosecution is not proved against the accused Devender." (Emphasis supplied)Thereafter, the operative portion of the said order, of the learned Judicial Magistrate, reads as under:"The accused Devender Singh is acquitted of the charge under section 420 IPC and the accused Nizammuddin alias W.P (C) No. 8767/2004 Page 5 of 21 Nudki Khan is also acquitted of the charge under section 420 IPC by giving him the benefit of doubt.Their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged."W.P (C) No. 8767/2004 Page 5 of 21(Emphasis supplied) The use of the word "him", in the above extracted operative portion of the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate, conveys the impression that, whereas Nudki Khan was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt, the acquittal of the workman was honourable.As per the workman, consequent on his acquittal, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, vide judgement dated 1st June 1992 supra, he approached the Bank, for reinstatement, but received no favourable response.He, thereafter, raised an industrial dispute, on 10 th August 1994, which was referred to the Conciliation Officer.Statement of Claim was filed by the workman before the learned Tribunal.It was contended, inter alia, therein, that the services of the workman had been dispensed with, by the petitioner, without any reason, and without issuance of any notice or conducting of any enquiry.The workman submitted that he had served the petitioner regularly from 29th October 1995 till 30th June 1988 and was the senior most temporary employee working with the petitioner.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,677,403 |
of the case in short are that the applicant/complainant had filed a criminal complaint before the trial Court that on 20.03.2006 at about 1:00 p.m. a meeting was called by the Gram Panchayat presided by respondent Hemraj with the allegation upon the applicant that due to his activities, the engagement of the daughter of Hemraj was broken.In the meeting, the respondents threatened the complainant and directed him to append his signature on the minutes of meeting and also directed to deposit the fine of Rs.200/-.He was abused with obscene words and, therefore, he had filed the criminal complaint.The respondents abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea in the defence, however, they 2 have stated that no such meeting was called in the Panchayat.In defence Lokram (DW-1) was examined.After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned J.M.F.C. has acquitted the respondents from all the charges.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it would be apparent that the applicant has sent a criminal complaint to the police which was received to the outpost of Khairlanji on 22.05.2006 in which there was no allegation against the respondents that they abused with obscene words.Similarly, in the statement of the complainant Surendra Upvanshi (PW-1) he has stated about some filthy abuses told by the respondents.However, his only eyewitness Mahesh (PW-2) did not support to the fact that the respondents told any obscene words to the complainant.Under such circumstances, the complainant has alleged about speaking of obscene words by the respondents in after thought manner which could not be accepted.The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge under section 294 of I.P.C.Though the respondents took a plea that no such meeting was called, however, if it is presumed that such meeting was called, then according to the witness Mahesh (PW-2) the complainant refused to append his signature on the minutes of the meeting and to deposit 3 a sum of Rs.200/- which was imposed as a fine.The complainant himself has accepted that he did not deposit any fine.He took the plea that they were not intended to give a receipt, hence he did not deposit the fine.Looking to the evidence given by his witness Mahesh (PW-2), it appears that complainant was adamant as neither he appended his signature on minutes nor paid the fine amount.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that no threat was given.The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of section 506 of I.P.C.If entire complaint and the F.I.R. lodged by complainant is considered, then he had pleaded that due to the allegation made by Hemraj that the applicant was the person, by whose deeds, the engagement of daughter of Hemraj was broken and he lost the balance of his mind, but there is no pleading that due to that allegation, reputation of the complainant was lost in the society.On the contrary, it appears that nobody took the notice of such allegation made by Hemraj and even the complainant did not care for the meeting of the Panchayat and he left the Panchayat without appending his signature in the minutes of the meeting and also without depositing the fine amount.Since the complainant did not plead any reason that due to such allegations, a particular defamation was caused before the society and none of his witnesses has said anything about any effect upon 4 the reputation of complainant by the allegation of Hemraj, under such circumstances, the complainant failed to prove that he lost his reputation due to allegations made by Hemraj and Rajesh Shivhare, then no offence under section 500 I.P.C. may constitute against the respondents.Under such circumstances, by such allegation made by Hemraj, no defamation was caused to the complainant.The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of Section 500 of I.P.C.
|
['Section 500 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.
|
127,681,865 |
On this deception, Canara bank was induced to deliver property sanctioned and enhanced credit limit to the accused including the petitioner, which was subsequently misappropriated by way of repayment of other loans availed by the company from other private borrowers including private bank and others.The petitioner/A3 fraudulently and dishonestly prepared a forged requisition in the letter head of Sai Enterprises and signed as a fictitious authorised representative of Sai Enterprises, addressed to South Indian Bank, for discounting the ILCs and transferring the proceeds through RTGS to the account of Sai Enterprises held at IDBI, Bangalore and fraudulently withdrew the proceeds for their use.The criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 04.03.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.3100 of 2015 in C.C.No.82 of 2014 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and set aside the same and consequently, discharge the petitioner.However, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing both sides and considering the documents available on records, found that there are prima facie materials available to frame the charge against the petitioner and others and dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner.The complicity and involvement of the accused petitioner has been unearthed during the investigation and the evidence has been unearthed to prove the role played by the petitioner/3rd accused.The charge sheet contains specific charges against the petitioner and each charge is supported by the evidence on record to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner/3rd accused.5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,682 |
P.11 in which it is stated as follows:..."X-Ray Right hand AP Lat X-Ray Skull AP Lat X-Ray occipital spine AP Lat X-Ray Lumbar spine AP Lat No fracture.Opinion:- Grievous "(d) P.W.13 Senthil Kumar, Inspector of Police has taken up the matter for investigation and went to the place of occurrence at 12.45 p.m. He inspected the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses Elangovan and Kalaivanan and prepared observation Mahazar Ex.P.16 and drew rough sketch plan Ex.He examined the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2, Ramu, Kanniappan, Elangovan and Dr. Manivel (P.W.10) and recorded their statements.This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court IV, Chennai) in S.C.No.205 of 2002 on 28.2.2003 convicting accused A1 to A3 under Section 326 r/w.34 IPC and sentencing them 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months.The case of the prosecution is as follows:(a) On 27.2.2001 at 10.30 a.m. near under the Basin Bridge, adjacent to Tamilnadu Electricity Board compound wall, at Basin Bridge Railway Station, when P.W.1-Vasanthi handed over the ground nut to his sister and proceeding to see his mother, the accused were alighted from an auto and the first accused assaulted P.W.1's mother Angammal P.W.3 on her right hand side of her head with Aruval .When the 1st accused Dakshinamoorthy attempted to assault P.W.3 again, immediately it was prevented by P.W.3 with her right hand and out of that she sustained injury on her right hand.(b) The second accused Murthy assaulted P.W.3 on left side of her neck by Aruval.After sustaining grievous injuries , P.W.3 fell down .A4-Arjunan and A5-Jalamurthy assaulted P.W.3 on her back side.Since P.W.1 made an alaram, P.W.2 Indira-sister of P.W.1 rushed to the scene of occurrence and took P.W.2 to Government Stanley Hospital.Then P.W.1 went to police station and lodged complaint Ex.(c)Immediately P.W.10-Dr.In which the following injuries sustained by P.W.3 was mentioned."i) 10 cm sutured wound right parietal regionii)Injury on the neckiii)Injury near the rightiv)Injury on right handv)Injury on left shouldervi)Injury on back"P.W.8 Dr.Jayavel Rajkumar after giving treatment to P.W.3 issued wound certificate Ex.(e) On 28.2.2001 he examined P.W.3 who was injured.P.W.11 recorded her dying declaration on the basis of the requisition Ex.P.13 received from the investigation officer after following formalities under Ex.P.W.13 examined other witnesses and after examining the victim,he altered the case from the offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 IPC to Sec.147, 148, 307,r/w.34 IPC.Then he prepared express report Ex.P.19 and then he examined witnesses Thangaraj and Murugesan and recorded their statements.(f) On 1.3.2001 at 10.30 am.he arrested A5 near Salt quarters main gate.At that time, he gave a confession which was recorded in the presence of Elumalai-P.W.6 and Thanikachalam.In the confession statement he has stated that he is ready to hand over the weapon, that portion is marked as Ex.(g)On 5.3.2001 at 11.30 A.M. he arrested A1-Dakshinamoorthy and A4-Arjunan near Moolakothram bus stand.At that time 1st accused gave confession and the admitted portion of the confession statement of A1 is marked as Ex.In pursuance of that, he handed over the weapon i.e. Aruval which was seized under Ex.On 7.3.2001 he arrested 2nd accused Moorthy near Basin bridge Railway station bus stand.He gave his confession statement and in pursuance of that he handed over the weapon which was seized under Ex.(i) Then he examined the other witnesses and concluded his investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 147, 148, 341, 307, 326 I.P.C.The learned Sessions Judge has framed charges against these accused.They pleaded not guilty.On examination of witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.13, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 and M.O.1 to 4, he questioned the accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C and placed the incriminating evidence against the accused.They denied the same.On considering the oral and documentary evidence the learned Sessions Judge acquitted A4 and A5 for the offence under Section 307 IPC but convicted A1 to A3 only under Section 326 r/w.34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5000, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months.Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against A1 and A3 the present Criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants.Hence he prayed for dismissal of this appeal and confirmation of the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the independent witnesses who turned hostile.But it is a well settled principle of law that the evidence of a single, interested, related eyewitness is reliable provided, it must be natural, cogent, convincing and trust worthy.While considering the evidence of P.W.3, no reason for discarding her evidence since her evidence is natural, cogent, convincing and trust worthy.Further more, the main factor to be considered is that since her condition was critical, dying declaration has been recorded by this P.W.11 on the basis of Ex.Dying Declaration has been marked as Ex.P.1 which was at earlier point of time and in that she has mentioned the names of the accused.i)10 cm sutured wound right parietal regionii)Injury on the neck.iii)Injury near the rightiv)Injury on right hand.v)Injury on left shoulder.vi)Injury on back.so there is no contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence.Besides this there is a Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act recovery.On the basis of confession statement only, recovery has been made which was marked as M.O.4 series i.e. lethal weapons.As per P.W.8 Doctor's evidence, since P.W.3 has not submitted herself for further examination, he has given his opinion that the injuries sustained by her are grievous in nature.But as per evidence of P.Ws.8 and 10 and Exs.P.11 and P.12 there is no clinching evidence to show that the victim P.W.3 has sustained grievous injury.As per Ex.P.12 she was admitted only in the hospital on 27.2.2001 and she was discharged on 7.3.2001, but admittedly as per the statement of P.W.8, no fracture was deducted as per Ex.10.In such circumstances as per Section 320 of IPC that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the injuries sustained by P.W.3 are given under the purview of Section 320 IPC.So the trial Court has been committed an error in convicting the accused under Section 326 IPC.Further the appellants/accused are armed with lethal weapons and assaulted P.W.3 and caused injury.So they are guilty under Section 324 IPC instead of Section 326 IPC.Since P.W.1 to P.W.3 who are having common intention have committed such an offence, they are guilty under Section 324 r/w.34 IPC.Therefore the conviction and sentence under Section 326 r/w.34 IPC has been modified into 324 r/w.34 IPC.The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the appellant is employed in Railways and prayed that leniency in punishment may be given.While considering Section 324 IPC, since the appellants are guilty under Section 324 IPC, the fine already imposed is hereby confirmed and the period of imprisonment already under gone by them is sufficient to meet out the ends of justice.Hence, the sentence is modified accordingly.In fine, The appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed on Appellants/A1 to A3 under Section 326 r/w.34 IPC are set aside.But they are convicted under Section 324 r/w.The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants are sufficient.It is stated that a fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the trial court has been paid by the appellants and the same is confirmed.So the appellants are set at liberty.1. Addl.Sessions Judge,Fast Track Court,Chennai.2.Inspector of Police,P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,684,382 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.18 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Trichy.http://www.judis.nic.in 22.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.There is no representation for the petitioner.3.The second respondent / complainant has lodged a complaint before the first respondent police against the petitioner and six others, based on which a case in Crime No.28 of 2015 has been registered by the first respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 494, 506(i) r/w 109 IPC.The first respondent police, after enquiry, has filed the charge sheet in C.C.No.18 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, as against the petitioner and others and challenging the same, the petitioner, who is the seventh accused, has filed this petition.4.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent has married one Kannan on 10.02.1988 at Gujarathi Marriage Hall, Trichy District.It is alleged that after the marriage, the second respondent was put to harassment by demanding dowry.It is the case of the complainant that her husband / first accused, suppressing his marriage with the petitioner, got married with one Priya / second accused on 16.09.2001 and the present petitioner herein / seventh accused and other accused, knowing fully well about the subsistence of the earlier marriage, hashttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 arranged and attended the second marriage with the second accused.The first respondent Police, after conducting investigation, has filed the final report as against all the accused and insofar as the present petitioner / seventh accused is concerned, the final report is filed for the offence under Sections 494 r/w 109 IPC.5.Perusal of the grounds raised in this petition would show that the petitioner has raised the following points for the consideration of this Court.6.According to the complaint as well as the statement of witnesses, one Raghavan, on 10.01.2007, informed the complainant that her husband / first accused got married the second accused / Priya on 16.09.2001, in the presence of the petitioner herein and other accused.But, in the chief examination in respect of HMOP.No.258 of 2006 which was held on 06.04.2009, filed by the first accused, the said Raghavan had stated that he met the first accused only 6 or 7 months back and on the said visit, he was informed about his second marriage with the second accused.In view of the contradictory statements made by the said Ragavan, on whose statement the petitioner herein has been roped- in as an accused, it is prayed to quash the final report insofar as this petitioner is concerned.7.The petitioner is residing at Salem and has nothing to do with the alleged offence.It is purely a family dispute between the first accused and the second respondent.In fact, in the invitation card, in respect of the alleged second marriage dated 16.09.2001, said to have been given by Raghavan to the complainant, there was a telephone number mentioned as belongs to the bride's side.9.It is seen from the records that the complainant came to the knowledge of the solemnization of the second marriage through one Ragavan on 10.01.2007, that on 16.09.2001, the first accused married the second accused and all the remaining accused had arranged and attended the second marriage, knowing fully well about the subsistence of the first marriage with the complainant.But, as rightly pointed out by the petitioner in his typedset of papers, the said Ragavan, in HMOP.No.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 258 of 2006 filed by the first accused, in his chief examination on 06.04.2009, has deposed that he met the first accused only 6 or 7 months back and during the course of their interaction, he came to know about the second marriage.10.It is evident from the record that the petitioner herein / seventh accused has been roped-in as an accused based on the statement given by the said Ragavan, but, Ragavan, when examined in yet another proceedings filed in HMOP.No.258 of 2016, deposed that he met the first accused only 6 or 7 months back.Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings is liable to be quashed insofar this petitioner is concerned.11.Apart from the same, the final report, as against the petitioner / seventh accused, is filed for the offence under Sections 494 r/w 109 IPC and in view of the specific bar under Section 198 Cr.P.C., this complaint which has been taken by the police for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC as against this petitioner is not maintainable.12.As regards the another ground raised in this petition, ie., with regard to the telephone number given in the invitation card for the alleged second marriage dated 16.09.2001, this Court is of the view that it is a matter for evidence and therefore, leaving all the issues open, thishttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, to expedite the trial insofar the remaining accused, ie., accused 1 to 6, are concerned and conclude the same, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.13.In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in C.C.No.18 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, is quashed insofar as this petitioner / seventh accused is concerned.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.01.04.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TMhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 To1.The Judicial Magistrate/Additional Mahila Judge, Trichy.2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kottai, Trichy District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 B.PUGALENDHI, J.TM Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6001 of 2016 01.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,688,972 |
According to duty chart and G.D. No. 09 at 10.05 dated 18.04.2013 he had to resume his duty after availing casual leave.According to recovery memo, he is also shown as member of an A.T.S. team, therefore, arrest of the applicant is fabricated.The arms licences allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused were found genuine.These licences were released by the Presiding Officer of Court of Additional District Judge-12, Lucknow and vehicle No. UP32 EE 2012 was released in favour of brother of the accused.It is further pleaded that on 18.04.2013 recovery of several arms licences and other material was allegedly recovered on pointing out of the accused, but no independent public witness or any family member of the applicant was made witness by A.T.S.. Therefore, these recoveries are also fake.It is mentioned in para 20 specifically that up to 08.08.2016, F.S.L. Mahanagar, Lucknow had not sent report to trial Court or A.T.S. Agency.The report was still awaited, whereas the accused-applicant through supplementary affidavit, has contended that prosecution had withheld the hand writing report dated 03.02.2015 and it was brought on 25.03.2017 in knowledge of trial Court.The accused-applicant along with supplementary affidavit provided report dated 03.02.2015 sent by CFSL, Mahanagar, Lucknow.In which it was opined that disputed entry Q-1 to Q-8 were not written by accused-applicant.Likewise, sample of handwriting/ signatures were marked by Forensic Lab as S-1 to S-18, therefore, disputed hand writing was not matched/ compared with the sample hand writing of the accused, even then charge-sheet was submitted against him by the investigating officer.It is further mentioned in para 5 of supplementary counter affidavit that a contemptuous and wrong affidavit was again filed on 24.04.2017 by the Investigating Agency that expert report regarding hand writing of the accused-applicant shall be considered during the course of trial and the entires in stock, sale and purchase register is not a sole allegation against the accused-applicant.The accused-applicant in supplementary affidavit dated 03.05.2017 has reiterated his earlier contentions and further submitted that statement of PW-2 Muneesh Pratap Singh, Sub Inspector has also been recorded.Likewise, co-accused Mantoo Sharma, Gurcharan Singh Bhalla, Ajay Pal Singh and Anil Kumar Jain has also disclosed complicity/ involvement of the accused in this crime.It is further submitted that statement of Ram Lal Singh and Nirmal Kumar Verma also corroborates the version of prosecution.The facts mentioned in recovery memo dated 17.04.2013, 18.04.2013 and 19.04.2013 discloses involvement of the accused.He supplies arms to anti national elements and is son of co-accused Gurcharan Singh.Co-accused Anil Kumar Jain is owner of M/s. Jain Brothers, Sirsa, Haryana.He supplies the illegal arms to anti national elements.Co-accused Ajay Pal is owner of Kishan Gun House and he also supplies illegal arms.It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that Mohd. Khalid was running the shop of National Gun House owned by Gurcharan Singh Bhalla and Amit Pal Singh.He was giving share and profit to the owner on each and every sale/ purchase.This fact was provided by witnesses Vijay Peter, Parvez Khan and Ashish Mehrotra to the Investigating Officer.It is further argued by learned AGA that National Gun House was searched in presence of owner Gurcharan Singh and prosecution witness Vijay Peter and City Magistrate Arun Kumar and Sri Hirdesh Kumar Circle Officer, Kaiser Bagh were also present at this inspection.Many entries were found fake in the sale and purchase registers.About 08 pistols and 01 revolver were found in excess for which there was no entry in the stock register of National Gun House.Inspector Tej Bahadur Singh and his team acted upon information given by informer and accused was intercepted, while he was driving vehicle no. U.P. 32 EE 2012 at about 14.30 and coming from Kanpur towards Lucknow.Pistol PIETRO BERETTA GARDONE V.T.CAL 7.65, MOD-70 made in Italy bearing No. 97542 and another pistol CAL 7.65 M/M (3.2) "LLAMA" GABILONDO V.C. ELGOIBAR (ESPANA) No. 78812, PAN Card, State Bank shopping Card, Debit Card of ICICI Bank, Two Railway tickets one dated 13.04.2013 from Lucknow to Lokmanya Tilak (Bombay), another ticket dated 14.04.2013 from Lokmanya Tilak (Bombay) to Lucknow, two receipts (hand written) of M/s. Jain Brothers regarding sale-purchase of arms were recovered.It is mentioned in recovery memo further that one polythene containing Pistol No. PIETRO BERETTA GARDONE V.T.CAL 7.65, MOD-70 made in Italy bearing No. 97687, old pistol PIETRO BERETTA CAL 7.65, MOD-70 made in Italy bearing No. 97958 and parts of arms rapped in news paper were recovered from this polythene, amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was recovered also and amount of Rs. 32,000/- was recovered from the pocket of the accused.07 arms licences of different persons mentioned in the recovery memo were recovered from his possession.He was not having any licence for keeping these arms with him.The accused-applicant Mohd. Khalid informed the A.T.S. team that his maternal uncle Haji Afsar introduced him to Arms Dealers including Anil Jain, owner of M/s. Jain Brothers, Sirsa, Haryana.He contacted accused Anil Jain, then he apprised him that he could earn more money through Shivanand Shetty resident of 07, Bangla Andheri West, Mumbai.He had a conversation with Shivanand Shetty on phone through Anil Jain, co-accused.He was informed that parts of foreign arms shall be provided by Shivanand Shetty.The accused met Shivanand Shetty at Mumbai and obtained parts of foreign arms from him.He also informed the A.T.S. team that he manufactures duplicate arms.Shivanand Shetty introduced him to co-accused Alvin Disa son of Walter Joseph resident of resident of Dadar, Mumbai, who provided him parts of foreign arms brought from Canada and Singapore.He also informed the A.T.S. team that after arrest of Shivanand Shetty, he purchased parts of foreign arms from co-accused Alvin Disa by contacted him personally at Mumbai and by Speed Post parcel.The accused Mohd. Khalid also provided information that he and his brother-in-law Khurram deposited money in Bank account of co-accused Elvin Disa and his wife in branch of Central Bank at Wazeerganj, Aminabad, etc., Lucknow.He sold fabricated and improvised foreign arms 22 to 25 in number to Ravi Sanjeeva Shetty, resident of Ghatkopar West Mumbai and earned money.Likewise, he informed A.T.S. team that he contacted co-accused Gurcharan Singh and got authority in the year 2011 to operate National Gun House at Lucknow owned by co-accused Gurcharan Singh.He obtained old arms from licensees and sold it.He also obtained old arms and manufactured duplicate arms with the help of EDM machine and marked forged numbers on these arms.He sold pistols for amount of Rs. 6 lacs to 14 lacs to licence holders, M/s Jain Brothers, Sirsa, Haryana(co-accused Anil Jain proprietor) to Ravi Shetty resident of Mumbai, Faisal resident of Calcutta and other anti-national elements.He had disclosed that about 150 to 160 arms were supplied by him.He also provided information to the A.T.S. team that he contacted Chhotey and Babar co-accused S/0 of Arshad Miyan, who was proprietor of Bareilly Gun House, Kanpur for procuring pistol frames for amount of Rs.50,000/-.Co-accused Babar and Chhotey procured, manufactured pistol frames for amount of Rs. 10,000/- from other persons.Co-accused Qurban and his brother Ramzan were performing work of assembling, polishing and finishing of arms at National Gun House for amount of Rs. 10,000/-.The accused-applicant also informed that he purchased 60 bigha land from his earning and he is doing work of sale and purchase of property also.On the pointing of accused recovery was made by A.T.S. from his residence and National Gun House.Parts of foreign arms and catalogue and licences were recovered.I have perused recovery memo dated 18.04.2013, which is provided with supplementary counter affidavit as SCA-09 submitted in connected bail application of co-accused Amit Pal Singh.This recovery was made on the pointing of accused Mohd. Khalid from his house.Sub-Inspector Ravindra Singh and police party searched house of the accused Mohd. Khalid on 18.04.2013 at 00.05 at night.Literature by hartink relating to pistol and revolver, another literature regarding hand guns, literature/catalogue of manufacturing part of arms were recovered.Four licences of no.1076, 9393, 9921, 9371 were also recovered from his house.I have also perused recovery memo dated 19.04.2013 (SCA-18), which is related to search of National Gun House, Latoush Road, Lucknow.This search was made by team of Abhay Narayan Shukla, Inspector A.T.S. in presence of co-accused Gurcharan Singh and witness Vijay Peter.Sri Hirdesh Kumar, C.O. and Sri Arun Kumar City Magistrate were also associated with the search team.Stock/repair register was verified 11 pistols and 07 revolver were entered in this register, whereas 01 pistol and o1 revolver was in excess.Seven revolver details of which is mentioned in the recovery memo and 06 pistols were verified from entries of Stock/repair registers.It was found that pistol no. 80 434 Lama, B 05400 Bekal Rasia, B 06036 Jawodi Yugoslavia were prima facie fake and fabricated.Pistal no.D03647 Vizar Czechoslovakia and revolver No. 001885 Irma Germany were found fabricated and improvised.01 revolver and 08 pistal were taken into possession by A.T.S. team.Two body frame, four pieces of barrel, 0.22 Cylinder (Garari) were also recovered.Stock register from the date 01 Oct, 2005 up to 16.04.2013, repairing register from 22.01.2011 up to date, Sale register from 27.11.2006 up to 16.04.2013 and Cash Memos books were taken in to possession.C.D.R. Call details of accused personsLearned A.G.A. has also provided SCA-19 with supplementary counter affidavit filed in connected bail application of Amit Pal Singh, which is in form of chart based on CDR call details collected by the Investigating Officer.Telephone numbers used by accused persons Khalid, Anil Jain, Gurcharan Singh, K.G.H. Pandey, Alvin Disa, Ramjan and Qurban, Junaid and Babar, Kallu Sharma, Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma, Pawan Pentographer, Raju Blockwala has been shown in form of chart.Accused Khalid made 180 calls on mobile phone of Alvin Desa, 50 calls to co-accused Anil Jain, 371 calls to Gurcharan Singh, 200 calls to Ramzan and Qurban, 339 calls were with K.H.G. Pandey, 20 calls were made with co-accused Qurban.Qurban made 300 calls to co-accused Ramzan.Ramzan and Qurban made 50 calls to co-accused Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma.30 calls were made between Chhotey @ Junaid and Babar and Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma.Co-accused Kallu Sharma made 200 calls with Chhote @ Junaid and Babar.Pawan Pentographer made 20 calls to Ramzan and Qurban.Therefore, there is substance in argument of learned A.G.A. that co-accused persons were in close contact with each other.Fire Arm Examination report (SCA-10) has also been provided by learned A.G.A. Pistol No. 78912 of bore 7.65, No. 97687 of bore 7.65 and no. 97547 of bore 7.65 were recovered from the possession of Mohd. Khalid on 17.04.2013 were found improvised and non-standard firearm.Pistol No. 80434 of bore 7.65 mm.recovered on 19.04.2013 from National Gun House, which was recovered on pointing of accused Khalid was found non-standard firearm.Pistol No. D83647 of bore 7.65 and Pistol No. 06036 of 7.65 bore were found improvised.Pistol No. 23582-S of bore 7.65 sold to Ashish Mehrotra,witness and Pistol No. 206414 of bore 0.22 sold to Parvez Khan were found improvised.Rifle No. 4420 of bore 30.06 recovered on 09.09.2013 from witness Ram Milan was also found improvised.Rifle No. 28709 of bore 30.06 and No. 355964 of this bore recovered on 13.12.2013 from Kishan Gun House owned by Ajay Pal Singh were also found improvised.Likewise, three rifle recovered from possession of co-accused Mantoo Sharma were sold from Guru Ram Rai Armory owned by co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh.Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjai Singh in his statement (SCA-21) has informed that in the year 2007 he went at Guru Ram Das Armoury along with Rang Nath Sharma.He was introduced by Rang Nath Sharma to co-accused Gurcharan Singh @ Jangoo.He again visited and purchased rifle 315 bore and 100 Cartridges again.These rifles and cartridges were supplied to Vikash Yadav area commander of NCC.He also informed to Investigating Officer that in the month of March-April, 2007 he went along with Mrityunjay Singh, who was relative of Rang Nath Sharma and visited shop of Gurcharan Singh.01 rifle of 315 bore and 100 cartridges were purchased in April.He again purchased 01 rifle of 315 bore and cartridges, which were provided to Rang Nath Sharma.In May 2008, 01 rifle and 100 cartridges were purchased and provided to Chandra Shekher, who was cousin of Ranj Nath Sharma.He also informed that when he visited shop of co-accused Gurcharan Singh, Deepak Kumar r/o Sisra met him.In month of October, 2008 Rang Nath Sharma received Scorpio vehicle from Gurcharan Singh and brought 02 rifles of 315 bore and 01 rifle of 30.06 bore and 2500 cartridges were obtained from co-accused.Bhikhan Ganju did not purchase rifle, but purchased cartridges for amount of Rs. 04 lacs.Dhananjay alighted on the way and Rang Nath Sharma and he reached at Gandhi Maidan at Patna, where they were arrested.Deepak r/o of Sirsa met him in July, 2009 at shop of co-accused Gurcharan Singh.The investigating Officer has recorded statement of witness Sri Hridyanand Pandey, Inspector, N.I.A., Lucknow, who apprised the Investigating Officer that Mantoo Sharma purchased rifle and cartridges in the month of April, 2007 from National Gun House, Latoush Road, Lucknow owned by co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh.The entries of stock register and sale register maintained at Guru Ram Das Armoury were verified and it was found that these co-accused sold several firearms to terrorist and criminals of Bihar and Jharkhand.Additional Superintendent of Police, Rajesh Shahni was conducting investigation against co-accused Gurcharan Singh.On the basis of this statement, Investigating Officer on 20.05.2013 recorded in Case Diary that investigation under Section 121-A and 122 I.P.C. is required to be conducted.The Investigating Officer has recorded statement of witness Ram Lal Singh, who has informed the Investigating Officer that on 07.02.2011 he purchased rifle from accused Mohd. Khalid, which was at National Gun House, Latoush Road, Lucknow.Accused provided receipt of Rs. 15,000/- instead of amount Rs. 3 lacs paid by him.He predicted this rifle is foreign firearm and accused sold it to him by deceitful means.The Investigating Officer perused seized documents from National Gun House owned by co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh.The Investigating Officer found entry in stock register of period 01.04.2010 up to 31.03.2011 in which N.P. bore Rifle No. LT 37830 by Westley made in England was procured from M/s Jain Brothers, Arms Dealer, Mandi Dabwali District, Sirsa (HR).According to sale register (page no. 09) this rifle was sold to Ram Lal Singh son of Bhagwan Deen Singh and particulars were mentioned as "one N.P. 30.06 Bore Rifle No. LT 37830 by Westley Richards London S/H. One NPB 318 Bore Rifle No. L.T. 37930 was procured from from M/s Jain Brothers (co-accused Anil Jain).The bore of this riffle was converted and sold to Ram Lal Singh.This rifle was converted by fabrication from bore 318 to 30.06, which was recovered on 23.04.2013 from house of Ram Lal Singh.Ram Lal Singh has further apprised the Investigating Officer that this rifle was purchased by him from accused Mohd. Khalid for amount of Rs. 3 lacs, whereas receipt of Rs. 15,000/- was provided to him by the accused Mohd. Khalid.He predicted that this rifle was foreign firearm, which was sold to him by accused Mohd. Khalid by deceitful means.This rifle was sold by Kisan Gun House (co-accused Ajay Pal Singh) of converted bore 30.06 No. 97932 to Nirmal Kumar Verma.The Investigating Officer has recorded statement of Nirmal Kumar Verma on 25.04.2013, who was Ex-MLA of BSP party.He purchased this rifle No. 97932 predicting it as foreign firearm for amount of Rs. 3,25,000/-.Receipt of amount of Rs. 25,000/- was issued to him.This rifle was sold to him on 15.10.2010 by deceitful means by Kisan Gun House owned by co-accused Ajay Pal Singh, which was improvised firearm, because its bore was converted from 355 bore to 30.06 bore by accused Mohd. Khalid.Learned A.G.A. has provided statement of witness Vijay Peter, who was employee of co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh, which is provided as SCA-7 in supplementary counter affidavit filed in bail application of co-accused Mantoo Sharma.He has stated that he got job in the year 2006-07 at shop of Guru Ram Das Armoury, Meston Road as cleaning staff on the salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month.He learnt work of this shop and used to maintain record and prepared reports also, which were sent to Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate.He has also apprised Investigating Officer that accused Khalid was known to co-accused Guru Chanran Singh and Amit Pal Singh from 04-05 years ago.In the year 2008-09 National Gun House was seldom opened.Co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh usually brought register of National Gun House at Kanpur and sale and purchase of firearms were shown in the records of National Gun House and Guru Ram Das Armory.It is also stated by him that co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh provided National Gun House to Mohd. Khalid.Accused Mohd. Khalid employed Laeek @ Guddu, Qurban and Ramzan as workers.Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh visited National Gun House after span of one week or 15 days and checked register.Qurban and Ramzan usually performed work on arms at National Gun House.Witness Vijay Peter also apprised the Investigating Officer that Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh usually talked with accused Mohd. Khalid alone and instructed him to go out side.Ajay Pal Singh, owner of Kisan Gun House also made transaction with co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh.Likewise, Arms Dealer Anil Kumar Jain of Mandi Dabwali Sirsa, Haryana had also visiting terms with Mohd. Khalid at Guru Ram Das Armoury and National Gun House.Arms were sold, purchased and repaired by them.Witness Vijay Peter also provided information to the Investigating Officer that co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh also sold rifle and cartridges 08 to 10 times to Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjai Singh and other persons.Co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh usually talked with Mantoo Sharma and these persons in their cabin.Firearms and cartridges were entered on forged licenses.Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjai Singh and Dhananjay supplied these firearms to Nexalites in Bihar and Jharkhand.Co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh were aware of these facts.He did not apprise the police due to fear of termination of his job.He has also apprised that Mantoo Sharma was arrested at Patna, Bihar and rifles sold from Guru Ram Das Armoury were recovered from him.Usually he and co-accused Gurcharan Singh made entries in record of sale and purchase of firearms at Guru Ram Das Armoury.He made entries on instruction of Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh.He has further stated that stock register dated 04.06.2010 and sale register dated 10.09.2011 and sale register dated 06.04.2010 contains entries in his hand writing.He identified hand writing of Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh on the basis of fact that he worked with them.The Investigating Officer has also recorded statement of Parvez Khan, who purchased pistol of .32 bore from Capital Gun House.Employee Pandey of Kisan Gun House has introduced him to accused Mohd. Khalid.This pistol was sold to him by Munidra Singh R/o Gomti Nagar.Again he purchased revolver of .32 bore from Raj Kumar Singh resident of Gomti Nagar.This revolver was recorded through Mohd. Khalid accused in records of M/s. Jain Brothers, Sirsa.He again purchased Pistol of 0.22 bore from National Gun House from accused Mohd. Khalid for amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs.His license was obtained by Mohd. Khalid accused for renewal and permission for sale-purchase.He has also apprised the Investigating Officer that his license of rifle was with Mohd. Khalid for extending its date.He could not purchase rifle, but he inquired from District Magistrate office then he came to know that rifle was entered on his license.Therefore, he stated that accused Mohd. Khalid deceited him.Therefore, prima facie, it reveal from statement of witness Parvez Khan that accused Mohd. Khalid was having contact with owner Ajay Pal Singh of Kisan Gun House and its employee Hari Shanker Pandey.Accused Khalid was having contact with M/s. Jain Brothers (Proprietor of Anil Kumar Jain of Sirsa, Haryana).Fake entry of revolver .32 bore purchased from Raj Kumar Singh was entered in record of M/s. Jain Brothers, Sirsa through accused Khalid.Investigating Officer has also recorded statement of Ashish Mehrotra, who purchased pistol for Rs. 09 lacs from Mohd. Khalid at National Gun House.According to these call details intercepted by the Investigating Officer, in Account No. 1127837222 of Central Bank, Dadar of Alwyn D'sa and in Account No. 1128022105 of his wife Amiliya D'sa, money was deposited from the branch of Central Bank situated at Aminabad and Nakhas, Lucknow.The Investigating Officer has collected deposition slips and these were compared with the Bank statements of Account No. 1127837222 of Alwyn Bounce Lecil D'sa and Account No. 1128022105 of his wife, Amiliya D'sa.The details of money deposited in these account numbers are as follows:These money deposited from the branch Aminabad and Nakhas of Central Bank of India correlates with the call details based on interception of conversation of Mobile Nos. 9807799858 used by Mohd. Khalid and 9819954112 used by accused Alwyn Bounce Lecil D'isa.Accused Mohd. Khalid has accepted this fact that sample of his voice was sent to expert of forensic lab, who has submitted his report that these voice matched with the call details intercepted by the Investigating Agency.Clause 3 and 4 provides as follows:(2)......(3).During the course of hearing, it is informed that in Session Trial No. 1169 of 2014, statements of P.W.1 to P.W.7 have been recorded and date 14.11.2017 was fixed for cross-examination of P.W.7 Ram Milan Yadav.Accused is not named in the FIR.He is innocent and has not committed any offence.The allegations that he purchased firearms and cartridges on the basis of fake arms license are false.No other evidence except statement of witness Vijay Peter is available against the accused-applicant.No recovery was made from the possession of accused as he was already detained in jail.On the point of time of raid in present case conducted by ATS the applicant was in jail in another case.Arguments of AGA:-Case Crime No. 6 of 2012 is related to Police Station Sirsa, Haryana.Crime No. 12 of 2008 is of Police Station Devkund, Aurangabad.These offences are registered against him under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Arms Act. Crime No. 368 of 2012 has been registered under Sections 386, 387, 121, 121-A, 414, 120-B IPC and Arms Act.Learned AGA has submitted that accused is absconder of Army and his arms licence was found fake and fabricated.He relied upon SCA-14, verification letter dated 13.04.2015 sent by District Magistrate, Udhampur.It is informed that arms licence No. 110ADC/07 dated 12.03.2017 of accused Mantoo Sharma, S/o Vijay Kumar Sharma for rifle of .315 bore was not issued by the District Magistrate, Udhampur, Jammu Kashmir.He has also provided letter dated 25.04.2016 of Superintendent of Police, ATS, Bihar, Patna (SCA-13) and submitted that supplementary counter affidavit is available on the bail application of accused Amit Pal Singh, which is perused by me.It is informed through this letter that Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh, S/o Vijay Kumar left service of army and he is supplying arms to Bhakapa, Maoists.He supplied arms, grenades, rocket launcher, AK-47 and articles used for land mines and ammunitions to Vijay Yadav @ Sandeep @ Rupesh in Bihar, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.It is also informed that accused Mantoo Sharma provided firearms and ammunitions to Anil Kumar Yadav and Lalesh @ Prashant (since dead) also.It is also reported that Rangnath Sharma @ Baba (since dead), R/o Aurangabad, Chandrashekhar Azad @ Commander @ Azad Sharma, Saket Kumar @ Badey Sharma, Manoj Kumar Singh @ Rakeshji, Praphul Malakar were reported to involved in naxalite activities of Bhakapa Maoists.This recovery memo (SCA-20) has been provided along with the supplementary counter affidavit which is available on record of bail application of accused Amit Pal Singh.As per this recovery memo, Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh along with Ranjit Kumar Sharma was sitting in Scorpio-CRD No. DL4C-NB-0320 and other seven persons were sitting in Wagon-R LXI No. BR1-AK-6756, who were Amit Ranjan @ Pintu, Rajiv Ranjan @ Ramesh, Sunil Kumar, Narayan Das @ Guddu, Saket Kumar @ Badmelo , Chandrashekhar Azad @ Kumauji @ Azad, Manoj Kumar Singh.They were arrested in presence of witnesses Mohd. Rasheed and Narayan Pasad.From this box regulator rifle of bore 30.6, armory No. 20533840 rifle 315 bore and regulator rifle, total three were recovered and these were found to be purchased from Ramdas Armory owned by accused Amit Pal Singh and Gurcharan Singh.He informed the police party that he purchased 2700 cartridges from their shop and sold to Nexalites of Piparwar, Chatra/ Jharkhand including Bhikan Ganju.Witness Vijay Peter has provided evidence to the Investigating Officer that accused Mantoo Sharma was having visiting terms with the accused Amit Pal Singh and Gurcharan Singh.Accused has provided information to the Investigating Officer that he purchased rifle and cartridges from these accused persons.Details of which are mentioned in CA-21, which is mentioned by me on the proper place while discussing the evidence available against Mohd. Khalid.Learned AGA has also relied upon the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer of RC No. 8/12/NIA/DLI under Sections 386, 387, 121, 121-A, 414,120-B IPC, Section 25(1-b) of Arms Act and Section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act (SCA-24) and argued that Mantoo Sharma is Accused No.3, along with other co-accused Praphul Malakar and Anil Kumar Yadav.It was found by the Investigating Officer that conversations of Anil Kumar Yadav, Praphul Malakar and Mantoo Sharma were intercepted.They were in constant touch with each other along with Bullu Singh and Rakesh Singh.It was also found by Investigating Officer that accused Mantoo Sharma, Anil Kumar Yadav and Praphul Malakar never used sim purchased in their names.Mantoo Sharma also obtained Mobile No. 9304870208 in the name of other person.Another Mobile No. 9693623361 and 9135345120 were obtained in the name of other persons.Mobile No. 9135345120 was used by Smt. Shobha Devi, who was wife of Mantoo Sharma.He is very week, feeble and sick man.He is suffering from several old age diseases, as such his life is at stake.The applicant has no criminal antecedents prior to the instant arrest shown by the police.The applicant is ready to furnish adequate and reliable sureties for his release.He is a permanent residence and there is no chance of his absconding.It is pertinent to mention here that Senior Consultant of District Jail, Lucknow, vide report dated 31.12.2015 has reported that accused was sent to KGMU and Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow.On second and fourth Saturday, a team of specialist doctors visited jail and accused applicant was treated for hypertension and backache.The medicines are being administered to him.Therefore, no serious ailment has been reported by Senior Consultant of District Jail.Arguments of A.G.A.:-Learned AGA has argued that the accused procured parts of foreign arms from Singapore and Canada, which was supplied to the accused Mohd. Khalid and payment was deposited in his Bank account by accused Mohd. Khalid and Anil Kumar Jain.Contentions in this regard has been made in para-10 of the counter affidavit filed in the bail application of accused Mohd. Khalid regarding deposition of amount in the account of accused-applicant Alwyn Bruce Lecil D'sa and his wife Amiliya D'sa which has been relied upon through Annexure-CA-5 (paper No.34 up to 48).Learned AGA has also relied upon the recovery memo dated 29.04.2013 (C.A.-2) and contentions mentioned in paras-5, 10, 14, 17 and 18 regarding recovery of illegal firearms from the possession of accused and supply of parts of firearms and transactions made by the accused.I have perused recovery memo dated 29.04.2013 (Annexure-CA-2).The Investigating Officer proceeded for Mumbai on 29.04.2013 and reached there on 30.04.2013 along with Constable Tanveer Ahmad and went at Police Station Dadar.The Police party of Police Station Dadar was associated with the Investigating Officer Ravindra Singh.Investigating Officer and police party on 30.04.2013 at 11.30 a.m. searched House No. 504, Salvation Apartment NH Kale Marg, Dadar, Mumbai in presence of witness Shri Mukesh Prahlad Srivastava, who was Society Manager.Accused Alwyn D'sa was present in his house.BHPC Mark Trolley Briefcase was searched, which contained letter pad, on which, number of parts of arms and its cost was written on three pages.Two diagram of Walther pistol, on which photo of parts and their size were mentioned on it.Five invoices issued in favour of accused Alwyn D'sa Salvation along with his address issued on 14.01.2013 by Hock Ann (Sports) PTE Ltd., two receipts dated 05.02.2013 and one receipt of 06.02.2013 were recovered, on which details of sale of parts was mentioned.Name of parts and its account was mentioned on another letter pad.Walther diagram along with details of parts of Walther pistol and diagram of government model pistol and 04 invoice of Machine tool Prototype factory, Amber Nath were recovered from his briefcase.A bag was also searched, from which five magazines 32 walther, 04 magazine 30 carbine magazine, 10- 7.62 magazine, 210 cartridges of .22 rifle, 05 big thick gun spring, 05 grip of pistol walther, revolver grip gray colour, one grip of walther pistol, 29 cartridges of rifle 401 bore, 08 empty cartridges of 45 bore, 10 dummy cartridges of 45 bore, 01 gun body, 07 pistol barrel, 01 screw and parts for repair were found in a packet, 01 grip of pistol of 45 bore, parts of rifle i.e. lock, one gun part New Merik Corporation book, passport of DSA Bruce Cecil, Passbook of account no. 1128022105 in name of DSA Bruce issued by Central Bank of India, one Passbook of Account No. 1127837222 issued by Central Bank of India in favour of Emiliya wife of accused, one Air Travel Ticket Slip issued for Lucknow.Account of sale of parts of pistol by Disa uncle was mentioned on Pad of National Gun House and Nokia phone were recovered from this bag.Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that co-accused Mohd. Khalid was arrested by ATS on 17.4.2013, who informed the team of ATS that he was procuring manufactured firearms from Junaid Arshad alias Chotey and his brother Zafar Arshad alias Babar, Vimal Vishwakarma and co-accused Kallu Sharma.The witness Raju Gautam has provided information to the Investigating Officer that accused persons, namely, Janaid Arshad alias Chotey, Mohd. Khalid, Ramjan and Qurban contacted him for preparation of blocks of pistol and revolver.He provided 25-30 blocks to them.Witness Raju Gautam has also provided complaint to Investigating Officer that Gurcharan Singh threatened him not to adduce evidence against him and Mohd. Khalid.On perusal of recovery memo dated 17.4.2013, it reveal that on the basis of information given by co-accused Mohd. Khalid, a separate team was formed and sent to Kanpur, therefore, recovery dated 18.4.2013 is discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and this fact may be proved by the prosecution that this discovery of one sketch of pistol and frame of pistol was made from the possession of present applicant.He and his brother Zafar Arshad alias Babar and both are the sons of Arshad Mirza, who is owner of Bareilly Gun House, Western Road, Kanpur.He has informed the Investigating Officer that he has supplied 100 arms to co-accused Mohd. Khalid.Co-accused Mohd. Khalid provided parts of firearms to accused, which were handed over to co-accused Kallu Sharma and Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma.Who in their turn, assemble foreign firearm by using grinding and surfacing machine and thereafter they handover the firearm to present applicant Junaid Arshad alias Chotey and these arms were handed over to co-accused Mohd. Khalid for amount of Rs. 50,000/- each.Junaid Arshad has informed the Investigating Officer that Mohd. Khalid provided him all foreign arms Colt, Lama, Bareta and parts of foreign arms, which were provided by him to Kallu Sharma and Vimal Vishwakarma, who with help of EDM Machine Manufactured Body, slide and surfacing diagram, trigger hammer and trigger guard and Pawan with Pantography machine was writing name on these arms.Ramjan and Qurban were performing work of assembling, polishing and finishing at National Gun House.Mohd. Khalid paid Rs. 10,000/- to them for each firearm.Junaid also paid Rs. 10,000/-Rs.10,000/- each to Kallu Sharma and Vimal Vishwakarma and Rs. 2,500/- to Pawan.He supplied old firearms purchased from licensees and 100 duplicate firearms to co-accused Mohd. Khalid.On perusal of recovery memo SCA-8 of supplementary counter affidavit filed in Crl.Case No. 7488 (B) of 2013 (Amit Pal Singh Vs.State), S.I. Mr. Vimlesh Kumar Singh tried to associate independent witness, but none was prepared to become witness.On the basis of information given by co-accused Mohd. Khalid, his team raided at house of accused applicant, but he was found in lane near his house and sketch of pistol and semi manufactured pistol frame was recovered from his possession.On basis of the information given by applicant Junaid Arshad alias Chotey, work shop of Kallu Sharma was raided and sketch of pistol and two iron plates containing blocks/ cut space of firearm pistol, grips slide and space of magazine assembly and parts for manufacturing firearms were recovered at 14:45 a.m.On the basis of information given by Junaid Arshad alias Chotey and Kallu Sharma, workshop of co-accused Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma was raided, he was working on Kharad machine.Mobile phone and Rs. 210/- was recovered.On search of room, plate containing cut space of blocks for manufacturing pistol, assembly and other parts of firearms were recovered.At 8:30, these three accused persons were arrested by the police team.The Investigating Officer has also collected call details of mobile phone of Junaid Arshad alias Chotey.Both these accused persons, namely, Junaid Arshad alias Chotey and his brother Zafar Arshad alias Babar made 300 calls to Ramjan and Qurban on their mobile phone.Likewise they made 300 calls to co-accused Mohd. Khalid and six calls to Qurban.Therefore, according to CDR details of co-accused persons, collected by Investigating Officer, it reveal that they were in close contact with each other and facilitating each other for manufacturing illegal arms for co-accused Mohd. Khalid, who procured parts of foreign arms from co-accused Allwyn Bruce Lecil D'sa.On appreciation of evidence collected by Investigating Officer, it reveal that applicant is one of the active member of the said gang, which is involved in anti-national activities.The applicant is in constant touch with co-accused Mohd. Khalid, Ramjan, Qurban, Kallu Sharma, Vimal Vishwakarma and Pawan Pantographer.The fact of discovery under Section 27 Evidence Act may be proved by S.I. Vimlesh Kumar Singh and his team legally.Zafar Arshad alias Babar Ramzan Grounds and Arguments on behalf of accused Zafar Arshad @ Babar:-It is also pleaded by Zafar Arshad @ Babar that the recovery was made in the territorial place of police station Ajgain, District Unnao, but no FIR was registered at this police station.Applicant Zafar Arshad alias Babar has been implicated in this crime on the basis of statement of co-accused Mohd. Khalid.Co-accused Amit Pal Singh was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.5.2016 in Crl.The case of applicant Zafar Arshad alias Babar is on better footing in comparison to other accused persons.Applicant Junaid Arshad alias Chotey and Zafar Arshad alias Babar are real brothers and they are sons of Arshad Miyan, who was owner of Bareilly Gun House.The applicant Zafar Arshad alias Babar was taken on police remand by the Investigating Officer.On the basis of order passed by the Presiding Officer, Court No. 1, A.C.J.M., Lucknow.S.I. Shailendra Kumar Singh and his police party was informed by him that after arrest of accused Mohd. Khalid, Ramjan handed over him a pistol, Semi manufactured frame, block for writing on pistol, paper tracing paper, which were kept by him in delipilated Kothari, which was situated near Jaipuriya Railway Crossing/Ganna Godam adjacent to transformer of Railway Station.These articles were kept in a bag provided by Ramjan, which was hidden by him by digging floor of Kothari and it was covered by bricks.This information can be proved by the prosecution under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. One pistol P. Beretta Cal 7.65 no. 67124, semi manufactured pistol along with barrel magazine, trigger and three blocks of writing on pistol, two tracing paper, LLAMA Cal .32 PIETRO BERETTA were recovered on the pointing out of accused Zafar Arshad alias Babar.He acted under the direction of co-accused Mohd. Khalid.As far as it is contended in bail application of applicant Zafar Arshad alias Babar that ATS conducted Investigating Officer of this crime in violation of Section 6 A, it has been discussed at proper place while, I discussed bail application of co-accused Mohd. Khalid.In the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, accused persons, namely, Junaid Arshad alias Chotey, Zafar Arshad alias Babar, Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma and Ramjan were felicitating co-accused Mohd. Khalid for manufacturing duplicate foreign arms, which were supplied by co-accused Mohd. Khalid to accused persons, namely, Ajay Pal Singh, Amit Pal Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Anil Jain.Amit Pal Singh and co-accused Gurcharan Singh further supplied these arms to Mantu Sharma, who further supplied these arms in Nexalite affected area in Bihar and Jharkhand.The detailed discussion has been mentioned by me while discussing bail application of co-accused Mohd. Khalid and Mantu Sharma.He was taken into custody on 6.7.2013 by ATS.No independent witness was associated on the point of arrest of the accused.He has no criminal history.The long detention of the applicant is resulting into starvation in family and causing irreparable damage to the applicant Ramzan.Co-accused Mohd. Khalid has given information to the investigating agency at the point of time of his arrest on 17.4.2013 that applicant Ramzan and co-accused Qurban had worked at National Gun House for finishing polishing and assembling of semi manufactured firearms and Mohd. Khalid paid to them amount of Rs. 10,000/- per firearm.Learned AGA has opposed this bail by submitting that he has actively participated in this crime and felicitated manufacturing and supply of duplicate foreign firearms in Naxalite area of Bihar and Chhattisgarh through Mohd. Khalid, Amit Pal Singh, Ajay Pal Singh, Anil Kumar Jain and Mantoo Sharma.It reveal that on the pointing out of co-accused Mohd. Khalid, one pistol 32 bore, semi manufactured pistol, the purchase certificate on the letter head of M/s. Jain Brothers, letter pad of National Gun House and diagram of Baretta pistol was recovered from the house of Ramzan.This discovery may be proved by the prosecution under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.S.I. Shailendra Singh and his police party acted upon tip off given by informer.His motorcycle UP78 CW 0973 was intercepted by the police party.It is mentioned in this recovery memo that public witnesses were asked by police party to become witness, but none was prepared to become a witness.Pistol PIETRO BERETTA MOD-70 GARDONE BT CAL 7.65 MOD-70 No. 975225 made in USA along with magazine, driving license, voter ID card and amount of Rs. 175/- were recovered from the possession of accused Ramzan.Three railway tickets dated 5.7.2013, Firozabad to Kanpur Central, Nokia Phone, Passport Size photo were recovered.The accused Ramzan was holding bag on his shoulder, which was also searched.Two frames of pistol along with slide, two barrel, four magazine and 70 diagram of MOD-70 with specification and tracing paper bearing No. 97687 along with written words LLAMA and PIETRO BERETTA and telephone diary containing Mobile numbers of different persons, four blocks of pistol and revolver were recovered from his bag.He was not having license for the recovered manufactured and semi manufactured pistols, magazine, barrel etc.He tried to talk him on telephone, but he anticipated his arrest.They belong to 8 places, i.e., four from Patna, one from Begusarai, one from Bhojpur Aara, one from Kaimur(Bhabhua) two from Buxar Bihar, five from Saharsa, two from Nalanda, four from Bhojpur, two from Jahanabad, three from Vaishali and one from Muzaffarpur.Arm licenses of these persons were found fake and forged.I have perused this verification report.Arm licenses of Ashok Kumar, Rajendra Vikram Singh and Surendra Singh from Patna were not issued by District Arms Officer.Likewise, arm license of Kapil Dev Singh was not issued by this office.Arm licenses of Arvind Kumar Singh No. 4122/03 rifle 315 bore and his another license of revolver 0.32 bore was not issued from the office of District Arms Officer, Saharsa.In list Annexure-2, license No.72/03 has been mentioned whereas licence No.1211/84 of rifle of bore 315 was not issued in favour of Laleshwar Prasad by this office.According to list Annexure-2 it was found that license No.72/03 of 315 bore rifle was not issued from the office of District Arms Officer, Saharsa.It reveals prima facie that accused Amit Pal Singh, his father, co-accused Gurcharan Singh, co-accused Ajay Pal Singh and co-accused Anil Kumar Jain manipulated the entries in their stock registers, sale/ purchase registers and repair registers and facilitated each other for sale of duplicate and improvised fire arms, of which bore were converted and parts of foreign arms supplied by co-accused Alwyin Bruce Lecil D'sa were used to manufacture these duplicate and improvised arms.Accused Mohd. Khalid, Junaid Arshad @ Chhotey, Zafar Arshad @ Babar, Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma, Kalloo Sharma, Ramzan and Qurban (he has absconded) felicitated manufacturing of these fire arms.These arms and ammunitions purchased by Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Sharma were supplied in naxalite operated areas of Bihar and Jharkhand.It is relevant to mention here that Kisan Gun House is situated in the same building in which National Gun House is situated at Lucknow.Accused Ajay Pal Singh is owner of Kisan Gun House and Anil Kumar Jain is owner of M/s. Jain Brothers, Sirsa, Haryana.Both these accused persons permitted and facilitated the accused Mohd. Khalid to manipulate fake and fictitious entries of fire arms in their stock, sale and purchase registers.There is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for Ajay Pal Singh that his call details were not collected by the Investing Officer and he had no contacts with other accused persons.It is relevant to mention here that witness Ramlal Singh has proved this fact that rifle recovered from his possession was sold by Mohd. Khalid at National Gun House and this was entered in stock register of M/s. Jain Brothers.He has further contended that mother of applicant, Smt. Jarjina became proprietor of Kisan Gun House after the death of her husband namely Satpal Singh Sarna.The applicant was minor when his father died and the entire shop namely Kisan Gun House was being run by the Manager Harish Chandra Pandey as the mother of applicant was a housewife.The alleged offences are not made out against him.He has no criminal history.Witness Alamgir Ansari has provided his evidence to Investigating Officer that he and his elder brother Khurshid had looked after T.G. Arms House, Nahar, Lagan.He has no criminal history.Learned AGA has opposed this bail by submitting that he introduced co-accused Mohd. Khalid to co-accused Shivanand Shettty and Alwyn D'sa, who supplied parts of foreign firearms to him.He was having contact with co-accused Amit Pal Singh and his father Gurcharan Singh.He and Ajay Pal Singh manipulated entries in their stock sale/purchase, repair registers on behest of co-accused Mohd. Khalid.He had made calls to Mohd. Khalid on his phone.He sold out duplicate/ improvised foreign firearms to innocent licensees and anti social elements.He is also member of gang of accused persons.The accused Anil Jain made 50 calls to co-accused Mohd. Khalid, according to CDR call details of his phone numbers.Therefore, he was in close contact with co-accused Mohd. Khalid.He permitted and facilitated to manipulate entries in his stock registers on behest of co-accused Mohd. Khalid.He introduced Mohd. Khalid to co-accused Shivanand Shetty and Alwyn D'sa, who supplied parts of foreign arms, which were used by accused persons Mohd. Khalid, Junaid Arshad, Jafar Arshad @ Babar, Kallu Sharma and Vimal Vishwkarma to manufacture duplicate and improvised firearm.Ramzan and Qurban, co-accused persons were engaged at National Gun House by Mohd. Khalid to perform work of assembling, polishing and finishing of semi manufactured fire arms provided by co-accused persons.Collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against the Government of India.-- Whoever collects men, arms or ammunition or otherwise prepares to wage war with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against the [Government of India], shall be punished with [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, [and shall also be liable to fine]."Co-accused Mantoo Sharma was having contacts with CPI (Maoist), a terrorist organization, who purchased rifles and ammunition from Guru Ram Das Armoury, Kanpur owned by Amit Pal Singh and his father Gurcharan Singh.Three rifles were recovered along with cartridges while he was arrested with 06 nexalites.Accused Amit Pal Singh and his father co-accused Gurcharan Singh, Anil Kumar Jain and Ajay Pal Singh facilitated and manipulated entries in their stock, sale-purchase and repair registers through co-accused Mohd. Khalid.Heard Shri B. M. Sahai, Shri I. B. Singh, learned Senior Counsels, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Shri Atul Verma, Shri Siddharth Sinha, Shri Ajay Arora, learned counsel for the accused-applicants and Shri Shiv Nath Tilhari, learned AGA for the State.The above mentioned all the bail applications relates to Case Crime No. 01 of 2013, Sessions Trial No. 1169 of 2014 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 121-A, 122 I.P.C. and Sections 3/5/25/30 Arms Act, Police Station A.T.S., District Lucknow.Therefore, all these bail applications are being taken up together for decision by a common order.Learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lucknow vide order dated 09.03.2016 rejected the bail application No. 578 of 2016 moved on behalf of Mohd. Khalid.Bail Application moved by Allwyn Bruce Lecil D'sa was rejected by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow vide order dated 17.06.2013 passed in Criminal Misc.Case No. 1543 of 2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Section 3/5/25/30 Arms Act and under Sections 121A, 122 I.P.C. bail application has been rejected vide order dated 11.07.2013 by Sessions Judge, Lucknow.Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Lucknow vide order dated 14.03.2014 rejected the bail application : Criminal Misc.Case No. 25 of 2014 moved on behalf of Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.15, Lucknow vide order dated 11.05.2015 rejected the bail application No.1263 of 2015 moved on behalf of Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh.Bail Application moved by Anil Kumar Jain was rejected by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow vide order dated 07.10.2013 passed in Criminal Misc.Case No. 3052 of 2013 .Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no.2, Lucknow vide orders dated 25.07.2013 and 05.07.2014 rejected the bail applications, Criminal Misc.Case No. 2423 of 2013 and Criminal Misc.Case No. 1551 of 2014 moved on behalf of Ramzan.Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no.2, Lucknow vide order dated 06.11.2013 rejected the bail application, Criminal Misc.Case No. 3501 of 2013 moved on behalf of Zafar Arshad @ Babar.Bail Application moved by Junaid Arshad @ Chhotey was rejected by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow vide order dated 17.06.2013 passed in Criminal Misc.Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no.2, Lucknow vide order dated 08.01.2014 rejected the bail application Criminal Misc.Case No. 30 of 2014 moved on behalf of Ajay Pal Singh.Bail Application moved by Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma was rejected by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow vide order dated 07.09.2013 passed in Criminal Misc.Case No. 2812 of 2013 .Bail Application moved by Amit Pal Singh was rejected by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow vide order dated 25.09.2013 passed in Criminal Misc.This Court vide order dated 18.05.2016 granted bail to Amit Pal Singh.Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.07.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2017/ SLP (Crl.) No. 9251 of 2016 (State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs.Amit Pal Singh) has set aside the order dated 18.05.2016 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to pass orders expeditiously and preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of judgment.Mohd. Khalid Grounds and Arguments:This is first bail application moved on behalf of accused-applicant Mohd. Khalid.Learned Counsel for accused-applicant Mohd. Khalid has submitted that as per F.I.R./Recovery Memo dated 17.04.2013 accused-applicant was allegedly arrested with three pistols, firearm licenses, parts of firearm, amount of Rs. 1,32,000/-, train traveling ticket, arms sales receipt and car.No independent public witness was associated at the point of time of alleged recovery by Sri Tej Bahadur Singh, Inspector A.T.S. and his team.It is further submitted that another four accused persons has been named in the recovery memo, whereas only accused-applicant was arrested by the A.T.S. team, therefore, recovery memo has been prepared by A.T.S. ante-time, which makes the very genesis of prosecution story doubtful.A team was also sent at Kanpur on the basis of information given by the accused-applicant for arrest of other accused.The alleged recovered material was not produced before the Presiding Officer of the Court of A.C.J.M. VIIIth, Lucknow, therefore, entire prosecution story becomes fake and fabricated.It is further submitted that offences under Sections 121-A and 122 I.P.C. has been invoked on 12.06.2013 against the accused-applicant after 1 month and 24 days of his arrest on the basis of statement of N.I.A. Inspector Hridayanand Pandey.Case Crime No. 353 of 2008, under Sections 414, 120-B, 122 I.P.C. and 25/35 Arms Act and 07 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Gandhi Maidan, District Patna has been registered also against co-accused Sardar Gurcharan Singh and Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjai Singh.A.T.S. has not recovered single arm, allegedly sold to anti-nationals during the course of investigation, which could connect the applicant regarding the fact of misuse of arms, alleged to be sold by him.The handwriting expert reported that handwriting of accused was not matched with the hand writing available on records of M/s National Gun House.Likewise, expert opinion given by C.F.S.L. (C.B.I.), New Delhi regarding voice sample of accused applicant is based on assumptions only, no definite opinion was given in this report regarding conversation with co-accused Alvin D'SA.Co-accused Sardar Gurcharan Singh is Proprietor of M/s. National Gun House and he has stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he let out his shop to accused-applicant only to absolve himself.It is contended that no offence under Sections 120B I.P.C. Sections 420B, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 3/5/25/30 Arms Act is made out against the applicant.Likewise, Investigating Officer of A.T.S. has not forwarded the report to the State Government according to provision of Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, whereas according to definition of Scheduled Offences provided under Section 2 (f), the alleged offences should have been reported to the State Government according to this provision.A.T.S. in order to proceed with unfair investigation in this case and to implicate the applicant in false and fabricated offence has not forwarded the report to State Government in malicious manner.Therefore, the entire investigation conducted by A.T.S. in the present offence is absolutely without jurisdiction.It is mentioned that according to charge-sheet total number of prosecution witness are 58, out of which only statement of PW-1 is being in process of recording before trial Court.Learned A.G.A. has further relied upon CDR call details of the accused made with co-accused persons, which is collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.District Arms Officer has also sent verification report of arms licenses, on basis of which, arms and ammunition were sold.These were found fake arm licenses.Record of sale-purchase of duplicate/ improvised weapons was also relied upon by learned A.G.A., which was recovered by the Investigating Officer from National Gun House owned by co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh.Learned A.G.A. has also relied upon CFSL report regarding improvised firearms recovered from the possession of co-accused persons and accused-applicant and his connection with Naxalites through co-accused Mantoo Sharma, who was having contacts with Naxalites in Bihar and Jharkhand.The State filed SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court.On 18.07.2017 Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside order dated 18.05.2016 passed by this Court.This Court vide order dated 14.12.2016 has also rejected his bail application C.M.C. No. 6212 of 2016 for offence punishable under Section 2/3 Gangster Act.Likewise, this Court vide order dated 30.09.2013 passed in Criminal Misc.Case No. 4820 (B) of 2013 granted bail to co-accused Gurcharan Singh Bhalla, father of co-accused Amit Pal Singh.The State Government again preferred SLP No. 5193 of 2014 before Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 08.10.2014 bail granted to co-accused Gurcharan Singh Bhalla was cancelled by Hon'ble Supreme Court.Accused Kallu Sharma filed SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed with the observation that trial Court may conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that it is not a fit case for bail.It is mentioned by him that Mohd. Khalid co-accused is master mind and he was managing the National Gun House.He is supplier of illegal firearms after getting it manufactured with the help of co-accused persons.Co-accused Kallu Sharma is operator of EDM (Electronic Discharge Machine) and co-accused Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma is operator of surfacing and grinding machine.Co-accused Alvin Disa is smuggler of parts of foreign arms.Co-accused Amit Pal Singh is owner of Guru Ram Das Armoury.First Information Report of Case Crime No. 46 of 2013 under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station MoolGanj, District Kanpur against Junaid Arshad and Zaffar Arshad.It is mentioned by learned A.G.A. that trial Court vide order dated 07.11.2015 has observed that accused persons are not liable to be discharged and prima facie case is established on the basis of evidence available to frame the charge and to proceed for trial.Learned Trial Court has observed vide order dated 15.5.2015 that the accused persons are trying to delay the proceedings of the case and they are misusing the judicial process.Copy of orders dated 15.05.2015, 07.11.2015, 01.03.2016, 02.06.2016 and 13.10.2015 have been provided with supplementary counter affidavit dated 25.10.2017 filed in application of co-accused Amit Pal Singh.Recovery Memo dated 19.04.2013 has been relied upon.Thirteen accused persons have been arrested including the accused-applicant Mohd. Khalid, who are committing the present crime in a gang in an organized way.Pistol of bore 7.65 recovered on 24.4.2013 on pointing out of accused Khalid, which was recovered from house of Ramzan, co-accused was also found non-standard.Rifle No. 37830 of bore 30.06 recovered on 23.04.2013 from witness Ram Pal Singh was found improvised.Rifle No. 97932 of bore 30.06 recovered on 25.04.2013 from Ram Pal Singh (correct name Nirmal Verma) was also found improvised.He has also accepted that on 19.04.2013 he went with Gurcharan Singh at National Gun House, Latoush Road, Lucknow and in presence of City Magistrate search was made at National Gun House, Lucknow.Likewise, he has stated that entry of arms of .22 and .32 bore were also made in handwriting of Gurcharan Singh.In sale register of Guru Ram Das Armory entry of rifle no. 9440 and rifle no. 30657 converted bore 30.06 was made in hand writing of Amit Pal Singh.Rifle no. 6628 of 0.22 bore SBBL rifle converted bore 315 was sold and entry was made by Gurcharan Singh.He was came in contact with Mohd. Khalid on 13.04.2013 at Kishan Gun House.This duplicate pistol was sold to witness Ashish Mehrotra by Mohd. Khalid by deceitful means.On the basis of evidence provided to the Investigating Officer by the above mentioned witnesses, prima facie it reveal that Mohd. Khalid was operating National Gun House unauthorizedly, on instructions of co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh and he was also having contacts with Ajay Pal Singh owner of Kishan Gun House and Sri Anil Jain owner of Jain Brothers, Sirsa, Haryana.Fake entries of sale-purchase of fire arms were made illegally and were entered in the records of Guru Ram Das Armory, National Gun House, Kisan Gun House and M/s. Jain Brothers, Sirsa with help of accused Mohd. Khalid.There is no substance in the contention of accused Mohd. Khalid that District Magistrate, Lucknow has provided information to Investigating Officer of Gangster Act that accused Khalid was not partner or any way associated with National Gun House owned by Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh co-accused persons.Learned AGA has provided Annexure SCA-1, call details of Mobile No. 9807799858 and Mobile No. 9819954112 allegedly used by accused Mohd. Khalid and accused Alwyn Bounce Lecil D'isa.Call details dated 03.04.2013, 30.03.2013, 26.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 20.03.2013 are related to supply of arms, magazines, assembly and parts of fire arms, rifle, etc., and money to be deposited by accused Mohd. Khalid in account number of accused Alwyn Bounce Lecil D'isa.Reference of procurement of parts of fire arms from Canada and visit of accused Mohd. Khalid at Mumbai is apparent from the details of call made between accused Mohd. Khalid and Alwyn Bounce Lecil D'isa which was intercepted by Investigating Officer.Learned AGA has also relied upon the case diary dated 15.05.2013 in which details of conversation made by accused Mohd. Khalid with Alwyn Bounce Lecil D'sa on 20.11.2012, 02.01.2013, 03.01.2013, 05.01.2013, 20.01.2013, 26.03.2013, 30.03.2013 and 03.04.2013 has been mentioned by the Investigating Officer.Date of deposit Amount (in Rs.) 07.01.2013In Criminal Misc.Case No. 9654 (B) of 2015 : Anil Kumar Jain Vs.State of U.P. and others in para 26 of the counter affidavit it is contended that on 23.03.2010 accused Anil Kumar Jain deposited amount of Rs. 10,000/- in bank account No. 216227 of Central Bank of India of co-accused Alwyn D'sa for purchase of foreign arms parts.This amount was transferred/debited from his account no. 11155288159, which was at State Bank of India.In support of this contention, SCA-3, statement of Account of Anil Kumar Jain has been provided in which entry of debit of amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been shown on 23.03.2010 in favour of accused Alwyn D'sa.Charges were framed by the trial court against accused persons after disposal of their applications moved for their discharge.No contention was taken by the accused persons in their applications moved for their discharge that investigation was conducted by ATS illegally in violation of provisions of Section 6 of the NIA Act. During the course of hearing of discharge applications along with written arguments were submitted on 21.10.2015 before the trial court on behalf of accused Amit Pal Singh and Gurcharan Singh.Application dated 02.11.2015 submitted by co-accused Junaid Arshad @ Chhotey, Zafar Arshad @ Babar and Ramzan, application for discharge dated 03.11.2015 moved by accused Ajay Pal Singh, application for discharge dated 03.11.2015 moved by accused Harishchandra Pandey, application dated 31.10.2015 moved on behalf of accused Mohd. Khalid and application dated 03.11.2015 moved on behalf of accused Anil Kumar Jain, were also decided by the trial Court.In these applications none of the accused persons have contended that ATS conduced investigation in violation of provisions of Section 6 of NIA Act. Charges has been framed against the accused persons.Sanction for prosecution has been granted by Hon'ble Governor of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 17.07.2014 (SCA-33) filed along with the supplementary counter affidavit of bail application of accused Amit Pal Singh.The District Magistrate, Lucknow, vide order dated 06.09.2013 has granted sanction for prosecution under Section 25(1)(i)(b) of Arms Act against the accused persons.The District Magistrate has considered recovery of firearms and ammunition from the possession of each accused persons.The Investigating Officer has also recorded statement of Raju Gautam, who has provided his statement regarding the fact that co-accused Qurban, his brother Ramzan, Junaid Arshad @ Chhotey and Mohd. Khalid contacted him two-three times and on their instructions he prepared 20-30 blocks of pistol and revolver.Learned counsel for accused Amit Pal Singh and learned AGA have provided information that first charge sheet was submitted on 14.07.2013 against the accused Mohd. Khalid, Junaid Arshad @ Chhotey, Kallu Sharma, Alwyn Bounce Lecil D'sa and Sardar Gurcharan Singh under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 3/5/25/30 Arms Act. Second charge sheet was submitted on 03.10.2013 against the accused person Ramzan.Third charge sheet was submitted on 14.11.2013 against the accused Amit Pal Singh.Fourth charge sheet was submitted on 15.12.2013 against Zafar Arshad @ Babar and Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh.Fifth charge sheet was submitted on 12.03.2014 against Harishchandra Pandey and Ajay Pal Singh.Last charge sheet was submitted on 19.07.2014 and offences under Section 121A and 122 IPC were added in this charge sheet.Therefore, during the course of investigation, offences under Section 121-A and 122 were invoked against the accused persons on 19.07.2014 during the course of investigation after submission of five charge sheets before the court.In these circumstances, there is no substance in the arguments of learned counsels for accused Mohd. Khalid, Vimal Vishwakarma, Ramzan and Zafar Arshad @ Babar that ATS has conducted investigation against the accused persons in violation of provisions of Section 6 of NIA Act. Because trial court had taken cognizance from 14.07.2013 up to 12.03.2014 on the five charge sheets submitted by the Investigating Officer.(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;It is submitted by the learned accused that initially this crime was registered on 17.04.2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 3/5/25/30 of Arms Act at Police Station ATS, Lucknow against the accused persons Mohd. Khalid, Junaid Arshad @ Chhotey, Qurban, Ramzan, Babar @ Zafar Arshad.On the basis of statement of Shri Hridyanand Pandey, Inspector of NIA, Lucknow, accused was involved in this case on 20.05.2013 by the Investigating Officer whereas he was detained in jail from eight months ago.His bail applications are pending for about three years.On the basis of period of his detention for five years he should be released on bail in the interest of justice.Accused Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh moved applications personally on 28.01.2017 and on 04.01.2018, which are being considered along with his above mentioned two bail applications moved by his counsel.Learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the offences punishable under Section 121-A and 122 IPC has been added during the course of investigation.He has been involved on the basis of statement of witness Vijay Peter, who is employee of co-accused Gurcharan Singh, who is arm dealer.No credible evidence is available on record against the accused regarding alleged offences.The accused was released on bail vide order dated 29.10.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa.Learned AGA has submitted that Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against Zafar Arshad @ Babar and accused applicant Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh on 17.12.2013 and the Presiding Officer of the Court of ACJM-VIIIth has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 3/5/25/30 of Arms Act. During the course of investigation offence under Section 121-A and 122 IPC was invoked against the applicant.Crime No. 368 of 2012, Crime No. 353 of 2008 and Crime No. 421 of 2009 are related to Police Station Gandhi Maidan and Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar.Learned AGA has also argued that co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh are owner of Guru Ramdas Armory, Kanpur and National Gun House, Lotoush Road, Lucknow.Accused Mantoo Sharma had purchased rifles and cartridges, as informed by him to the Investigating Officer and stated by witness, Vijay Peter.I have perused recovery memo, this alleged recovery was made by police party of Shri Narain Singh of Police Station Gandhi Maidan, Patna.In para-17.20 and 17.21 of this charge sheet on the basis of statement of eye witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was found that accused Mantoo Sharma and Praphul Malakar had done deal of M16 rifle with Vikram Singh and Mantoo was engaged in illegal trade of arms and ammunitions and they used to supply the arms and ammunitions mostly to the banned organization CPI(Maoist).Voice sample of Mantoo Sharma, Praphul Malakar and Anil Kumar Yadav were also sent to CFSL for comparison of their voice by expert.Therefore, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against Mantoo Sharma for the offences punishable under Section 121, 121A, 414, 120-B IPC and 25 Arms Act and other offences.The evidence of eye witness is also mentioned in para-18.23 and 18.24 who witnessed the deal of M16 rifle which took place between Mantoo Sharma and Vikram Singh.This witness had seen Mantoo Sharma, while he supplied another rifle to naxals.The statement of some few other witnesses were recorded by Investigating Officer, who stated that Mantoo Sharma had been supplying weapons to CPI(Maoist) on regular interval.These witnesses mentioned in para-17.20, 17.21, 18.23 and 18.24 can be produced by the prosecution during the course of trial of this case also.Therefore, involvement of Mantoo Sharma for purchasing rifle and cartridges from accused Amit Pal Singh and Gurcharan Singh and supplying these arms to naxalites and members of CPI(Maoist), a banned terrorist organization is prima facie apparent.He was having contacts with Praphul Malakar and Anil Kumar Yadav, member of this organization.Hence, there is no substance in the arguments of learned counsel that there is no evidence available against him except the statement of Vijay Peter, employee of accused Amit Pal Singh and Gurcharan Singh.He purchased arms and ammunitions on fake and forged arm license and supplied it in naxalite affected areas of Bihar and Jharkhand.Prima facie his involvement in this crime is also apparent on the basis of evidence collected by Investigating Officer against him.Elwyn Bruce Lecil D'sa Grounds and Arguments:-Learned counsel for applicant-accused Elwyin Bruce Lecil D'sa has submitted that this is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant.Therefore, first bail application of the accused has not been decided on merits.This case was initially registered on the basis of alleged recovery made on 17.04.2013 from the possession of Mohd. Khalid.It is submitted that applicant is old, sick and infirm person, aged about 80 years.He has already been undergone open heart surgery.He is suffering from severe neurology problem.The applicant has already in jail for a considerable long time.The applicant is suffering from severe cardiac problem and as such he was advised to undergo cardiac operation at the cardiac department of the KGMU.He was not admitted even after directions issued by the trial court.The applicant is unable to move properly.His condition may deteriorate for want of proper treatment.The articles recovered by the Investigating Officer on 30.04.2013 from the house of accused Alwin D'sa son of Walter Joseph D'sa prima facie substantiates prosecution version that he was involved in illegally importing the parts of foreign arms from Singapore and Canada, which were sold to National Gun House through co-accused Mohd. Khalid.The bank statements of Account No. 1128022105 were provided by Senior Managar of Central Bank of India, Nakhas Branch, Lucknow vide letter dated 10.05.2013 and Assistant Manager of Central Bank of India, Ameenabad Branch, Lucknow to the Investigating Officer.The details of deposition of amount by co-accused Mohd. Khalid was corroborated by the call details intercepted by the Investigating Officer.The Investigating Officer has also collected deposits slips from the Nakhas and Ameenabad branch.The amount mentioned in it were deposited in Account No. 1128022105 of accused Alwin D'sa and Account No. 1127837222 of Smt. Emiliya, who is wife of this accused.Likewise, accused Alwin D'sa traveled to Singapore and Canada, according to travel details mentioned in his Passport.Therefore, prima facie it is apparent that accused Alwin D'sa supplied parts of foreign firearms to Mohd. Khalid, which were used by Mohd. Khalid and co-accused persons for manufacturing duplicate and improvised foreign firearms.These firearms were sold by Amit Pal Singh, co-accused Gurcharan Singh, Anil Kumar Jain, Ajay Pal Singh to innocent license holders, anti social elements and through accused Mantoo Sharma, firearms and ammunitions were supplied to members of CPI (Maoist)/ naxalites of Bihar and Jharkhand.I have perused Annexure-CA-5 (paper No.34 up to 48) and details of deposition slips collected by Investigating Officer.The details of comparison of statement of these accounts, deposit slips and telephonic conversations of the accused with the co-accused Mohd. Khalid has been discussed on the proper place by me, while evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the co-accused Mohd. Khalid was appreciated.In supplementary counter affidavit it is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court, while cancelling the bail of co-accused Gurcharan Singh vide order dated 08.10.2014, was pleased to observe that it is not a fit case for enlarging the co-accused Gurcharan Singh on bail at this stage.It is mentioned in para-7 that the trial proceedings are being delayed on behalf of the accused persons and the learned trial court in its different orders has been pleased to observe that accused persons are causing delay in proceedings.It is submitted in para-13 that the accused had undergone for certain period of incarceration by itself would not entitle to the accused to be enlarged on bail, specifically when the accused stands charged offences of punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty.In para-15 it is mentioned that accused Junaid Arshad @ Chhotey and Zafar Arshad @ Babar have been named in the FIR of Crime No. 46 of 2013 under Sections 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Moolganj, District Kanpur for giving threats to witnesses.Witness Raju Gautam has apprised the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation that threats were given to him by Gurcharan Singh, co-accused, on behalf of himself and Mohd. Khalid.These facts clearly indicate that accused persons tried to tamper with evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Learned trial court, vide different orders passed on 15.05.2015 has rejected the application moved on behalf of accused Anil Kumar Jain, Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma @ Kallu, Ajay Pal Singh, Amit Pal Singh, Kalloo Sharma and Mohd. Khalid.These applications were moved on behalf of these accused persons for providing copy of documents under Sections 207, 208 Cr.P.C.The application of accused Mohd. Khalid was disposed of by the trial court vide order dated 01.03.2016 for inspection of documents and to append admission/ denial note according to provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C.It was found by the trial court vide order dated 07.11.2015 that on the basis of evidence available on record there is sufficient ground to frame charges against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B 121-A, 122 IPC and Sections 3/5/25/30 Arms Act. It was observed by the trial court that accused Mohd. Khalid did not admit or deny genuineness of the documents inspected by him according to provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C. Application was moved by accused Mohd. Khalid for the purpose to delay the proceedings of trial.130. P.W.1, witness Tejbahadur Singh, whose statement was recorded on 02.03.2016, was present before the trial court.Vide order dated 02.06.2016 opportunity of cross-examination of accused persons Kallu Sharma, Vimal Kumar Jain, Alwyn Bruce Lecil D'sa and Mantoo Sharma was closed by the trial court.Raju Gautam, witness, provided application to Incharge, ATS, Lucknow regarding threat given to him by Gurcharan Singh on 02.01.2014 at about 1:00-2:00 p.m. It is mentioned in this complaint that Gurcharan Singh asked this witness that he is adducing evidence against him and Mohd. Khalid.He should not adduce evidence against them.He offered amount of Rs.50,000/- to one one lakh to him.In these circumstances, it is not a fit case to grant bail to accused Alwyn Bruce Lecil D'sa.Junaid Arshad alias Chotey:Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma:Grounds and Arguments of Junaid Arshad:-This is second bail application moved on behalf of applicant.The first bail application bearing Crl.Case No. 6185 (B) of 2013 was rejected as not pressed vide order dated 31.7.2014, therefore, first bail application was not decided on merits.It is submitted on behalf of applicant- Junaid Arshad alias Chotey that the applicant is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged by the prosecution.It is further submitted that as per prosecution version, Crime No. 1 of 2013 was registered on the basis of recovery of certain incriminating articles from the possession of co-accused Mohd. Khalid.On the basis of confessional statement made by him, name of the present applicant came into light.The alleged incriminating material was not recovered from his possession.One sketch of pistol on piece of paper was recovered from right pocket of trouser of the applicant and incomplete frame of pistol was recovered from right side pocket.The applicant was implicated in this crime only on the basis of statement of co-accused Mohd. Khalid.The prosecution has not collected cogent evidence against him.The prosecution has relied upon certain call details collected by the Investigating Officer that accused persons were telephonically in touch with each other.There is no evidence available against the accused applicant for offence punishable under Section 121-A and 122 I.P.C. The investigating agency has relied upon the statement of co-accused Mantu Sharma recorded on 18.6.2013 that he supplied weapons to certain anti-national nexalite groups.Co-accused Mantu Sharma has not named him in his statement.The prosecution has failed to collect any evidence against the applicant.The applicant has not indulged in any illegal sales of arms and ammunitions, which could attract the provisions of waging war against the State.The applicant has no criminal antecedent.The applicant will cooperate with investigating agency.The applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in this crime.Grounds of Vimal Kumar VishwakarmaLearned counsel for applicant Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma has submitted that recovery memo dated 18.4.2013 is false and fabricated.Other grounds has been taken same as averred by co-accused Junaid Arshad.Arguments of A.G.A.These arms were further supplied by him to co-accused Gurcharan Singh, Anil Jain, Ajay Pal Singh and Amit Pal Singh, which were sold to co-accused Mantu Sharma and other anti-social elements and nexalites in Bihar and Jharkhand.The Investigating Officer has collected evidence of witnesses, the details of which has been discussed by this Court in proper place.Prima facie, involvement of present applicant Junaid Arshad alias Chotey and his brother Zafar Arshad alias Babar is apparent.In Case Crime No. 46 of 2013, under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Moolganj, District Kanpur, FIR has been registered against them regarding extending threats to public witnesses.Another Case Crime No. 4 of 2013, under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act, Police Station ATS, U.P. Lucknow has been registered against him.It has been mentioned in the grounds of bail of applicants, namely, Zafar Arshad alias Babar, Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma and Ramjan that Case Crime No. 1 of 2013 was registered on the basis of alleged illegal recovery made from the possession of co-accused Mohd. Khalid.Ten persons were disclosed by Mohd. Khalid, whereas only five persons were named in the F.I.R. Constable Santosh Singh was on casual leave for three days, i.e., 14.4.2013 upto 18.4.2013, even then he has been shown as member of the ATS team, therefore, arrest of Mohd. Khalid on 17.4.2013 is false and fabricated.It is further mentioned that on 15.12.2013, charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer and supplementary charge sheet has been filed on 19.7.2014 for offence punishable under Sections 121-A and 122 I.P.C.It is also contended that according to CFSL report dated 09.10.2014 relating to examination of pistol Sl.No. 67124 which was found only non standard, therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.No offence has been made out against applicant Zafar Arshad alias Babar as per prosecution case.He collected raw-material, iron pipe, spring body, frame for manufacturing illegal foreign make firearms, to get the arms prepared from co-accused Kallu Sharma and Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma.Thereafter got the number printed on these arms by Pawan Pantographer.He has also informed the police party that he supplied 100 arms to co-accused Mohd. Khalid.Junaid Arshad alias Chotey and Zafar Arshad alias Babar were in close contact with co-accused Mohd. Khalid for this purpose.Grounds and Arguments:-He was arrested in front of Petrol Pump of Deepak Kumar within the limits of Police Station Ghanghata, District Unnao.The investigating agency has falsely implicated him in this crime.The applicant Ramjan has never made any confessional statement before any authority.He removed articles from National Gun House, Lucknow and handed over semi manufactured foreign fabricated pistol, its parts, tracing papers, diagram and pistol parts to Khurram.Khurram was brother-in-law of Mohd. Khalid.Some articles were handed over to Zafar Arshad alias Babar and Qurban at Kanpur and remaining articles recovered from his possession was kept by him.Applicant Ramzan was arrested at 20:35 hours by police party.The investigating officer has collected CDR call details of his conversations with co-accused Mohd. Khalid, i.e., 200 calls, 300 calls with Junaid Arshad alias Chhotey and Zafar Arshad alias Babar, 50 calls with Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma, 300 calls with Qurban, 20 calls with Pawan Pantographer, six calls to Raju Blockwala, who used to make blocks for them.On perusal of CDR call details, it reveal that accused Ramjan was in close contact with other accused persons and was facilitating manufacturing of duplicate foreign arms and worked at National Gun House along with Qurban, his brother on the instructions of Mohd. Khalid.Therefore, I find aforesaid bail applications bearing Crl.In counter affidavit filed in bail applications of applicants, Zafar Arshad alias Babar, Mohd. Khalid and Vimal Vishwakarma, Investigating Officer has contended that two persons, namely, Santosh Singh are posted at ATS, Headquarter and one of them is Head Constable, who was on casual leave, while Constable Santosh is commando of ATS force and he was not on leave and was one of the member of raid party.Therefore, contentions made by these accused applicants in this regard is misconceived.Likewise, learned counsel for applicant Mohd. Khalid has vehemently aruged that CFSL report sent by Forensic Science Laboratory, Mahanagar, Lucknow was suppressed by ATS agency and false affidavits were filed in this regard.I have perused report dated 3.2.2015 sent by the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory.The handwriting of Mohd. Khalid and Allwyn Bruce Lecil D'sa were compared by handwriting expert.This report was sent by the Director directly to the court concerned.The Presiding Office of court of ACJM-VIII, passed an order on 26.9.2016 that "report be perused by the Investigating Officer and be kept along with case diary".There is no substance in argument of learned counsel for applicant-Mohd.Khalid that this report was ever suppressed by the Investigating Officer.On appreciation of evidence collected by Investigating Officer, it reveal that Qurban (absconded) and Ramzan, who are real brothers also, are the active members of the said gang, which is involved in anti-national activities.Learned AGA has submitted that there is other evidence available against accused Mohd. Khalid.The expert opinion is not the only evidence.This fact has been contended by Investigating Officer in supplementary counter affidavit.Amit Pal Singh Ajay Pal Singh Anil Kumar Jain Grounds and Arguments on behalf of Accused Amit Pal Singh:-Accused Amit Pal Singh has pleaded in grounds of bail that co-accused Mohd. Khalid was arrested by the police party of Tej Bahadur Singh, Inspector, ATS, U.P., Lucknow.Accused is not named in the FIR.Alleged recovery from the possession of co-accused Mohd. Khalid is false, fabricated and unfounded.Initially this FIR was lodged against Mohd. Khalid, Junaid Arshad @ Chhotey, Qurban, Ramzan and Zafar Arshad @ Babar.Afterward applicant and his father were made accused on the basis of statements of co-accused Mohd. Khalid.Offences under Section 121-A and 122 IPC has been added during the course of investigation.The applicant has been implicated solely for the reason that he happens to be the license holder of Guru Ram Das Armory.No role has been attributed to him in the commission of offence.His father, co-accused Gurcharan Singh cooperated with the ATS officials.On 19.04.2013 he was present at his shop.He was undergoing regularly post operation care and checkups.For this reason, the applicant could not run and maintain the shop and had to rely on others for running of his shop.There is absolutely no evidence that applicant had dishonestly and illegally sold weapons to the Maoists or to any other anti social elements.There is neither any evidence against the applicant to the effect that applicant was beneficiary of any sale transaction involving forged and fabricated weapons nor works as a gang with the other co-accused persons.Applicant has no concern with the alleged making of fake pistols and its sale thereafter.Applicant is still under continuous treatment of competent doctors.Accused-applicant was arrested on 02.09.2013 and he is detained in jail since then.There is no chance of applicant's absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.Accused Amit Pal Singh moved this first bail application No. 7488 of 2013 which was allowed vide order dated 18.05.2016 passed by this Court.Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 18.07.2017 has observed as under:-Having gone through the impugned order passed by the High Court and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, we are of the view that the matter needs a fresh look by the High Court in the light of the affidavit extracted above.Accordingly, without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the impugned order passed by the High Court, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in the light of the affidavit extracted above.Needless to say that the parties will be free to raise all available contentions before the High Court.We request the High Court to pass orders expeditiously and preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment."On the basis of the order dated 08.05.2017 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, State filed affidavit dated 13.07.2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.Paragraphs-4 to 9 of the said affidavit read as under:That in compliance of the aforementioned order it is submitted that regarding the conduct of the accused Respondent/ Amit Pal Singh it is stated that Respondent Amit Pal Singh is a licensee of shop Gur Ramdas Armoury.Further it is stated that even in stock registers it has not been mentioned that for which State license has been issued by licensing authorities to whom fire arms have been sold.The record of sale of arms of Guru Ram Das Armoury, Kanpur further reveals that many weapones have veen shown to be sold in the naxalite affected States like Jharkhand, Bihar and Udhampur under Jammu and Kashmir State and when enquiry was made by the Investigating Officer of case regarding verification of licenses as many as 26 Arm licenses were not found in existence upon which weapons have been shown to be sold.It is further pertinent to mention to state herein that in the year 2008 co-accused Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh along with 06 naxalite were arrested at Gandhi Maidan by the police personnel of Police Station - Gandhi Maidan Patna, Bihar and during the search and seizure 03 rifles along with vehicle and cash were recovered from tjhe possession of co-accused Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh who was going to sell these rifles to the naxalites and in his admission he has admitted that all these rifles were purchased by him from Guru Ram Das Armoury, Meston Road, Kanpur, which belongs to present accused & also that he is an absconder from Army.That further the records of Guru Ram Das Armoury further reveals that accused was also involved in purchasing useless fire arms from Bombay and Kanpur and later on these so purchased useless fire arms have been re-assembled with the addition of foreign fire arm parts and after chaning the respective bore of these fire arms the entry of these fire arms have been in stock registers of Guru Ram Das Armoury and later on these fire arms after change of their respective bores have been sold to innocent license holders as well anti social elements and some of which were recovered by the Investigating Agency form the innocent purchasers.The report of CFSL, CBI, New Delhi reveals that all these weapons were improvised.Therefore, it is most humbly submitted that Respondent herein has grave nexus with other accused persons and are in accomplice in providing illegal weapons to the Naxalites and hence in view of such circumstances the bail granted to the Respondent herein ought to be cancelled.It is further pertinent to state herein that accused/applicant was arrested by the Investigating Agency after finding his involvement in the present case however, later on the accused/applicant along with other co-accused persons have moved more than 40 applications on different dates just to avoid framing of charge and it is only on date charge has been framed against accused/applicant and other co-accused persons.It is pertinent to mention here that accused was also facing trial under special provision u/s 2/3 U.P. Ganster Act in Case Crime No. 4/2013, wherein the Respondent herein has preferred a bail application no. 6122 of 2016, which has already been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow on 14.12.2016 & hence the accused is still in jail (Annexed as Annexure-12 of Additional Documents).It is further pertinent to mention here that in the present case this Hon'ble Court vide its Order dated 8.10.2014 was pleased to cancel the Bail of one of the co-accused person i.e. Gurcharan Singh who also happens to be the father of the Respondent herein (annexed as Annexure A-2 of Additional Document.)It is humbly submitted that the trial is going on in speedy manner on day to day basis and the same may be concluded within 6 months.Further it is stated that there are 13 accused persons and they are unreasonably delaying the trial.It is submitted that Respondent/accused and other co-accused persons are themselves responsible in delaying the trial."On the basis of above mentioned order dated 18.07.2017, it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused-applicant Amit Pal Singh that this Court is bound to consider the facts narrated in the affidavit dated 13.07.2017 filed by the State and in light of previous bail order dated 18.05.2016 passed by this Court.Because no further new fact has been argued on behalf of State regarding availability of evidence against the accused-applicant.Statement of Vijay Peter, witness, and recovery from the co-accused Mantoo Sharma was considered by this Court earlier.It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for accused-applicant that verification of alleged 26 arms licenses was sent by the State authorities with wrong particulars/ number of arm licenses and no physical verification was made by the Investigating Officer.On the other hand, learned trial court has observed against the said fact vide order dated 02.05.2015 passed in Session Trial No. 1169 of 2014, State Vs.Khalid and others, that "conduct of ADGC and ATS is objectionable.Trial was to be conducted expeditiously.They are negligent and killing the precious time of the trial court.They are reluctant to cooperate the proceedings of trial, therefore, I.G., ATS was informed for necessary action".It is further submitted by the learned counsel that on the next day transfer application was moved against the Presiding Officer of the court on behalf of State.In the meanwhile different applications, forty in numbers, as alleged in affidavit filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court, were moved on behalf of the accused persons which were moved only with intention to delay the proceedings of this trial.Now, through supplementary counter affidavit, learned AGA has relied upon the applications (Annexure-S.A.1) dated 28.02.2015 moved by accused Kallu Sharma, application dated 01.04.2015 moved by accused Gurcharan Singh, application dated 01.04.2015 moved on behalf of Amit Pal Singh, application dated 08.04.2015 moved on behalf of accused Ajay Pal Singh, for providing copy of documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On 14.04.2015, Inspector, ATS, Lucknow, informed the trial court that photocopy of all the relevant documents relied upon by the prosecution annexed with the case diary has been provided to accused persons.Trial court vide order dated 15.05.2015 has rejected the applications moved on behalf of Amit Pal Singh, Mohd. Khalid, Anil Kumar Jain, Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma and Kallu, which was moved for providing copies of documents under Section 207/208 Cr.P.C.After perusing the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, trial court vide order dated 07.11.2015 has found that there is sufficient ground to proceed and frame the charges against the accused persons under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 121-A, 122 IPC and Section 3/5/25/30 Arms Act. Vide order dated 01.03.2016 accused Mohd. Khalid was permitted to inspect the documents relied upon by the prosecution.Vide order dated 02.06.2016, opportunity for cross-examination of P.W.1, Tej Bahadur was closed for accused persons Kallu Sharma, Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma @ Kallu, Anil Kumar Jain and Mantoo Sharma.The discharge application moved on behalf of accused Gurcharan Singh was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2015 relating to the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Gangster Act and it was found that there is sufficient ground to proceed and frame charge for this offence against him.Learned trial court has specifically observed in these orders that accused persons are misusing judicial process and applications were moved by them only to delay the proceedings of the trial.Therefore, there is substance in the averments made before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the affidavit dated 13.07.2017 in para-7 that more than 40 applications on different dates were moved by the accused persons just to avoid framing of charge.There is no averment in para-7 on behalf of State that these applications were adjournment applications as argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused-applicant.As far as the averment made in para-5 of the affidavit dated 13.07.2017 that 26 arms licenses were not found in existence upon which weapons have to be sold by accused Amit Pal Singh and Gurcharan Singh.Learned AGA has relied upon Annexure-2 which was also filed as SCA-25, details of 26 persons has been provided.Although license no.49/90 has been mentioned in list (Annexure-2) but correct no.48/90 has been shown in letter dated 18.11.2013 sent by District Arms Officer, Patna, which was also not issued.Arm license of Sunil Kumar Singh of Begusarai was not verified to be issued by District Magistrate, Begusarai.Regarding arm license of Santosh Kumar Singh it was reported by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur Aara that arm license was not issued in his favour.Arm license of Birbal Singh of Kaimur(Bhabhua) was not issued by District Arms Officer, Kaimur (Bhabhua).Arm license of Ram Shankar Singh was not issued from District Arms Officer of Buxar, Bihar.Likewise, license of Vishwajeet Kumar Singh of pistol 0.32 bore was not issued by this office.License No.68/2002 of Captain Vijay Kumar Singh was not issued by the office of District Arms Officer, Nalanda.Likewise, license of Ejaz Ahmad was not issued by this office.Arm license of Gupteshwar Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Bindhyachal Singh and Vikash Kumar were not issued by the office of Arms Officer, Bhojpur.Arm license of Nand Kishore Sharma license no. 149/87 and of Kamlesh Singh license no.1387/02 were not issued from the office of District Arms Officer, Jahanabad.Arm licenses of Uday Prasad, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Kalika Sharma were not issued by the District Arms Officer, Vaishali, Bihar.Vide letter dated 03.12.2013 this fact was informed to Deputy Superintendent of Police, ATS Headquarter, Uttar Pradesh.District Arms Officer, Muzaffarpur, vide letter dated 13.11.2013 has reported to Deputy Superintendent of Police, ATS Headquarter, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow that arms license of Krishna Bhushan Kumar which was mentioned at Serial No.1 of arms register was issued in his favour, whereas arm license mentioned at Serial No.2 was not issued in his favour.Specific report about license no.2014/88 of rifle of 315 bore has not been mentioned in letter dated 13.11.2013 or list annexed with it.On perusal of details provided by State regarding verification of 26 arms license it reveals that these licenses were not issued by the concerned District Arms Officers.These were found fake and fabricated, therefore, averments made on behalf of State in para-5 of the affidavit dated 13.07.2013 is not found by me incorrect.26 arms licenses on which accused Amit Pal Singh and his father Gurucharan Singh sold arms, were found fictitious and fabricated.Learned Counsel for the accused Amit Pal Singh has also argued that according to license issued to Arms Dealer (Form-XI), its condition 'b' provides, "This license entitles the licensee to fabricate components and parts of firearms and ammunition for the purpose of repair or conversion or report of ammunition of categories shown in Column 4, but does not entitle him to manufacture such components or parts for the purpose of, or utilised for, assembling into complete arms or ammunition".It is relevant to mention here that licence issued in favour of accused Amit Pal Singh or his father co-accused Gurcharan Singh for operating Guru Ram Das Armary, Kanpur and National Gun House, Latoush Road, Lucknow has not been provided by the accused persons.Therefore, it is not clear for which purpose licence was issued to the accused persons.On the basis of evidence collected by Investigating Officer, it reveal that co-accused Khalid was looking after work at National Gun House, Latoush Road, Lucknow on the instructions of co-accused Amit Pal Singh and his father Gurcharan Singh and he used parts of foreign arms supplied by co-accused Alwin Disa to him for converting bore of rifle, pistol and revolver through co-accused persons Junaid Arshad, Jafar Arshad @ Babar, Kallu Sharma and Vimal Vishwakarma.These firearms were found improvised and non-standard, according to CFSL report, details of which has been mentioned at proper place by me.Therefore, Form-XI does not support in any way to the accused Amit Pal Singh.Likewise, there is no substance in argument of learned Counsel for accused Amit Pal Singh that he was obliged to sale firearms on licences issued by competent authority to any person, if he wants to purchase arms from the accused, even if arms licence was issued by the competent authority of other State.District Magistrate cannot impose ban on sale of arms on the basis of license issued by competent authority of another State.Prima facie 26 licenses on basis of which arms were sold by accused Amit Pal Singh and his father co-accused Gurcharan Singh were found fake and fictitious.It is not pleaded in the application for bail that the accused applicant Amit Pal Singh or his father ever tried to verify these arms licenses, whether these were genuine or fictitious, after sale of arms on these licenses.Therefore, arguments put forth by learned Counsel does not in any way help to the accused.Accused persons had moved application under Sections 294 and 227 Cr.P.C. during the course of trial.These are application dated 23.05.2015 of accused Mohd. Khalid, application dated 23.05.2015 moved on behalf of Harishchandra Pandey.Two applications dated 01.06.2015 moved on behalf of Amit Pal Singh and Gurcharan Singh.Objection dated 31.10.2015 was filed by accused persons Amit Pal Singh and Gurcharan Singh against the CFSL report.Discharge application dated 02.11.2015 was moved on behalf of Junaid Arshad @ Babar, Zafar Arshad @ Babar and Ramzan.Discharge application dated 03.10.2015 was moved on behalf of accused Mohd. Khalid.Discharge application dated 03.11.2015 was moved on behalf of accused Anil Kumar Jain.These all applications have been rejected by the trial court and it was observed that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the trial and to frame charges against the accused persons.As far as the averments made in para-4 of the affidavit, details of arm licenses on which Amit Pal Singh and his father, co-accused Gurcharan Singh sold fire arm from their Guru Ramdas Armory, Kanpur and National Gun House, Lucknow, has not been mentioned in the stock register that these arm licenses were issued for which State.This fact has not been controverted by the accused Amit Pal Singh and his father Gurcharan Singh at the stage of framing charge against them.This fact is based on defence of the accused persons that particulars of arm licenses were mentioned by them in stock registers maintained at their Guru Ramdas Armoury and National Gun House, Latoush Road, Lucknow.Prima facie the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer has been discussed by me at the proper place, while I considered the bail applications of accused Mohd. Khalid and Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh.Accused Amit Pal Singh, his father co-accused Gurcharan Singh, co-accused Ajay Pal Singh and Anil Kumar Jain sold these improvised and duplicate arms to innocent license holders and also to anti social elements.All the accused persons had participated in this crime in consultation with each other.Call details collected by Investigating Officer confirms this fact.Therefore, averments made in para-6 of the affidavit dated 13.07.2017 also corroborated by the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and CFSL report received by him.The firearms recovered from the possession of accused persons, the details of which has been mentioned by me at the proper place, these were found improvised and non standard.All the accused persons committed this crime by facilitating each other and under conspiracy to supply these arms through Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh who was having contacts with Praphul Malakar, Anil Yadav and Vijay Singh, who were members of CPI(Maoist), a terrorist organization.Investigating Officer has recorded statement of witness Awdesh Kumar Mishra, who has apprised the Investigating Officer that he sold Revolver No. 40552 on 19.10.2012 to Singh Armory Kanpur Nagar.Owner of Jai Jawan Gun House brought him at Guru Ram Das Armory, Kanpur for purchase of pistol.Owner of this Armory told him that this pistol was used by Shooter Abhinav Bindra.There is total 07 pistols of this kind.He has also informed the Investigating Officer that owner of Guru Ram Das Armory sold this pistol to him for amount of Rs. 6 lacs, but receipts for amount of Rs. 22,000/- was provided to him.Owner of Guru Ram Das Armory sold this pistol to him by deceitful means.In Repair Register of National Gun House, Sajid deposited his pistol No. 143032 CZ Czechoslovakia for repair at National Gun House.This pistol was released to Sajid by making entry of No. 053775 CZ Czechoslovakia.Witness Awdhesh Kumar Mishra was present on the date of inspection of stock, sale and repair register of National Gun House.Pistol no. 053775 was found improvised.This witness purchased this pistol predicting it foreign firearm.Investigating Officer has also recorded statement of Javed Saeed son of Mohd. Saeed, who has apprised the Investigating Officer that Rifle no. 30657 of bore 30.06 was sold by Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh, who were owner of Guru Ram Das Armory, Western Road, Kanpur to him by stating that rifle is of good quality.He has no knowledge in which circumstances, its bore was converted.Witness Ubaid son of Jan Alam has apprised the Investigating Officer that that he is owner of Alam Arms Company, Beconganj, Kanpur.He purchased Rifle No. 9440 of bore 30.06 on 13.09.2011 from Amit Pal Singh, owner of Guru Ram Das Armoury, Western Road, Kanpur.He sold this rifle to Mohd. Tauseef son of Mohd. Raees on 15.09.2011 and Mohd. Tauseef returned this rifle to him and purchased another rifle from this witness.This witness returned rifle to Amit Pal Singh, owner of Guru Ram Das Armoury.Witness Zainul Abdeen son of Mohd. Ismail also apprised the Investigating Officer on 04.06.2011 that Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh contacted him to sale English rifle No. 6628 of 315 bore.He further sold it on 06.06.2011 to his brother.His bail application deserves to be rejected..... Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued the application on merits and has raised two contentions.Firstly, that the applicant has been in jail for about 8 months; secondly, that all the remaining co-accused have been enlarged on bail.Both these contentions have no force.The accused is charged with a heinous offence.Before her death, as would appear on a perusal of the F.I.R. the deceased had made a statement to her father and mother that it was the accused who had poured kerosene upon her and had set her on fire.On the other hand, accused Junaid Arshad and his brother Zafar Arshad @ Babar and co-accused Gurcharan Singh for himself and for Mohd. Khalid had threatened Raju Gautam and other public witnesses.It is relevant to mention here that Anil Kumar Jain, Proprietor of M/s Anil Brothers, Sirsa introduced Mohd. Khaild accused to Shivanand Shetty and co-accused Alwyn Bruce Lecil D'sa.Both these accused persons supplied parts of foreign arms procured from Singapore and Canada.Mohd. Khalid procured, manufactured duplicate and improvised firearms by using parts of foreign arms through co-accused Junaid Arshad @ Chhotey, Zafar Arshad @ Babar and Vimal Kumar Vishwakarma and Kallu.Co-accused Ramzan and his brother co-accused Qurban performed work of finishing, polishing and assembling at National Gun House at Latoush Road, Lucknow, which was unauthorizedly operated by accused Mohd. Khalid on instructions of accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh.Nirmal Kumar Verma has also proved this fact that rifle recovered from his possession was purchased by him from Kisan Gun House, Latoush Road, Lucknow which was improvised.Accused Khalid introduced this witness to accused Ajay Pal Singh, owner of Kisan Gun House.Therefore, prima facie it reveal that both accused Ajay Pal Singh and Anil Kumar Jain are involved in this crime intentionally under conspiracy and to facilitate the accused Mohd. Khalid, Amit Pal Singh and his father co-accused Gurcharan Singh.The witnesses Awdhesh Kumar Mishara, Javed, Ubaid and Zainul Abideen have disclosed involvement of Amit Pal Singh and his father co-accused Gurcharan Singh, owner of National Gun House, Lucknow and Guru Ram Das Armory.Kanpur for selling duplicate foreign firearms by them.Witnesses Vijay Peter, Parvez Khan and Ashish Mehrotra have disclosed his involvement for supply of duplicate/ improvised foreign arms to innocent licensees, anti-social elements and naxalites through Mohd. Khalid and Mantoo Sharma.Ajay Pal SinghAccused Ajay Pal Singh has pleaded same grounds as of the other co-accused Amit Pal Singh.Even then the records of shop were duly provided to ATS by Harish Chandra Pandey whenever they were called for.If the fire arms sold by M/s. Kisan Gun House are purported to be illegal, then why they have not been seized by the ATS, when the respective buyers showed the arms and other documentation pertaining to the same to the ATS.The Investigating Agency on 17.07.2013 called for and received all the relevant documents of M/s. Kisan Gun House.It is also submitted that the applicant has not given any statement to the police, but the police has falsely have recorded the same.He obtained power of attorney and looked after the work of Rajdhani Arms House, Nahar, Lagan.He contacted various arm dealers including Kisan Gun House at Lucknow and purchased pistols, rifles and cartridges.Ajay Pal Singh was owner and Harish Chandra Pandey who was salesman was dealing with him.He stated about Receipt No. 004700516832129 issued by Ajay Pal Singh from the receipt book of Kisan Gun House.Nirmal Kumar Verma, witness has purchased rifle No. 97932 from Kisan Gun House made in Germany which was found improvised.Likewise, Mohammad Zaman also purchased pistol No. 80434 of 32 bore Lama Spain from Kisan Gun House.Co-accused Khalid was present with Harish Chandra Pandey on 28.05.2012 at Kisan Gun House.This pistol, bore 7.65 mm No. 80434 was found non standard fire arm according to CFSL report.It is contended in para-26 to 30 of the counter affidavit that in presence of the accused applicant assembled fictitious pistol and rifle was recovered from Kisan Gun House on the pointing out of co-accused Harish Chandra Pandey.One assembled pistol and one semi assembled pistol was recovered from the house of the accused applicant.A reference of cancellation of bail of accused Gurucharan Singh has also been mentioned.It is mentioned in para-28 that applicant accused Ajay Pal Singh along with other accused persons have involved himself in anti social activities, in as much as he is collecting fictitious fire arms in his gun shop, have been transferred from one gun shop to another and lastly to anti social activities.Ajay Pal Singh and Harish Chandra Pandey is looking after the shop Kisan Gun House of which Smt. Jarjina Singh is licensee who is housewife and mother of Ajay Pal Singh.Statements of witnesses Vijay Peter, Parvez and Ashish Mehrotra are also available against these accused persons as discussed at proper place by me.Witness Nirmal Kumar Verma and Vijay Peter have disclosed involvement of Ajay Pal Singh, being owner of Kisan Gun House, Lucknow for selling foreign duplicate firearms by him.Anil Kumar Jain:-Grounds and Arguments:-This is second bail application moved on behalf of accused-applicant Anil Kumar Jain.First bail application No. 3887 (B) of 2014 was not pressed on 31.07.2014, therefore, it was not disposed of on merits.This accused has pleaded same grounds as averred by co-accused Amit Pal Singh.It is submitted that he was not named in the F.I.R., which was registered at A.T.S. on the basis of alleged recovery dated 17.04.2013 from the possession of Mohd. Khalid.Offences under Sections 121A and 122 I.P.C. has been subsequently added during the course of investigation.No recovery as alleged in entire F.I.R. of Crime No. 01/2013 took place and the entire F.I.R. is false and fabricated.The Investigating Officer has recorded statement of Virendra Singh son of Inder Singh, resident of Sahanpur, Police Station Safindo, District Jind, Haryana.It was found that on 18.08.2011 Rifle No. 5551457 of NPB 30 Bore was purchased from M/s. Jain Brothers.Anil Kumar Jain deposited on 22.03.2010 amount of Rs. 10,000/- in his account of State Bank of India, Mandi Dabwali, Chautala Road (Haryana), which was debited on 23.3.2010 in favour of accused Allwyn D'sa in his bank account No. 216227 of Central Bank of India.Witnesses Vijay Peter, Ramlal Singh and Virendra Singh, C.D.R. call details of accused persons and deposition of money in the account of co-accused Alwyn D'sa discloses involvement of Anil Kumar Jain, accused-applicant, who is owner of M/s. Jain Brothers.Eye witness provided evidence to the Investigating Officer of Crime registered at Patna regarding supply of firearms to Prafful Malakar and Anil Kumar Yadav and Vijay Singh, member of CPI (Maoist).These witnesses may also be produced against the accused persons during the course of trial.Investigation is also in progress against co-accused Gurcharan Singh in crime registered at Patna.Shri Vinay Kumar Rao, A.S.I. of Police Station Gandhi Maidan, Patna and Shri Hirday Nath Pandey, Inspector, N.I.A., Lucknow are witnesses in this case also.In the above mentioned circumstances, there is no substance in the arguments of learned Counsels that offences under Sections 121A and 122 I.P.C. are not attracted and there is no evidence available against them for committing these offences.It is pertinent of mention here that in nexalites operated area of Bihar and Jharkhand, nexalites are committing murders of administrative and police officers, CRPF personnel and waging war against the country.The accused persons in form of a gang has facilitated activities of nexalites of Bihar and Jharkhand by supplying arms and ammunition to them.It is relevant to mention here that discharge application of accused persons has been rejected by trial Court and found that there is sufficient evidence to frame charges against the accused and trial against the accused persons is in progress.It is informed by learned A.G.A. that 07 witnesses have been recorded during the course of trial.Therefore, there is no substance in the arguments of learned Counsel for the accused persons that no evidence is available against the accused persons regarding offences punishable under Section 121A and 122 I.P.C.Learned Counsel for the accused persons have argued that this Court has allowed bail application no.10676 of 2015 :Harish Chandra Pandey Vs.The State, vide order dated 29.04.2016 and accused Harish Chandra Pandey has been enlarged on bail.Vijay Peter was also employee of National Gun House and he was in the same category of Harish Chandra Pandey and he has been made prime witness against the accused persons by A.T.S. Therefore, on the ground of parity, accused persons are entitled for bail.On the other hand learned A.G.A. has argued that accused Harish Chandra Pandey was granted bail on the ground that he was salesman of Kishan Gun House, whereas co-accused Mohd. Khalid was operating the National Gun House on instructions given by co-accused Amit Pal Singh and co-accused Gurcharan Singh.Witness Vijay Peter observed the illegal acts/ misdeeds committed by Mohd. Khalid and co-accused Amit Pal Singh and Gurcharan Singh.He has also provided his statement to Investigating Officer that co-accused Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh often visited Guru Ram Das Armoury.Amit Pal Singh and co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Mohd. Khalid were also having relations with owner Ajay Pal Singh and Harish Chandra Pandey of Kisan Gun House.Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh and Dhananjay purchased arms and ammunition from Guru Ram Das Armory owned by co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh.Therefore, case of Vijay Peter is differentiable from Harish Chandra Pandey.Vijay Peter has provided evidence against these accused persons and also stated that Ramzan and Qurban were workers at National Gun House on behest of co-accused Mohd. Khalid, by whom they were engaged.On the other hand parity is not sole ground for granting bail to any accused persons.Likewise, Hon'ble Supreme Court while canceling bail of co-accused Gurcharan Singh has observed that this is not a fit case for grant of bail.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9251 of 2016 has set aside order dated 18.5.2016 passed in bail application No. 7488 of 2013 : Amit Pal Singh Vs.State of U.P., by which accused Amit Pal Singh was granted bail by this Court.Learned Counsel for Mantoo Sharma has argued that Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has granted bail vide order dated 06.04.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 68 of 2015:Prafful Malakar @ Praful Kumar Malakar & Praful Bhagat Vs.The State of Jharkhand through National Investigation Agency, Ranchi relating to Crime No. 187 of 2012: Special (NIA) Case No. 01 of 2012 of Police Station Chauparan.It is also submitted that accused has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 01.08.2013 passed in Criminal Misc.25027 of 2013 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna for offences punishable under Sections 25 (1-B)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, Crime No. 368 of 2012, Police Station Kankarbagh.As per prosecution version accused Mantoo Sharma was having relations with these two above mentioned accused persons, Praphul Malakar and Anil Kumar Yadav, who were member of CPI (Maoist), a banned terrorist organization and supplied them firearms and ammunitions illegally.Case No. 4820 (B) of 2013 (Gurcharan Singh Vs."We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by High Court.We are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for enlarging the respondent on bail at this stage.For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside order dated 30th September, 2013 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Case Bail No. 4820 of 2013 with liberty to respondent to file an application for bail, if trial is not commenced within one year.Mohd. Khalid was operating National Gun House un-authorizedly on instructions given by co-accused Gurcharan Singh and Amit Pal Singh.Accused Anil Kumar Jain introduced co-accused Mohd. Khalid to co-accused Shivanand Shetty.Afterwards accused Mohd. Khalid came into contact with accused Alwyn D'sa, who supplied him parts of foreign arms, which were used to manufacture improvised and duplicate arms.Amit Pal Singh and his father co-accused Gurcharan Singh sold firearms on 26 fake and fictitious arms licenses in Naxalite area of Bihar and Jharkhand.Co-accused Mohd. Khalid, Junaid Arshad, Zafar Arshad @ Babar, Kallu Sharma, Vimal Vishwakarma, Ramzan and Qurban felicitated for manufacturing duplicate/ improvised firearms by using parts of foreign arms supplied by Alwyn D'sa.Amit Pal Singh and his father, co-accused Gurcharan Singh sold rifle and cartridges to Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh on various occasions which were supplied by Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh in the nexalite area of Bihar and Jharkhand.The police party of P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Patna reached at Gandhi Maidan on 16.11.2008 at 19:10 hours and arrested Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh along with other nexalites.Three rifles were recovered from his possession, which were found to be sold by co-accused Amit Pal Singh and Gurcharan Singh.He also informed the police party on the same day that he sold 2700 cartridges, purchased from Guru Ramdas Armory to nexalites of Piparwar, Chhatra, Jharkhand and to Bhikan Ganju, who belonged to banned T.P.C. naxal party, therefore, prima facie it is also apparent that all the accused persons operated in a form of a gang.On the basis of above discussion, facts and circumstances, no ground is available to differ from observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court that this is not a fit case to grant bail to accused persons.All bail applications moved on behalf of accused persons deserve to be rejected.Accordingly rejected.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,692,114 |
Prosecution case, in brief, is that accused No.1 married deceased Ranjana before four years from the date of incident.Accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1 and accused No.3 is his sister.After marriage, deceased Ranjana started cohabiting with accused No.1 at Pharkanda.At that relevant time accused No.1 used to live jointly with his parents and three sisters.All accused used to ill-treat the deceased Ranjana on account of demand of money.Whenever deceased went to her parental house, she informed her parents about the ill-treatment to her for demand of money.At last on 26.12.2002 at about 4.00 p.m. when Ranjana was::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (3) Appeal No. 577/2006 present in the house, that time accused No.2 poured kerosene on her body and accused No.1 set her ablaze by igniting match stick.When Ranjana started shouting, her neighbours rushed on the spot and extinguished the fire by pouring water on her body.Ranjana was taken to Civil Hospital, Parbhani.The Police Officer, who was present at the Police Outpost, Civil Hospital, Parbhani, recorded first dying declaration (Exh.35) of Ranjana on 26.12.2002 at about 7.40 p.m. Subsequently second dying declaration (Exh.34) was recorded by Head Clerk, Tahsil Office, Parbhani at about 8.40 p.m. on the same day.However, when the parents of Ranjana came to know about the occurrence, they rushed to Civil Hospital, Parbhani and Ranjana informed them that on 26.12.2002 at about 4.00 p.m. accused No.2 poured kerosene on her body and accused No.1 set her ablaze with the help of match stick.P.S.I. Ghodke (PW-8) conducted investigation of this crime.In these both statements, Ranjana did not make complaint against anybody and stated that she sustained burns due to accidental fire at the time of preparation of tea on the hearth.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::Therefore, the parents of deceased submitted application to Police Station, Nanalpeth to record a fresh dying declaration of Ranjana.In this third dying declaration, for the first time, deceased Ranjana made a statement that on 26.12.2002 at 4.00 p.m. accused No.2 poured kerosene on her body and accused No.1 set her ablaze by igniting match stick.On the basis of this::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (4) Appeal No. 577/2006 third dying declaration, initially by Zero number offence was registered against accused under Sections 307, 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. at Police Station, Nanalpeth.Subsequently, investigation was transferred to Police Station, Palam within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::During the course of investigation he prepared spot panchnama (Exh.33) at the house of accused persons and seized partly burnt clothes of the deceased, one kerosene bottle, match box and 3 match sticks from the spot of the incident.On 01.01.2003 Ranjana succumbed to her burn injuries.Therefore, her dead body was referred to General Hospital, Parbhani for postmortem examination.Dr. Parmeshwar Salve (PW-5) conducted autopsy examination and noted 90 % burns on the dead body.He opined that cause of death of deceased was "due to septicemia due to 90% burns".After death of Ranjana, Section 302 of I.P.C. was added against the accused persons.Accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangakhed.Offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, this case was committed to Sessions Court, Gangakhed.6. Charge (Exh.9) was framed against accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 498-A read with::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (5) Appeal No. 577/2006 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::Defence of the accused is that Ranjana died due to accidental burns.After considering the evidence placed on record, the learned trial Court pleased to convict accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentence each of them to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment of two years and accused No.3 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Therefore, both these appeal arise.9. Heard Mr. V.R. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State.Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there are three dying declarations on record.First two dying declarations were recorded on 26.12.2002 wherein the deceased made statement that she sustained burns due to accidental fire of hearth while preparing tea.Only in the third dying declaration recorded on 28.12.2002 by Executive Magistrate Surekha Patwe (PW-7), the allegations are levelled against accused Nos.1 and 2 that accused No.2 poured kerosene on the body of deceased and accused No.1 set her ablaze.Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the third dying declaration cannot be treated as voluntary statement::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (6) Appeal No. 577/2006 of the deceased, because from the cross-examination of Executive Magistrate Patwe (PW-7), it becomes clear that she was putting leading question to the deceased, which is not permissible under law.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::Next limb of argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the possibility of tutoring of deceased before recording third dying declaration cannot be ruled out, because as per the prosecution case itself, the third dying declaration was recorded at the request of the parents of deceased only after their meeting with the deceased in the hospital.Next objection of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that even Investigating Officer has not proved that at the time of seizure of clothes of deceased from the spot, those clothes were sealed and in the same condition those clothes were delivered to Chemical Analyzer's Office, Aurangabad.He pointed out that due to non-examination of the Carrier of Muddemal, prosecution cannot rule out the possibility of tampering of Muddemal, and therefore, importance cannot be given to the kerosene residues, which were detected as per the C.A. Report.Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in the two letters written by accused No.1 to the father of deceased, there is no reference of demand of dowry by any accused person.Therefore, that documentary evidence is of no use for the prosecution to prove that for demand of money the deceased was::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (7) Appeal No. 577/2006 subjected to ill-treatment.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::The last submission of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the neighbours of the accused persons are not examined, who reached on the spot immediately after the occurrence and who extinguished the fire on the body of deceased.According to learned Counsel for the appellants, non-examination of these material witnesses is sufficient to draw adverse inference against the prosecution.Learned defence Counsel also pointed out that the Investigating Officer did not seize earth sample from the spot to prove that kerosene was poured on the body of deceased on that spot.She pointed out that the third dying declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate Patwe (PW-7) when the deceased was in fit state of mind to give the statement, and therefore, only on the basis of this third dying declaration, guilt of the accused can be established.Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that Kishan Puri (PW-2) and Kausalyabai Puri (PW-4), who are the parents of deceased, are consistent regarding disclosure statement of deceased about ill-treatment to her at the hands of accused for demand of money.Learned A.P.P. pointed out that one broken bid::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (8) Appeal No. 577/2006 necklace (iksr) and bangle pieces of the deceased were found on the spot, which suggest struggle of the deceased with accused.She pointed out that even kerosene bottle was seized from the spot of the incident which is a corroborative piece of evidence.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::With the help of learned Counsels for both the parties, we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.Undisputedly in the case at hand, no eye witness is available who had witnessed the occurrence.Therefore, total prosecution case is based on three dying declarations and other circumstantial evidence i.e. seizure of partly burnt clothes of deceased having kerosene residues and seizure of kerosene bottle and burnt match sticks and match box from the spot of the incident.Initially we prefer to consider the available circumstantial evidence recorded by prosecution.Learned A.P.P. has drawn our attention towards two letters (Exhs.25 and 26) written by accused No.1 to Kishan Puri (PW-2), who is the father of deceased.However, after going through letter (Exh.25), it emerges that under this letter accused No.1 only requested his father-in-law to send his wife (deceased) at the earliest otherwise there would be displeasure.The recitals of this letter only indicate the attraction of::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (9) Appeal No. 577/2006 a husband about his wife.But accused No.1 only requested his father-in-law to lend an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as hand loan which would be refunded at the earliest.Thus, in any manner this second letter cannot be treated as incriminating evidence against the accused.Learned trial Court in its judgment has right discarded these both letters as useless piece of evidence.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::However, from the judgment delivered by the trial Court it emerges that overmuch importance is given to the kerosene residues detected in the clothes of deceased which were seized from the spot.No doubt, C.A. Report (Exh.72) shows that in the partly burnt Saree pieces and petticoat, kerosene residues were detected and in the bottle kerosene was found.However, from the spot panchnama (Exh.33) it becomes clear that that the incident occurred inside the house of accused persons where hearth is situated for cooking food and for preparation of tea.Generally for kerosene is used to put on fire the fuel, with the help of lighted match stick.Therefore, finding of kerosene bottle and partly burnt match sticks and match box on the spot is most normal circumstance and cannot be treated as incriminating evidence.Regarding seizure of partly burnt clothes of deceased, the evidence of Investigating Officer P.S.I. Ghodke (PW-8) is::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (10) Appeal No. 577/2006 important.P.S.I. Ghodke (PW-8) has vaguely deposed before the Court regarding preparation of spot panchnama (Exh.33) in the words that, "he effected seizure of various articles as shown in the panchnama (Exh.33)".However, he nowhere deposes that at the time of seizure the partly burnt clothes of deceased, were 'sealed' in presence of panchas.The climax is that though spot panchnama (Exh.33) is admitted by defence which can be read in evidence, in the spot panchnama, it is nowhere mentioned that the partly burnt clothes of the deceased were sealed on the spot.Thus, the prosecution cannot establish that the articles which were seized from the spot were sealed at the time of seizure.So also, due to non-examination of Carrier of muddemal, prosecution cannot further prove that the seized articles were delivered in C.A. Office in sealed condition.Thus, during this intervening period there is every possibility of tampering of seized clothes of the deceased by Investigating Officer to create suitable evidence against the prosecution.In the circumstances, considering the possibility of tampering of Muddemal articles, overmuch importance cannot be given to the kerosene residues, detected by Chemical Analyzer in the partly burnt clothes of deceased.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::(11) Appeal No. 577/2006Another damaging blow to the prosecution case is that prosecution has not examined the Medical Officer who treated the deceased in Civil Hospital, Parbhani immediately after the occurrence.Therefore, the prosecution cannot bring on record evidence to show that there was kerosene smell to the body of deceased at the time of admission in the hospital.Prosecution also lost opportunity to prove as to what history of the burn injuries was given by deceased to the Medical Officer who initially treated the deceased in Civil Hospital, Parbhani.Thus, it can be concluded that the circumstantial evidence placed on record by prosecution in the form of spot panchnama and seizure of partly burnt clothes of the deceased from the spot, is of no help to the prosecution to prove homicidal death of deceased.Only evidence available on record is the three dying declarations given by deceased.First dying declaration (Exh.35) is recorded by police on 26.12.2002 at 7.40 p.m. at Civil Hospital, Parbhani.Second dying declaration (Exh.34) is recorded by Head Clerk, Tahsil Office, Parbhani on the same day at 8.40 p.m. and the third dying declaration (Exh.55) is recorded by Naib Tahsildar at Civil Hospital, Parbhani on 28.12.2002 in between 12.50 to 1.05 p.m.First two dying declarations (Exhs.35 and 34) recorded by police and Head Clerk of Tahsil Office respectively are admitted by defence.In these both dying declarations deceased gave statement that on 26.12.2002 at about 4.00 p.m. she ignited fire in::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (12) Appeal No. 577/2006 the hearth for preparation of tea and when she turned back towards hearth for lifting her daughter, that time her Saree caught fire from backside and thereby she sustained injury.In these both statements, the deceased made it clear that hearing her shouts, her neighbours reached on the spot and they extinguished the fire by pouring water on her body.At the time of this occurrence her family members were not present on the spot.When accused Nos.1 and 2 reached to their house, they took the injured to Civil Hospital, Parbhani.However, in the third dying declaration (Exh.55) recorded on 28.12.2002 the deceased made statement that her husband, in- laws and sister-in-law ill-treated her for demand of money and on 26.12.2002 at 4.00 p.m. her mother-in-law poured kerosene on her body and her husband put her on fire by igniting match stick.In this third dying declaration the deceased gave explanation that due to pressure of her husband, in her previous two statements she gave statement that she sustained burns while cooking on hearth.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::Number of times, a young girl or a wife who makes the dying declaration could be under the impression that she would lead a peaceful, congenial, happy and blissful married life only with her husband and, therefore, has tendency to implicate the inconvenient parents-in-law or other relatives.Number of times the relatives influence the investigating agency and bring about a dying declaration.The dying declarations recorded by the investigating agencies have to be very scrupulously examined and the Court must remain alive to all the attendant circumstances at the time when the dying declaration comes into being.When there are more than one dying declarations, the intrinsic contradictions in those dying declarations are extremely important.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::Therefore, overmuch importance cannot be given to the certificate given by the Medical Officer at the header of dying declaration that Ranjana Giri was conscious during taking statement at 12.50 to 1.05 p.m. However, cat has come out of the bag when Surekha Patwe (PW-7), the Executive Magistrate, who recorded this dying declaration, was subjected to cross-examination.On perusal of dying declaration (Exh.55) it becomes clear that in the statement::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (16) Appeal No. 577/2006 of deceased there is one sentence as "on 26.12.2002 at 4.00 p.m. because the husband, in-laws and sister-in-law ill-treated, I was fed up with this ill-treatment" and in that statement the learned Executive Magistrate scored the line "fed up with this ill-treatment" and add subsequent line that "her mother-in-law poured kerosene".When Surekha Patwe (PW-7) was cross-examined about this scoring of the line, she has admitted that she asked question to the deceased whether on 26.12.2002 at 4.00 p.m. her husband, in-laws and sister-in-law ill-treated her.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::(17) Appeal No. 577/2006Another important aspect is that while examining the reliability of dying declaration the Court must examine whether there is possibility of tutoring of victim before recording of her dying declaration.Burden lies on the prosecution to rule out every possibility of tutoring of victim before recording her dying declaration.However, in the case at hand, from the evidence of Kisan Puri (PW-2) and Kausalya Puri (PW-4), who are the parents of deceased, it emerges that when they learnt about sustaining burn injuries by Ranjana, they went to Civil Hospital, Parbhani and met to Ranjana.Thus, these both prosecution witnesses have brought on record that they had meeting with Ranjana in burns ward at Civil Hospital, Parbhani.From the cross-examination of Executive Magistrate Surekha Patwe (PW-7), it has been brought on record that the police intimated Executive Magistrate that on that day parents of Ranjana submitted an application to the Police Station to again record dying declaration of Ranjana.This witness has placed on record the letter (Exh.58) issued by Police Station, Nanalpeth to this witness, which recites that after recording of previous two dying declarations of deceased, the parents of deceased requested the police to record third dying declaration of the deceased.Thus, it can be gathered that before recording of third dying declaration (Exh.55) there was meeting of the parents of deceased with deceased in Civil Hospital, Parbhani.In other words, the parents of deceased had every possible::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (18) Appeal No. 577/2006 opportunity to tutor the deceased to give her third incriminating dying declaration.In other words, the prosecution cannot rule out that the third dying declaration (Exh.55) implicating the entire family of accused in this case is only as a result of tutoring of deceased by her parental relatives in Civil Hospital, Parbhani.On this count also the prosecution cannot establish that the third dying declaration (Exh.55) was voluntary true statement of the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::The next important aspect is that neither Investigating Officer had obtained sample of earth from the spot of incident to ascertain whether the kerosene residues could be detected on the floor of the house where the incident occurred, nor the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of immediate neighbours of the deceased who rushed on the spot and extinguished her fire, though the neighbours are the most important witnesses to whom the deceased would have disclosed the true occurrence as they were the first persons who met her after the occurrence.So also, had the accused set on fire the deceased after pouring kerosene, definitely somebody from the neighbourhood might have noticed the accused while leaving the spot of the incident.On account of non- examination of any one of the neighbours of accused persons, who extinguished the fire on the body of deceased, the prosecution has lost the important piece of circumstantial evidence.In the circumstances, no importance can be attached to the statements of the parents (PW-2 and PW-4) of the deceased::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (19) Appeal No. 577/2006 regarding disclosure statement of the deceased before them prior to occurrence and even after the occurrence.The evidence of Police Patil (PW-3) is nothing but hearsay evidence to whom the father of deceased Kisan Puri (PW-2) informed about the complaints of deceased against the accused.Therefore, when the third dying declaration (Exh.55) is held to be doubtful piece of evidence, on the basis of the evidence of parents of deceased i.e. PW-2 and PW-4, which is absolutely weak type of evidence, the accused cannot be convicted for commission of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::When the incriminating dying declaration (Exh.55) is held as unreliable piece of evidence, there remains absolutely no evidence to prove that the deceased died of homicidal death.On the other hand, on the basis of first two dying declarations the possibility cannot be ruled out that the death of Ranjana is accidental death.State of M.P. (AIR 209 SC 2603) wherein the Apex Court ruled that,::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (20) Appeal No. 577/2006 "Except Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no other provision under which the statement of a dead person can be looked into in evidence.The statement of a dead person is admissible in law if the statement is as to the cause of death or as to any of the circumstance of the transactions which resulted in her death, in a case in which the cause of death comes into question.What has been deposed by PW-4 and PW-5 has no connection with any circumstance of transaction which resulted in her death.The death of Smt. Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari was neither homicidal nor suicidal; it was accidental.Since for an offence under Section 498-A simpliciter, the question of death is not and cannot be an issue for consideration, we are afraid the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 is hardly an evidence in law to establish such offence.In that situation Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act does not get attracted".::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::All accused deserve acquittal.It follows that both the appeals deserve to be allowed.Hence, the following order.Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No.584 of 2006 are allowed.2. Judgment and order of conviction dated 27.07.2006 passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed convicting accused No.1 Ashok s/o Pitambar Giri and accused No.2 Kantabai w/o Pitambar Giri for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 ::: (21) Appeal No. 577/2006 Indian Penal Code and convicting accused No.3 Yashodabai d/o Pitambar Giri for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.Under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused No.1 Ashok Pitambar Giri, accused No.2 Kantabai w/o Pitambar Giri and accused No.3 Yashodabai d/o Pitambar Giri shall furnish before the trial Court the bail bonds with surety for the amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands) each to appear before the Supreme Court as and when notices are issued to them in respect of any proceedings filed against this judgment and the said bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:58:15 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
127,695,391 |
For Appellants : Mr. R.Shanmugasundaram, SC, for Mr. D.Selvaraju in CA No.456/10 Mr. V.Gopinath, SC, for Mr. V.Balu in CA No.458/10 1/27http://www.judis.nic.in _________________ Crl.A. Nos.456 & 458/2010 For Respondent : Mr. K.Srinivasan, Spl.P.P. (CBI Cases) COMMON JUDGMENT The appellants herein, were arrayed as A-1 and A-2 along with one other accused, who was arrayed as A-3, in C.C. No.59/2000 on the file of the IX Addl.U/s 420 r/w 468 Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous r/w 471 IPC (8 imprisonment for a period of one year on each Counts) count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for each count.U/s 13 (2) r/w 13 Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous (1) (d) of PC Act imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.2/27http://www.judis.nic.in _________________ Crl.Criminal Appeals filed u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 24.06.2010, passed by the learned IX Addl.Judge, (CBI Cases), City Civil Court, Chennai.They were charged and tried for the offences u/s 120 (B) r/w 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Seven charges were framed against the accused under the above provisions of law and after trial, while A-3 was acquitted of the charges framed against him, A-1 and A-2 were found guilty and were sentenced as under :-and 13 (2) r/w 13 rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (1) (d) of PC Act months.A. Nos.456 & 458/2010 A-2 U/s 120 (B) r/w Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous 419, 420, 467, imprisonment for a period of one year and to 468 and 471 IPC pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo and 13 (2) r/w 13 rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (1) (d) of PC Act months.U/s 420 r/w 468 Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous r/w 471 IPC (8 imprisonment for a period of one year on each Counts) count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for each count.U/s 467 & 468 Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous IPC (8 Counts) imprisonment for a period of one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for each count.U/s 419 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.The sentences were directed to run concurrently and set off, as provided for u/s 428 Cr.P.C. was also ordered.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeals have been preferred by the appellants herein questioning the sustainability of the said conviction and sentence.The case of the prosecution, in brief, could be stated as under :- 3/27http://www.judis.nic.in _________________ Crl.A. Nos.456 & 458/2010 A-1 was working as Sub Divisional Engineer (Building & Plant) in Mambalam Exchange in Chennai.A-2 is the son of A-1, who at the relevant point of time was a student of Medicine.A-3 is an individual running a firm by name M/s.During the year 1997-1998, it is alleged by the prosecution that A-1 in pursuance to the conspiracy entered into with A-2 and A-3, with an intention to cheat the Telephone Department, by abusing his official position, awarded a tender/contract in favour of A-2 for the maintenance/repair of AC units to the firm, alleged to be run by A-2, viz., M/s.Golden Electricals & Refrigeration, knowing fully well that it is a fictitious firm and also authorised the bills that were submitted for the work discharged by the said firm of A-2 to the tune of Rs.1,83,750/-, thereby causing loss to the exchequre to the tune of the above said amount and, thereby, gained pecuniary advantage.Criminal machinery was set in motion which culminated in the filing of the charge sheet against the accused.The accused were furnished with the relied upon documents u/s 207 Cr.P.C. and the trial court framed charges under the provisions of the Indian 4/27http://www.judis.nic.in _________________ Crl.A. Nos.456 & 458/2010 Penal Code as well as under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.When the accused/appellants were questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same as false.On the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked.The trial court, after hearing either side and after considering the materials, both oral and documentary, available on record, while acquitted A-3, however, convicted the appellants/A-1 and A-2, as above.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court, the appellants/A-1 and A-2 have filed the respective appeals.The following issues arise for consideration in these appeals :- 10/27http://www.judis.nic.in _________________ Crl.He was dependent on his father, viz., A-1 for his studies, and as a son, generally had abided by the directions of his father.Mere assertion with regard to conspiracy would not be sufficient to bring home the charge.Therefore, the conspiracy angle has not been established in a manner required and, therefore, the charge relating to conspiracy u/s 120 (B) fails and, accordingly, the conviction and sentence for the charge u/s 120 (B) IPC is liable to be set aside.Once the offence relating to conspiracy is held to be not proved insofar as A-2 is concerned, the charges made against A-2 relating to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be sustained and, accordingly, the 22/27http://www.judis.nic.in _________________ Crl.A. Nos.456 & 458/2010 conviction of A-2 for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are set aside.Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as A-1 is aged about 80 years and that A-2 is leading a normal life as a medical professional, considering the age of A-1, the related ailments that he is suffering at that age and also the avocation of A-2, which is a service oriented profession, pleaded this Court to award minimum sentence.A. Nos.456 & 458/2010 is sentenced to a period of simple imprisonment for one day till the rising of the Court.In the result, the appeals are dismissed modifying the conviction and sentence imposed for the various offences as hereunder :-Appellant in C.A. No.456/2010 – A-1 U/s 420 r/w 468 r/w 471 IPC (8 Counts) Convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for each count.U/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act Convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.Appellant in C.A. No.458/2010 – A-2 Convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one day before this Court, for all the offences for which A-2 stands convicted, which is to be undergone on 21.02.2020 from the time of the sitting of this Court till the raising of this Court on the said day.
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,273,911 |
JUDGMENT Mahajan, J.This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court at Patna affirming the conviction of the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant was charged along with 13 others with having been a member of an unlawful assembly, "with the common object of dispossessing one Chulhan Tewari (the complainant) and assaulting and murdering one Nasiba Ahir and others" and with having committed, in furtherance of that common object, offences under Sections 302, 326 and 147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.As the mob came upon the land the complainant remonstrated against their action, when the appellant fired three shots from the gun in his hand causing injuries to Nasiba Ahir, Bhola Ahir and Lalmohar Ahir, and when they fell down the mob dispersed.The injured men were then taken to a hospital where Nasiba Ahir died soon after.The appellant and thirteen others who were 'identified were accordingly charged with having committed the offences mentioned above.The Additional Sessions Judge of Arrah who tried the accused found that, though the apparent title to the land was in the appellant and another, its possession had long been disputed, and that it was "needless to make much of possession because neither party in my opinion can justly claim the right of private defence to property." After discussing the evidence of the eye witnesses and other materials before him he found that the gun was fired by the appellant's party while lathis or brickbats were used by the complainant's men, and as a result of such attack and counterattack one man was injured on the side of the appellant while three men including the deceased Nasiba Ahir who were passers-by received gunshot injuries.The learned Judge rejected as unreliable the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to the effect that the appellant held the gun and fired the shots.But as the appellant's party went upon the land armed with the gun and as the persons injured were not of the complainant's party, the learned Judge convicted the appellant under the second part of Section 304 read with Section 149 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.Though he found the appellant also guilty of rioting under Section 147, he thought that no separate sentence was called for under that section.The thirteen others who were charged along with the appellant were held not guilty in respect of any of the charges, as they were not properly identified as having taken part in the unlawful assembly, and were acquitted.The appellant appealed to the High Court and Manohar Lal J. who heard the appeal agreed with the trial Judge that the question as to who was in actual possession of the plot at the time of the occurrence was immaterial.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,273,941 |
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, material for adjudication of the issue arising in this appeal may be stated thus: Appellant No.1, viz. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.; constituted in terms of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the successor in interest of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short "MSEB") and appellant No. 2 is its Chairman.Respondent No.1 is an incorporated company, viz. M/s Datar Switchgear Ltd. and respondents No.2 and 3, senior officials of respondent No.1, are the complainants and respondents No.4 to 7 are the co-accused.Pursuant to various contracts entered into between respondent No. 1 and MSEB in the year 1993-94 for installation of "Low Tension Load Management Systems" (for short "LTLMS"), MSEB issued a work order on 27th March 1997 whereby respondent No. 1 was required to install at various locations and lease out 47,987 LTLMS to MSEB for a period of 10 years at a monthly rent of ` 825/- for the first six years, and about ` 650/- per month for the remaining four years.Clause 8.1 of the said contract stipulated that respondent No.1 would send intimation to the Section-in-charge of MSEB regarding the installation of the equipment, and thereafter, a commissioning report was to be prepared in that regard, which was to be signed jointly by the representative of the complainant and the concerned Section-in-charge of the MSEB.During the validity period of the contract, various disputes arose between respondent No.1 and MSEB.On 19th February 1999, respondent No.1 partially terminated the contract, conveying to MSEB that it would not install any more LTLMS, and would only maintain the installed items.On 21st April 1999, respondent No.1 terminated the contract in entirety.Nevertheless, they offered to maintain the installed objects provided MSEB continued to pay rent during the duration of the work order.D.K. JAIN, J.:Leave granted.This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment, dated 9th October 2007, delivered by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Application No. 3715 of 2005, in a petition filed by the two appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code").By the impugned judgment, the High Court has declined to quash a criminal complaint filed by respondents No.1 to 3 in 1 this appeal against the appellants and others for offences under Sections 192 and 199 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC").As the dispute arose between respondent No. 1 and MSEB vide order dated 5th May 1999, the High Court of Bombay referred the disputes to Arbitral Tribunal.The controversy in the instant case pertains to the amended written statement 3 filed by the MSEB on 7th February 2000, the relevant extract of which reads as follows:"9A. The Respondents submit that the Claimants are not entitled to claim any amount from the Respondents as claimed or otherwise.In fact, as stated hereinafter, the Claimants are bound to refund to the Respondents all the amounts recovered by them from the Respondents along with interest thereon.The Respondents submit that the Claimants are guilty of having practiced fraud upon the Respondents.The Claimants have fabricated documents as also are guilty of misrepresentation of material facts in the matter of commissioning objects, installing them, taking out print outs therefrom and submitting bills in respect thereof.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ...a) COMMISSIONING/COMMISSIONING REPORTS The provisions of Clause 8.1 of the work order provided for installation and commissioning of LTLMS systems in presence of Section in Charge of every Section.The Claimants not only did not inform the concerned/Section in Charge as required by Clauses (a) and (b) thereof, but submitted commissioning reports for the LM systems making it appear as if the objects were installed on a given date in presence of the representatives of the Section in charge as mentioned in the said reports, and thereafter submitted the same for the signature of the Sections in charge.With a view that the sub divisions, divisions and circles of the Respondents are not able to find out the same, the Claimants failed and neglected to send copies of the Commissioning reports as provided in Clause 8.0(d), thereby making it impossible for the officers mentioned in clause (e) thereof to depute representatives to inspect the commissioned objects in the circle.The Claimants thus obtained payments from the dates mentioned in the said reports fraudulently by misrepresentation of the facts...."The Arbitral Tribunal passed the final award on 18th June 2004 whereby it directed MSEB to pay `185,97,86,399/- as damages to respondent No.1, and pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the sum of `179,15,87,009/-.The award contained the following observations suggesting that the MSEB had introduced certain fabricated documents as evidence:"As regards the Commissioning Reports produced by the Respondents at Exhs.C-64 and C-74, the Claimants submitted, and with considerable merit that the Respondents had indulged in tampering the commissioning reports produced on the record.On the basis of the said observations in the arbitral award, on 23rd June 2004 respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed criminal complaint No. 476 of 2004 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik for offences under Sections 192 and 199 read with Section 34 of the IPC.The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik took cognizance of the said complaint and issued summons against all the accused named in the complaint.11.Being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint, appellants preferred the afore-stated petition under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court of Bombay for quashing of the complaint.As stated above, the High Court, vide the impugned judgment has dismissed the said petition.The High Court has inter alia observed that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused and the complaint clearly establishes the joint action of the accused to attract vicarious liability under the IPC.Hence, the present appeal by two of the accused.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,394,359 |
Lalit Aggarwal, is the complainant and Pramod Goil is his brother in law.Both matters are arising from the same FIR and due to many common facts, the petitions are being decided by a single order.Status reports have been filed in both the matters from time to time.The relevant facts as per the status report dated 4th July, 2013 are as under:"The complainant Sh.Lalit Aggarwal, one of the director of M/s Shree Bihari Forging P. Ltd. A-50, Sec. 2, Noida, UP had alleged in his complaint that he and his brother-in-law Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 2 of 32 Mr. Pramod Goil, who is another director in the said company, were engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing with metal forging etc. During the last about 4/5 years, certain disputes arose between them regarding the management and working of the said company and as a result, the proceedings before the Company Law Board were initiated against each other.The cases were filed before the Company Law Board in the year of 2007 and matter are still pending there.The complainant received information from various banks and other financial institutions regarding loans taken by Pramod Goil in the name of M/s Shree Bihari Forging Pvt. Ltd. in which his name was given as a guarantor/applicant.Thereafter, on enquiry he found that his brother-in-law Mr. Pramod Goil and his family members took loan of Rs. 1.25 Crore from following Banks and Financial Institutions after forging his signature and fabricated the documents in the name of M/s Shree Bihari Forgings Pvt. Ltd.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 2 of 321. Bajaj Finance, Jagannath Dudhadhra Complex, Opp.Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Rohtak Road, New Delhi - Loan Amount Rs. 15 Lacs.India Bulls Financial Services Ltd., A-1, FF, Hamilton House, Connaught Place, New Delhi - Loan Amount Rs. 25 Lacs.Megama Finance, A-1/93, Basement, Okhla Indl.Area, Phase-I, New Delhi - Loan Amount Rs. 15 Lacs.Kotak Mahindra Bank, Amba Deep Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - Loan Amount Rs. 15 Lacs.Standard Chartered Bank, 10, Sansad Marg, Jeevan Deep Building, New Delhi - Loan Amount Rs. 25 Lacs.ABN Amro Bank, 15, Barakhamba Road, Con.Place, New Delhi - Loan Amount Rs. 20 Lacs.Religare Finvest Ltd., 1/7, East Patel Nagar, Near 178, Metro Pillar New Delhi - Loan amount Rs. 20 Lacs.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 3 of 32During investigation the loan application forms alongwith the supporting documents have been taken from the above mentioned banks and financial institutions.The concerned officials of bank/financial institutions were examined.They stated that accused Pramod Goil took loan from their banks/financial institutions.The Chartered Accountant of the company Mr. Mahesh Gupta was examined, who stated that he worked as a statutory auditor for the company of Shree Bihari Forgings Pvt. Ltd. for the financial year 2004-05 to 2006-After that he has not signed any balance sheet.The balance sheet of 2007-2008 is forged as he has not signed the same.Specimen signatures of the accused persons taken after the approval of Ld. Trial Court, specimen signature of accused, Chartered Accountant, admitted signature and specimen signatures of complainant alongwith all original documents collected from banks and financial institutions were deposited in GEQD for expert opinion.The FSL result has been received and as per the opinion of the FSL, signatures of Lalit Aggarwal and Sh.Mahesh Gupta Chartered Accountant used on loan applications to obtain loan from different Banks and Financial Institutions in the name of M/s Shri Bihari Forging Pvt. Ltd were forged.The signatures of accused Mr. Pramod Goil, Mrs. Shashi Goil, Mr. Ritesh Kumar and Mayur Goil on the loan documents were genuine.Thus the accused have availed the above mentioned loans on the basis of forged documents.The accused Pramod Goil took the loan on the behalf of the company M/s Shree Bihari Forgings Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of forged documents.The applicants/accused Smt. Shashi Goil and Ritesh Goil were the guarantors against the above loans and also they were share holders of the company.Their signatures on the loan application forms are genuine.The accused Pramod Goil director of Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.The relevant extracts of the status report dated 12th September, 2013 reads as under:-"It is further submitted that the DSA M/s Perfect Finance of Bajaj Finance and Kotak Mahindra Bank, Mr. Ashwani Sabharwal has been examined.It has been stated by him that Mr. Vijay Bhutani ex-employee of then ABN AMRO Bank approached the accused Pramod Kumar Goel and the documents pertaining to the loan being availed by Shree Behari Forgings Pvt. Ltd. were provided to him by accused Pramod Goel.The said documents were verified from the original in the office of DSA M/s Perfect Finance.The balance sheet for financial year 2007 to 2008 was also shown and the balance sheet was verified by Surender Kumar, the employee of M/s Perfect Finance from the original.Mr. Vinit Mittal, the Regional Sales Head, SME, Megma Finance Ltd. has been examined and it was stated by him that the loan proposal of M/s Shree Behari Forgings Pvt. Ltd. was processed through their source Vijay Bhutani (free lancer).The officials of Megma Finance Ltd. only verified the credential and financial of the applicant by spot verification.Mr. Udit Goel & Ritesh Goel (shareholders) Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 5 of 32 provided the details of the company on the instruction of Pramod Goel.After satisfaction the loan amount of Rs.15,00,000 was sanctioned.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 5 of 32The official of Bajaj Finance has been examined.It has been stated that accused Pramod Goel, Mayur Goel, Shashi Goel and Ritesh Goel were co applicant of the loan and they have signed the promissory note and loan term sheet.No personal guarantee was taken by Bajaj Finance at the time of sanctioning of loan amount of Rs.15 Lacs.Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal, Vice President, Kotak Mahindra Bank, KG Marg, Delhi stated that accused Pramod Goel had approached the bank for the loan on behalf of the company Shree Behari Forgings Pvt. Ltd. and as per the procedure the loan application was processed and sanctioned.Accused Pramod Goel has submitted documents including the board resolution dt. 18.05.09 of the company Shree Behari Forgings Pvt. Ltd. bearing the signature of directors.Mr. Hemant Gupta, Assistant Manager, Standard Chartered Bank was also examined.It has been stated that the loan file the Shree Behari Forgings Pvt. Ltd. was received from Mr. Vijay Bhutani.The loan application was processed by him.Mr. Vijay Bhutani was also examined and it has been stated by him that he was working with Ashwani Sabbarwal on commission basis.He contacted accused Pramod Goil for loan and visited his office several time for collecting the requisite documents for availing loan from various bank as he was looking for a loan of Rs.1.25 crs.He never met Lalit Agrawal, the complaint and never obtained any signature Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 6 of 32 from him.All the documentation has been provided by accused Pramod Goil at his office.Ritesh Goil and Shashi Goil is required to unearth the whole conspiracy.It appears from the reports that the matters are under investigation.Accused is directed to surrender before the concerned PS/Ld. MM within 3 days of this order.Dasti."The accused parties and the complainant are in relation.Many cross FIRs are pending against each other in various courts in Delhi and in Uttar Pradesh.Pramod Goil is already on regular bail in the said matter.In the present FIR his bail was cancelled by the impugned order dated 22nd April, 2013, which has been challenged Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 9 of 32 by him in Crl.At the first date itself, the Court had passed the following orders in Crl.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 9 of 32"By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 22.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby cancelling the bail of the petitioner under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. and directing the petitioner to surrender before the concerned PS/learned M.M. within a period of three days.Arguing the present petition counsel submits that the petitioner has always been ready and willing to settle the dispute with the complainant.It is the complainant who did not come forward to transfer his share holding in the said company in favour of the petitioner after receiving the same from the said company.Counsel also submits that so far the petitioner is concerned he had agreed to part with 50% of the vacant land at Bikuha District Hapur, Ghaziabad to the complainant and the petitioner is willing to deposit the title deeds of the said property with this Court to show bona fide on his part.A piece of land situated in Pilakhuwa, Distt.Ghaziabad, U.P. on Dholana road was purchased in the name of the said company and in the year of 2005, a manufacturing unit was established for manufacturing iron ingots.The said petitioner and the complainant had 5000 shares each initially and authorized capital of the company was increased to Rs. 1 lac, which was subsequently increased to Rs. 2 lacs, again to Rs. 1 crore and further increased to Rs.1.5 crores.The said petitioner was having 70% shares and the complainant was having 30% shares only in the said company.The complainant did not show any interest in the business of the company and never co-operated with the petitioner in the managing the business affairs of the company.It was the said petitioner who had put his hard labour and worked day and night to run the affairs of the company.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 11 of 32The intention of the complainant became dishonest.The complainant with the active collusion and connivance of his Chartered Accountant with intention to increase his share holdings and to take control of the factory/manufacturing unit/company fraudulently converted the unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 74 lacs approx.into share capital by allotting shares on different dates in December, 2007 in an illegal manner by misusing the digital signatures of the said petitioner.The digital signatures of the said petitioner were in possession of the Chartered accountant in good faith and trust.Thereafter, the said petitioner started checking the accounts and record of the company and he came to know that the complainant had siphoned a huge amount approx.Rs.1.80 crores of the company without the knowledge and notice of the said petitioner from the account/bank of the company by issuing and using cheques duly signed by the complainant from the cheque book which was already in his possession.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 12 of 3210.2 The complainant also filed a company petition under Section 397/398/402/403 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Company Law Board bearing petition No. 103 (ND) / 2009 with respect to working of the company - M/s BSL Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The FIR No. 599/2009 under Sections 408/420/467/468/120B IPC at PS Shakarpur registered on the complaint of Shri Lalit Aggarwal, the complainant wherein the same allegations were made as in the FIR No. 268 of 2009, Police Station EOW.The complainant forged the signature of his wife Smt. Seema Aggarwal who was made petitioner No. 2 in the company petition.The petitioner reported the matter to SHO Police Station, Parliament Street, Delhi and FIR No. 189/2009 under Section 465/468/467/471/120B IPC was registered against the complainant.10.4 The complainant sold the property of company namely M/s BSL Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in which the said petitioner is one of the Director.The property of the company was sold in a fraudulent manner without the knowledge and notice of the petitioner and the complainant prepared and created false and fabricated board resolutions and siphoned the huge money and used for his personal gain causing Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 13 of 32 huge wrongful loss to the company.FIR No. 241/2011 under Section 406/409/420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC was registered at PS-EOW on the complaint of Shri Pramod Goil against the complainant and others in connection with sale of the property of M/s BSL Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. As a counter blast with the sole objective to pressurize, embarrass and harass the petitioner and others, the complainant got registered the present F.I.R. No. 268/2009 under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC at P.S. - Economic Offence Wing by making false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner and others.Earlier also FIR No. 599/2009 dated 15th October, 2009 under Section 408/420/467/468/120B IPC at PS-Shakarpur (in which Closure Report has been filed by the IO in the concerned court) was registered on the same/similar allegations as in the present FIR.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 13 of 32The allegations in the present FIR are that various loan applications for and on behalf of M/s Shree Bihari Forging Pvt. Ltd. have been submitted for obtaining loan from various banks without any board resolution as the complainant was not in talking terms with another director/accused namely Pramod Goil and no such board meetings for taking such loans were ever held.It is further alleged that the accused persons have forged the signatures of the complainant on various loan application forms which were processed by M/s Perfect Finance, Jhandewalan, Delhi and an amount more than Rs.1.25 crores loan has been obtained and the accused persons have thus caused wrongful loss to the complainant and to the company as such sums have been siphoned.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 14 of 32The loans were obtained by the company for its need in day to day business requirements.Loan applications were processed through the agent namely; M/s Perfect Finance and documentation was completed by the said agent under advice and guidance from the bank.Hence, there is no question of the accused/petitioners having committed any forgery as alleged.The loan application forms, etc. were got signed from the complainant by the agent and the same were submitted by him to the bank after collecting other requisite documents from the complainant like copy of passport, pan card etc. Admittedly, verifications were made from the complainant about such loans as mentioned in the FIR.The accused/petitioners are not at all involved in the acts of forgery, if any, as alleged by the complainant.12.1 It is stated that the loans have been obtained in a legitimate manner by the Company for its business and day to day need and the total loan amount of Rs. 1.35 crores has since been paid.The outstanding loan amounts have been repaid in accordance with the terms of the loan.Statements of accounts have been furnished to the IO who had cross checked the same and had found that no funds have been diverted to the accounts of the accused/petitioners and as such the accused/petitioners are not the beneficiaries.The No Dues Certificates/Statement of Accounts issued by various banks about repayment of loans by the Company has been filed.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 15 of 3212.2 No offence of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, etc. have been committed by the accused/petitioners and as per the records of the Company the loan amount obtained from various banks by the Company as well as loan amount repaid to such banks has been correctly reflected in the balance sheets as on 31st March, 2009 and 31st March, 2010 and such balance sheets duly audited by the qualified auditor have been submitted to the Income Tax department along with the income tax returns filed by the Company.12.3 Before the Company Law Board in hearing of the petition bearing No. 103 (ND) / 2009 with respect to working of the company - M/s BSL Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., the complainant made a statement that Minutes Book of the said company is in his possession and the Board suspecting some foul play directed the Bench Officer to visit the Registered Office with the petitioner for taking in possession the Minutes Book.By the order dated 19th July, 2012 the Company Law Board recorded the malafide intention of the complainant as the complainant on 18th July, 2012 made a statement that all the statutory records of the Company - M/s BSL Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. are with the complainant (petitioner therein) and when the Bench Officer visited the registered office of the Company with the complainant, the registered office was locked and when the Bench Officer tried to put another lock on the door so that the records are not manipulated, two muscle men stopped him and the Board recorded that "The conduct of the petitioner smells foul play and shows malafide and serious adverse inference need to be drawn against the petitioner." The copies of the orders dated 18th July, 2012 and 19th July, 2012 passed Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 16 of 32 by the Company Law Board in the petition bearing No. 103 (ND) / 2009 with respect to working of the company - M/s BSL Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. has been filed.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 16 of 32He is adopting hide and seek policy.It is also informed by Mr. Mittal that on 31st August, 2015, the Administrator, appointed by the Company Judge who directed Pramod Goil to produce the books of accounts on the next date of hearing i.e., 16th September, 2015 at 17.00 hrs.On 4th September, 2015 this Court ordered Pramod Goil to produce all financials and other relevant record of the company to the Administrator in order to conduct smooth comprehensive audit of the company.The Administrator vide letter dated 18th November, 2015 authorized complainant to file criminal cases against Mr. Pramod Goil or any other person who have removed the tangible assets of the company.On 3rd December, 2015, Pramod Goil sent resignation letter.He has also resigned from the company.The entire loan amount has been paid.i) Trial in the matter is expedited;ii) Pramod Goil as well as other petitioners in bail application shall join the investigation and produce all relevant documents which are required by the police which are in their power and possession;Bail Appl.Pramod Goil, petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 has filed the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 22nd April, 2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled in FIR No.268/2009 dated 26th December, 2009 registered with PS EOW, under Section 406/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC.Another petition is filed by Smt. Shashi Goil and her son, Ritesh Goil, both are wife and son of Mr. Pramod Goil who have filed the second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in the same FIR.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 4 of 32 the company M/s Shree Bihari Forgings Pvt. Ltd. was arrested in the above said case on 21.08.12 and he was granted bail on same day by the court of Ld. ACMM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi on the ground that they are negotiating for the settlement, but the accused Pramod Goil has not settled the matter as submitted in the trial court while obtaining the bail.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 4 of 32In this way accused Pramod Goil, Shashi Goil and Ritesh Goyal in connivance with the other accused persons obtained the loan from the above mentioned banks and financial institutions on the basis of documents containing the forged signature of complainant and Chartered Accountant."Bail Appl.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 6 of 32Mr. Sachin Khurana, the Assistant Vice President Sales of M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. has been examined.It has been stated by him that a loan of Rs.20 lacs was sanctioned by M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. to Shree Bihari Forgings Pvt. Ltd. The loan application was processed through DSA the Best Solutions.Accused Pramod Goil had approached the bank on behalf of the borrower company.All the documentation required for the loan processing was provided by Pramod Goil to the DSA Best Solutions.In due procedure of sanctioning the loan he has visited the factory and office premises of the borrower company where accused Pramod Goil and Ritesh Goil were present for verification.The details of the officials of ABN Amro Bank, Barakhamba Road and India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. Noida, the DSAs of the financing institutions/bank are yet to be examined.The matter is being pursued with the concerned agencies to obtain the same expeditiously Accused Pramod Goil was arrested on 21st August, 2012 and he was granted bail on the same day on the ground of settlement.No police custody remand was granted for the sustained interrogation in order to ascertain the authorship of the forged documents and to unearth the whole conspiracy.The custodial interrogation of the other accused persons.The statements of many witnesses have already been recorded by the Police.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 7 of 32The operative part of the impugned order dated 22nd April, 2013 is reproduced here as under :"I have seen the application, reply, judgments cited and all the documents on record and my inference is that application of applicant/complainant under Section 439 (2) be allowed and bail granted to the accused Pramod Goil vide order dated 21.08.2012 by the Ld. ACMM be cancelled on the following grounds:-The parties seek three days time to draw an MOU between them in this regard with intervention of their respective lawyers.Since the undertaking has not been complied and the bail has been granted on the basis of aforesaid undertaking, the accused lost his right to remain on bail.Thirdly, subsequent proceedings after date of hearing 21.08.2012 shows that accused adopted delaying tactics, sometime he appeared, sometime he did not appear and sometime his counsel has not appeared and he always taking dates.In view of above, the present application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) is allowed and the bail granted to the accused on 21.08.2012 is cancelled.Subject to deposit of the said title deeds by the petitioner the impugned order shall stand stayed till the next date.Dasti."Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 10 of 32The case of the petitioners is that the sole objective and intention of the complainant is to harass them and to put undue pressure with a malafide intention to take control of the company namely M/s Shree Bihari Forgings Pvt. Ltd. which was incorporated in the year of 2004 by the petitioners and the complainant.The petitioner, Pramod Goil and the complainant are the founder Directors of the said company.Both i.e. Shri Pramod Goil and Shri Lalit Aggarwal, the complainant were authorised to operate the said bank account.10.1 Pramod Goil filed a company petition bearing No. ND15/2008 in Company Law Board under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the complainant and vide order dated 8th May, 2008 the complainant was restrained by the Company Law Board from operating the said bank account of the company till further orders.Both the petitions are pending.On 26th July, 2012 the said petitioner was arrested in the FIR No. 290/2011 under Section 420/467/468/471 IPC at PS-Sector-20, Noida and thereafter he surrendered himself before the court in FIR No. 405/2011 under Section 408/465/468/471/477A IPC at PS- Kotwali, Ghaziabad.On 21st August, 2013 the petitioner was in custody in the above two FIRs and in terms of the Production Warrant issued in the present FIR No. 268 of 2009, Police Station - EOW by ACMM, Patiala House Courts, the petitioner was produced before ACMM - 01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.The petitioner moved the bail application before the court and the petitioner was granted bail and further was sent to Dasna Jail with respect to other FIRs.The petitioner was granted bail by the High Court of Allahabad vide the order dated 28th September, 2012 in FIR No. 290/2011 under Section 420/467/468/471 IPC at PS-Sector-20, Noida.The complainant filed an application under Section 437 (5) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail before the ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on the ground that the petitioner after taking bail was not coming forward for compromise.On 18th October, 2012, ACMM vide the order dated 18th October, 2012 dismissed the application under Section 437 (5) Cr.P.C. of the complainant.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 17 of 32The complainant filed an application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P. C. before the Session Judge for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.The allegations of the complainant in the FIR No. 268 of 2009 is that the accused persons applied for the loan on his false signatures and manipulated the accounts of the Company - M/s Shree Bihari Forgings Pvt. Ltd. The Company dealing with the same allegations in the Company Petition 47 (ND)/2008, by the order dated 8th March, 2013 the Court appointed independent Chartered Accountant for inspecting the records of the Company and the complainant was authorized to negotiate with the independent Chartered Accountant and to bring him to the registered office of the Company.They also filed an application for anticipatory bail before this Court on the ground of change of circumstances by stating that the Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.On 21st August, 2012 the petitioner/accused Pramod Goil was brought from the Dasna Jail though production warrant as he was under judicial custody in two other cases before the MM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 18 of 32According to Mr. Sunil Mittal, Advocate who argued that Metropolitan Magistrate granted conditional bail to the Pramod Goil by order dated 21st August, 2012 as both the parties were negotiating a settlement/compromise.Therefore, he was released on bail.But, despite of various dates granted by the Court on 29th August, 2012, 1st September, 2012, 4th September, 2012, 5th September, 2012, 12th September, 2012, 17th September, 2012, 24th September, 2012 and 10th October, 2012 the accused did not complete the formalities.He admits that the complainant earlier moved an application under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. before Trial Court for cancellation of bail and the MM dismissed the said application of the petitioner by order dated 19th October, 2012 and subsequently the complainant filed an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. before the ASJ 01, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.On 22nd April, 2013 ASJ cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21st August, 2012 with the direction that the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Police Station/ Metropolitan Magistrate within three days.The trial court in the impugned order was justified in cancelling his bail order.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 19 of 32On 16th Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.The Court vide order dated 16th September, 2015 directed the petitioner Pramod Goil to deposit all the records of the company with the Administrator.Inspite of the directions given by Administrator on 31st August, 2015 and also directions by this Court by order dated 4th September, 2015 to produce all the records of the company with the Administrator, Pramod Kumar Goil did not produce the same.It is submitted that car which was driven by Mr. Ritish Goil, carrying the books of accounts and other relevant documents have caught fire and all the records for the period 2007-2008 to 2014-2015 has been destroyed.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 20 of 32It is informed by Mr. Mittal that Pramod Goil locked the office and the factory premises and broke the earlier locks of the premises in order to take all the assets and other assets like tables, chairs and other furniture from the office of the Company.On 21st November, 2015, on the false averments by Pramod Goil for not producing the books of accounts and other relevant documents to the Administrator, an FIR No.0652/2015, under Sections 193/203/204/426/477A/120- B/477/465/435/409/420 IPC, PS Pilkuwa, Distt.Hapur was filed by complainant.There was also a loan of Rs 3.6 Cr which was taken in the year 2004 - 2005 by the Company for which there is no allegation against the said petitioner in the present FIR but the same was also re-paid by him from its own efforts.In the BSL Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. where both Pramod Goil and complainant are directors and the complainant Lalit Aggarwal had sold the Company property without any consent, which is worth Rs. 10 Crores at a meager amount which was purchased by the Company for Rs.4.21 Crores.But the complainant had sold the same Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 23 of 32 as shown in the sale deed for a value of Rs. 1.45 Crores.And the fund was used by the complainant for his personal purposes.In the said case FIR is lodged by the said petitioner bearing FIR No.241/11 PS.EOW which is pending investigation.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 28 of 32The said amount shall be deposited within eight weeks.On deposit, the trial court shall invest the said amount in fixed deposit initially for the period of one year.The bail is being granted subject to the abovementioned conditions.The impugned order dated 22nd April, 2013 passed by the ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi is hereby set aside and order dated 21st August, 2012 passed by ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi is upheld.Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of.Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 31 of 32No costs.(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE FEBRUARY 9, 2016 Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 32 of 32Bail Appl.No.791/2013 & Crl.M.C. No.1621/2013 Page 32 of 32
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,394,410 |
2 The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows.(b) Ms. Mangal Mahadev Avhad and Ms. Bhagyashree Mokate,both residents of Pangarmal, were contesting Jeur Zilha ParishadElections.Two brothers of the complainant namely PopatRangnath Avhad and Dilip Rangnath Avhad, along with othervillagers were invited by Mahadev Kisan Avhad for campaigningsince last past four days.::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::party was arranged for volunteers and villagers by candidateMangal Mahadev Avhad at her residence.Liquor and vegetarian/non-vegetarian food were served.Popat Rangnath Avhad andDilip Rangnath Avhad had left the house for campaigning.Theydid not return home.On 13 th February 2017 at about 08:30 pm,the brother-in-law of Popat Avhad informed complainant thatPopat and Dilip are feeling giddiness and vomiting, and they hadbeen brought to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar.When thecomplainant reached hospital, he was informed that PopatRangnath Avhad had expired and thereafter other brother DilipRangnath Avhad had also consumed liquor, food and duringtreatment he passed away.(d) The complainant inquired with brother-in-law of PopatAvhad as to how the incident had occurred.He was informedthat on 12th February 2017, the brother of the complainant andothers were campaigning for Mangal Mahadev Avhad.In theevening, party was arranged.The liquor was served with food.The victims sufered from vomiting and giddiness.They weretaken to hospital and during treatment they were declared dead.The same wasdistributed by Ajinath Mahadev Avhad, Udhav Mahadev Avhad,Bhimraj Avhad, Raosaheb Avhad and Mahadeo Avhad.Afterconsuming liquor, several persons sufered giddiness andvomiting and they were admitted to hospital.(f) The spurious liquor was manufactured by Mohan ShriramDuggal, Sonu @ Sandeep Mohan Duggal, JagjeetsinghKisansingh Gambhir, Jakir Kadar Shaikh, Hamid Ali Shaikh,Vaibhav @ Shekhar Jadhav, Bharat Joshi, Nanna @ Ajit Sevani,Yakub Shaikh, Dada @ Pravin Vani, Navnath Dhadge, AmitMotiyani and Rajendra Buge.The liquor was distributed byBhimraj Avhad and his brother Raosaheb Avhad in the partyorganized by Bhagyashree Mokate, Mangal Avhad.(g) About 16 persons were injured and 9 persons died onconsuming the poisonous liquor.This allegation is not supported by any evidence.He had noconnection with manufacturing illicit liquor and he was not evenaware about the same.The Applicant has played a vital role in the crime.There is adirect connectivity of the Applicant in manufacturing of spuriousliquor.The Chemical Analysis Report reveals Ethyl alcohol andMethyl alcohol which is poisonous substance.The Applicant is active member ofGang.Call details record of the Applicant shows that, there wascontact with gang leader and other accused.The spurious liquorwas supplied by accused was discovered and seized from HotelSarthak and sent for Chemical Analysis to the ForensicLaboratory.The report shows presence of Methanol whichcorroborates with viscera reports of deceased in this case.TheApplicant is member of crime syndicate.He was in contact withgang leader Jagjeetsingh Gambhir.The confessional statement ofaccused No.7 and accused No.11 reveals that the Applicant washaving knowledge about spurious and illicit liquor.The Applicantbrought spurious liquor and distributed amongst the visitors forparty.He is not associated in any manner with mainaccused and he had no knowledge about poisonous liquorsupplied by the co-accused.The Applicant himself is one of thevictims of the said crime.He had consumed the poisonous liquor.The investigation do not remotelyestablish that the Applicant was aware about contamination ofliquor.The Applicant is member of organizedcrime syndicate.The confessional statement of the co-accusedimplicate Applicant.The Applicant had knowledge that liquor isavailable at cheaper rate in the canteen of Mohan Duggal.10 I have perused the documents on record.Party wasarranged as a part of campaign by candidates contesting theelection.Party was hosted in the house of Mangal Avhad.Theliquor was served to the visitors who attended party.Afterconsumption of liquor, the victims sufered from giddiness and ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 ::: Ethape 14/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docvomiting and they were admitted in hospital.About 9 personsdied, thirteen were injured two persons turned blind and one hadsufered from Paralysis.It was an unfortunate incident due towhich several persons were afected.(d) (f), 68(b), of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act read withSections 3(1) (i), 3 (1) (ii), 3(2), 3(4) and Section 4 of M.C.O.C.Act.During the course of investigation it was revealed thatJagjeetsingh Kisansingh Gambhir conduct organized crimesyndicate for pecuniary beneft.About 11 cases were registeredagainst Jagjeetsingh Gambhir under the Provisions of IPC aswell as Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The seized muddemalcontains Methyl alcohol as per Forensic Laboratory Report whichcorroborates with viscera report of deceased.11 The contention of the prosecution is that, as perSection 21 (4) of M.C.O.C. Act, it is necessary to see that thereare reasonable ground that accused are not guilty of suchofence.There is scientifc evidence connecting the accused with ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 ::: Ethape 15/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docthe crime supported by Chemical Analysis Report.Confessionalstatements of accused No.7 Mohan Duggal and accused No.11Sonu @ Sandeep Duggal were recorded under Section 18 ofM.C.O.C. Act which are admissible in evidence.The accused arenamed in the confession.::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 :::12 According to the prosecution, Accused No.20Surjitsingh Gambhir was in possession of 'Sai-Bhushan' Canteenin Civil Hospital, Ahmadnagar.Accused No.8 gave sub-contractto accused No.7 Mohan Duggal to run the canteen.Accused No.19 Rajendra Buge (deceased) provided duplicateseal and label of brands of liquor to accused No.15 Yakub Yunusand Accused No. 17 Navnath Dhadage.Accused No.11purchased empty liquor bottles from scrapped supplier.AccusedNo.15 Yakub Yunus, accused No.17 Navnath Dhadage used tomanufacture it by Hotel Bhavarchi, Kalyan Road, Ahmednagarused to sell it for the pecuniary gain of accused No.8Jagjeetsingh Gambhir and accused No.9 Jakir Shaikh.shows that, excess quantity of Methyl Liquor and Ethyl Liquorwere found in the viscera of deceased.It is alleged that calldetail record shows connectivity of accused.The liquor wasmanufactured in the night hours.It is alleged that labels andcaps were provided by Jakir Shaikh and other accused.15 The prosecution case against the Applicant YakubYunus is that he used to participated in the preparation ofcountry made liquor with co-accused.The role has beenattributed to him in the confessional statement of Mohan Duggal ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 ::: Ethape 18/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docand Sonu @ Sandeep Duggal.The liquor boxes loaded in thevehicle of accused Bhimraj Avhad were taken from ApplicantYakub Shaikh.He conducted Hotel Bavarchi, Kalyan RoadAhmednagar and prepairing illicit liquor and selling the same.Notebook was recovered from the hotel of the accused YakubShaikh, which contained the notes regarding the account.Handwriting was examined from the experts, which was found to be ofthe Applicant/accused.DATE : 02nd MARCH, 2020PC.1 The Applicants in these applications are seeking bailin connection with C.R. No.I-36 registered with MIDC Police ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 ::: Ethape 2/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docStation, Ahmednagar, for ofence punishable under Sections 304,328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short"IPC").Subsequently, provisions of theMaharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act (for short "MCOCAct") were invoked vide sections 3(1) (ii), 3(2), 3(4) and Section 4of the MCOC Act and Sections 65 (c) (f), 68 (b), Section 80 ofBombay Prohibition Act also invoked.::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::Ethape 4/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docIt was also revealed that several other persons had also suferedafter consumption of liquor and food and they were undergoingtreatment.(e) Accused Bhimraj Genu Avhad and Raosaheb Genu Avhadhad arranged for Indian and foreign liquor.Several accused were arrested.::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::Application No. 919 of 2019 submitted that, the Applicant YakubShaikh is not concerned with manufacturing of spurious liquor.The allegation against him are vague.The provisions of M.C.O.C.Act are not attracted in the present case.The Applicant is incustody from the date of arrest.There is no material onrecord to show complicity of the Applicant in manufacturing anddistributing any poisonous Indian or Foreign liquor.There is nomaterial to indicate that Applicant is a party to any conspiracy tomanufacture and distribute any poisonous liquor.There is nomaterial to indicate that the Applicant is party to any conspiracyto manufacture, sell or distribute any poisonous liquor, role withregard to mixing of Ethyl alcohol and Methyl alcohol inregulatory to prepare illicit liquor is attracted to other accused.The allegation against the Applicant is of general nature that healong with accused no. 17 received duplicate seal and label of ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 ::: Ethape 6/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docvarious brands of liquor which was later on labeled and sealed.He was helping at the request of accusedNo.9 Zakir Shaikh who was his relative.The provisions ofM.C.O.C. Act are not attracted in the instant case in absence ofany material to suggest commission of ofence of organizedcrime by the Applicant.The ofence relates to Bombay ProvisionsAct and the same would not attracted the provisions of MCOCAct.There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant hasengaged in any continuing unlawful activities or had committedofence of organized crime.::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::4 The prosecution has opposed the grant of bail by flingafidavit-in-reply.Learned APP submitted that the ofence isserious in nature.Several persons had died.Several others hadinjured.Death was on account of consumption of illicit liquor.The provisions of ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 ::: Ethape 7/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docM.C.O.C. Act are applicable in this case.JagjeetsinghKisansingh Gambhir and Accused No.9 Jakir Kadar Shaikhallowed them to run the business.Accused No.8 and AccusedNo.9 given sub-contract to accused no.7 Mohan Shriram Duggalto run the canteen.The poisonous liquor prepared by theaccused was transported by Scorpio Vehicle of accused no.4Bhimraj Avhad.Jagjeetsingh Kisan Gambhir is the leader.Severalcases registered against him.Twocases were registered against the Applicant with Tofkhana PoliceStation, Ahmednagar vide C.R. No.160 of 2005 under Sections 66::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::(b), 83 Maharashtra Prohibition Act and C.R. No.09 of 2010under Section 66 (f) Maharashtra Prohibition Act. There is ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 ::: Ethape 8/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docsuficient material on record to show complicity of the Applicantin the crime.::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::5 Learned counsel for the Applicant appearing inCriminal Bail Application No. 1711 of 2019 submitted that, nocase is made out against him for any ofences.The provisions ofM.C.O.C. Act are not attracted.Applicant had no knowledge thatthe liquor was spurious or it that contained poisonous substanceand he is not concerned with manufacturing liquor.He has noconnection with the co-accused.Assuming prosecution case to betruth, Applicant had collected the liquor bottles and the samewere brought at the venue and then it was distributed tovillagers.There is nothing to infer that the Applicant was awarethat the liquor was poisonous.Section 304 of IPC cannot beattracted against the Applicant.The provisions of M.C.O.C. Actcannot be applied against him.The brother of the Applicant hadalso consumed spurious liquor and he was required to beadmitted to hospital for treatment.Having knowledge that theliquor is spurious as alleged he would not have distributed in theparty.It was consumed by several villagers including his brother.The ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 ::: Ethape 9/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docApplicant at the most is buyer of liquor at the instance ofaccused, who had arranged the party.He was not party toconspiracy.The only allegation against him is that the Applicantpurchased the liquor from the canteen of Jagjeetsingh @ JituSeth and his accomplice Jakir Shaikh and distributed in the party.There is no evidence to show that the Applicant was aware aboutthe condemnation of liquor.The confessional statement ofaccused Mohan Daggal (since deceased) and Sonu Duggal wouldonly indicate that the Applicant used to visit Jagjeetsingh atcanteen and buy liquor from him as it was available atreasonable rate.The confessional statement do not indicate thatthe Applicant was aware about illegal business of JagjeetsinghGambhir.There was no reason for Applicant distribute spuriousliquor as the organizers were his relatives.No knowledge oflikelihood of death as required under Section 304 of the IPC canbe attributed to him.The ingredients to constitute ofence underSection 304 of the IPC are absent.Two moreofences are registered with Ahmednagar Taluka Police Stationagainst the accused.The Applicant was impleaded as anaccused.However, subsequent report was fled under Section ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 ::: Ethape 10/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.doc169 of Cr.P.C. against him.There is no evidence to show that, theApplicant was member of any organized crime syndicate ofJagjeetsingh Gambhir @ Jitu Seth.::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::Learned counsel relied upon order passed by thisCourt in Writ Petition No. 913 of 2019 preferred by SurjitBhagatsingh Gambhir wherein it was directed that the saidaccused shall not be arrested in the absence of materialavailable against him, in the charge-sheet establishing hisculpability under the provisions of M.C.O.C. Act.7 The prosecution has opposed the application for bailby flling afidavit-in-reply.There is suficient evidenceto show complicity of the Applicant in the crime.The Applicanthad purchased illicit liquor from the co-accused and the samewas distributed.The liquor was purchased at cheaper rate andhe had knowledge that it is spurious.The defence that he had noknowledge about the contents of liquor will have to be agitated ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 ::: Ethape 11/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docat the time of trial.The ofence is of serious nature.Severalpersons have died and injured.The confessional statement of theaccused indicates the complicity of the Applicant in the crime.There are several cases registered against gang leader.The Applicant has previous antecedents.Four cases wereregistered against him with Tofkhana Police Station,Ahmednagar vide C.R. No.136 of 1999 under Sections 143, 147,324 of the IPC, C.R. No. 123 of 2005 for ofence under Sections302, 201 of the IPC, C.R. No.193 of 2015 under Sections 12 (a), 4and 5 of Maharashtra Gambling Act and C.R. No.363 of 2015 forofence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 504, 506 ofIPC read with Section 4, 25 of the Arms Act.::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::8 Learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant inCriminal Bail Application No.2790 of 2019 submitted that, theApplicant has been falsely implicated in this case.He is not ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 ::: Ethape 12/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docconcerned with the preparation of illicit liquor.He had noknowledge that liquor was contaminated provisions of M.C.O.C.Act are not applicable.The Applicant was involved in one case bearing No. STCNo.4602 of 2008 under Section 65E of Mumbai Prohibition Act.The said case resulted in acquittal by judgment and order dated30th January 2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,Ahmednagar.The requirement to constitute the ofence underthe M.C.O.C. Act is not fulflled in the case of the Applicant.There is no evidence to show that theApplicant had knowledge about the purchase of poisonous liquorby the co-accused.There was no mens rea.::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::9 The prosecution has fled afidavit in reply opposingthe application for bail.Learned APP submitted that the ofenceis of serious in nature.The Applicant distributed spurious liquor to thevisitors of the party.There are serious cases against gang leader.The liquor was spurious.It contained Ethyl alcohol and Methylalcohol as per Forensic Laboratory Report.The Learned SpecialJudge has passed the order by giving reasons while rejectingapplication for bail.Supplementary charge-sheet was fled for ofence underSections 304, 328 read with section 34 of IPC and Sections 65(c)::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:05 :::The liquor wastransported by Scorpio vehicle of accused No.4 Bhimraj Avhad(Applicant in Bail Application No. 1711 of 2019).Although liquorwas hazardous to people, the same was served in the party.Dueto consumption of liquor, there were causalities and injuries.Theaccused No. 14 Nanna @ Ajit Gulraj Sevani with the help ofaccused No.18 Amit Motiyani had demanded 200 litres of waste ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 ::: Ethape 16/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docsolvent (Methanol Mix) from Jyoti Pharmacy through JansevaTransport.The Spirit and Methyl was provided to Accused No.7,Accused No. 11 and Accused No.15 Yakub Yunus (Applicant inBail Application No.919 of 2019).Accused No. 14 Nanna @ AjitSevani was allegedly instrumental in preparation of seal andlabels of country made and foreign liquor provided the same toAccused No.7 Mohan Duggal and Accused No. 11 Sonu Duggal.It isalleged that accused prepared spurious liquor trade by mixing ofnoxious substance i.e. Spirit (Methyl Alcohol) and by branding it,transported and sold in the market.::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 :::Two cases were registered against him.CDR report shows that he was in touch with Jagjeetsingh @Jaggu Seth and other accused.Mohan Duggal has stated that,the Applicant Yakub Shaikh used to sell illicit liquor at hotelBavarchi and used to help other accused in preparing illicitliquor in the canteen.Sonu @ Sandeep Duggal in his confessionhas stated that the Applicant Yakub Shaikh is relative of JakirShaikh and he was called for helping them in preparing illicitliquor.Considering the incriminating evidence against theApplicant Yakub Shaikh, no case for grant of bail is made out.There is suficient evidence to show his complicity in the crime.16 The prosecution case against Bhimraj Avhad is that hehad purchased the illicit liquor from the co-accused and the ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 ::: Ethape 19/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docsame was distributed in the party.He purchased the same from'Sai-Bhushan Canteen' in Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar.Theconfessional statement of Mohan Duggal and Sonu @ SandeepDuggal attributed overt-act and knowledge about the liquorbeing sold at cheaper rate.Statements of witnesses recordedduring the investigation support the prosecution case quainvolvement of Bhimraj Avhad.He showed the place of Sai-Bhushan Canteen from where the country made liquor wasseized.The Chemical Analysis Report indicates that the MethylAlcohol was existing in the liquor.The vehicle used in the crimehas been seized at his instance.Four cases were registeredagainst him.Call detail record shows that, he was in touch withgang leader and other accused.The confessional statement ofMohan Duggal mentioned that the Applicant used to visit thecanteen frequently and used to have conversation with Jitu Sethand Jakir Shaikh and used to purchase the liquor from the saidshop.He was aware that the liquor was available at cheaper ratefrom the canteen.Thus, he had knowledge that it is spurious.The confessional statement of Sonu @ Sandeep Duggalmentioned that the liquor was sold to him.Considering thenature of evidence against the Applicant, the gravity of the ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 ::: Ethape 20/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docofence and the role attributed to the Applicant, it cannot be saidthat he is not involved in the ofence.He is equally responsiblefor death and injury to the victims.He was frequently visiting thecanteen and inference can be drawn that he was aware thatspurious liquor has been manufactured by the co-accused, whichis sold at cheaper rate.The CDR shows that during the period from 01 stAugust 2016 to 03rd April 2017 there were calls between theApplicant and Bhimraj Avhad.It is pertinent to note that,Bhimraj Avhad is the brother of the Applicant Raosaheb Avhad. ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 :::statement of Mohan Duggal and the other accused indicates thatthe Applicant had visited canteen along with his brother BhimrajAvhad.The confessional statement of the co-accused alsoindicates that some bottles were given to the Applicant/accused.However, it is pertinent to note that on the date of incident, thedelivery was made to Bhimraj Avhad.There is no other evidenceto show involvement of the Applicant in the crime.It is pertinentto note that the Applicant Raosaheb Avhad was himself thevictim of consumption of liquor.After the consuming liquor, hewas hospitalized and undergone treatment.The medical casepapers annexed to application for bail indicates that theApplicant Raosaheb Avhad was diagnosed with acute alcoholicintoxication suspected methanol poisoning in view of severemetabolic acidosis and bilateral Bronchopneumonia /Dehydration / Hyperkalemia.The medical case papers alsomention the treatment given to the Applicant.If the Applicanthad knowledge that the liquor is spurious, he would not haveserved the same to the other victims on consumed himself.Thus, ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 ::: Ethape 22/22 BA.919,1711,2790.19.docthe case of the Applicant Raosaheb Avhad can be distinguishedfrom the other accused.He is in custody from the date of arrest.Presently no other case is pending against him.Considering thecircumstances, case for grant of bail by accused Raosaheb GenuAvhad is made out.::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 :::i) Bail Application No.919 of 2019 and Bail Application No.1711 of 2019 are rejected;ii) Bail Application No.2790 of 2019 is allowed;iii) The Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C R. No.80 of 2017 registered with MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar on his executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;iv) The Applicant shall report concerned police station once in a month on every frst Saturday between 11.00 am.to 01.00 pm., till further order.v) Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 04:51:06 :::
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,398,056 |
Heard on admission.The applicants have challenged the order dated 6.3.1999 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in criminal appeal no.4/94, whereby the applicants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:-After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no basis by which any interference can be made in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below relating to the conviction.The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge was extra lenient in grating the sentence of till the rising of the Court for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and imposed a simple fine upon the applicants for the heinous offence.There is no counter appeal filed for enhancement of the sentence.Nothing can be done for the lower sentence passed by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge.Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicants is hereby dismissed at motion stage.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as appellate Court alongwith their records for information.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,273,982 |
In March 1948 two further lots of Government security of Rs. 25,000 each of the value of Rs. 50,000 were purchased likewise and left with the Exchange Bank for the same purpose.On the 14th May 1948 the two banks entered into a contract evidenced by three documents to be noticed in detail hereinafter.In the meantime, -in answer to a letter -from the Co- operative Bank to the Exchange Bank asking for a certificate for the securities held by the latter on behalf of the former in the overdraft account, the Exchange Bank issued the certificate dated the 1st April 1949 to the effect that at the close of business on the 31st March 1949 it held Government of India securities of the total value of Rs. 75,000 as security against the overdraft facilities granted to the Co-operative Bank and that there was no overdraft against the said securities on that date.Subsequently, on the 29th April 1949 the Co-operative Bank wrote to the Exchange Bank asking the latter to hand over securities of the face value of' Rs. 50,000 to the Central Bank.The Central Bank also on behalf of the Co-operative Bank made a similar demand and as the Exchange Bank did not comply with that requisition, the Central Bank informed the Co-operative Bank by a letter dated the 3rd May 1949 that the securities had not been banded over to the Central Bank as directed by the Co-operative Bank.It became clear by then that the Exchange Bank was not in a position to return the securities to the owners, that is to say, the Co-operative Bank.In spite of the best efforts of the appellant as the Managing Director of the Exchange Bank, to stave off the crisis by borrowing money from different sources, the run on the bank became so great that the directors applied for and obtained from the Com-On the 18th May 1949 a provisional liquidator was appointed in respect of the Exchange Bank on a creditor's application and on the' 24th June 1949 the Official Liquidator was appointed to wind up the bank.On the 25th June 1949 one M. N. Raijee as agent of the Official Liquidator lodged information with the police charging the appellant with breach of trust in respect of a number of securities including the securities belonging.to the Co-operative Bank.He proved the transactions between that Bank and the Exchange Bank.The second witness for the prosecution was a partner in the firm of Messrs Merwanji Bomanji Dalal during the material time.He proved the transaction of the loan by his firm to the Exchange Bank of one lakh of rupees on the pledge of the securities belonging to the Co-operative Bank, as also other securities.He corroborated the previous witness that it was the appellant who negotiated and finalised the loan of one lakh of rupees from the Canara Bank and that the securities in question along with others had been pledged to the Canara Bank.It was he who had endorsed the securities to the Canara Bank.He further states that the declaration in that document that the securities rep I resented the Exchange Bank's investments was not correct.He also makes detailed statements as to the different kinds of interest which the appellant had in the Exchange Bank.He was drawing Rs. 2,500 as monthly salary as the Managing Director.per annum with half yearly rests.Ex. F is a letter addressed by the Cooperative Bank to the Exchange Bank enclosing Ex. E, and Ex. G is the bond pledging all marketable 495 securities and goods to the Exchange Bank in consideration of its promise to grant credit for overdraft limited to the amount aforesaid in favour of the Cooperative Bank from time to time with interest at three per cent.per annum as aforesaid.The significant portion of the bond is in these terms:-Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 20th October 1953 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 652 of 1953 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 9th April 1953 of the Court of Presidency Magistrate.H.J. Umrigar and R. A. Govind for the appellant.Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar for P. G. Gokhale for the respondent.He also proves Exs.He makes the following very significant statement:-The accused actually asked me for these securities and I handed them to the accused"."In fact, the accused himself told me to bring securities pleged by the Cambay Co-operative Bank with the Exchanage Bank".The Insurance Company and its branches had a current account with the Exchange Bank and had advanced to the latter six to seven lakhs of rupees as "call deposits".The appellant was also connected with Messrs L. A, 491 Stronach Ltd., Advertising Agents, which had been given overdraft facilities by the Exchange Bank.The appellant was also getting Rs. 2,000 per month as salary from the aforesaid Advertising Agents.The appellant and his wife were the principal shareholders in Akhaney & Sons Ltd., who were the Secretaries and Treasurers of the Indian Overseas Airlines.The other four witnesses, P.Ws. 5 to 8 are more or less formal witnesses in the sense that they have proved certain documents and letters which need not be noticed.The evidence of P.W. 2 had to be set aside as he was not available for cross-examination after charge, being out of the country.E, F and G, between the two banks; that the sub-pledging of the securities with the Canara Bank or with Messrs Merwanji Bomanji Dalal was "perfectly.within the four corners of the law", and that the essential ingredients of an offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code had not been made out.Grievance was also sought to be made of the fact that Inspector Milburn who had investigated the case had not been called as a. prosecution witness, with the result that the appellant had been deprived of the right of challenging the prosecution evidence with reference to the police diary.The appellant then moved the High Court for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court.The cer- tificate was refused by that court.Thereafter the.appellant moved this Court and obtained special leave to appeal.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,415,921 |
as C.R.M. 3084 of 2014 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.02.2014 in connection with Mathabhanga P.S. Case No.465 of 2013 dated 19.11.2013 under Sections 147/148/149/353/333 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of: Subhash Roy Dakua @ Subash Dakua & Ors.... Petitioners.....For the Petitioners.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,427,378 |
The complainant, as well as the petitioners, are present in person.They are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Crl.M.C. No.4757/2014 Page 1 of 8 Ombir Singh.M.C. No.4757/2014 Page 1 of 8A copy of the Settlement recorded on 02.08.2011 has also been annexed to this petition.Through Mr. O. P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor.Sub Inspector Ombir Singh.Mr. B.K. Dubey, Advocate with complainant in person.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.16290/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.178/2011 under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC at police station Farsh Bajar on 06.07.2011, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Mr. O. P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. B.K. Dubey, Advocate for respondent No.2/ complainant, enter appearance and accept notice.It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed...."I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus since the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, and have decided to continue with their married life, and have been living together since the year 2011, and where the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby greatly diminishing the chances of its success.Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.178/2011 under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC at police station Farsh Bajar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.M.A. No.16291/2014 Counsel for the petitioner does not press this application since the same has become infructuous in view of the orders passed in the main petition quashing the FIR, and all proceedings emanating therefrom.M.C. No.4757/2014 Page 7 of 8The application is dismissed as infructuous.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J OCTOBER 17, 2014 dr Crl.M.C. No.4757/2014 Page 8 of 8M.C. No.4757/2014 Page 8 of 8
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,427,684 |
Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State-respondent and perused the record.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,431,570 |
This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.06.2020 passed by Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Azamgarh dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2020, filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh dated 18.12.2019 refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No. 43 of 2019, under Sections 376-D, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bilariyaganj, District Azamgarh.Heard Sri O.K. Nath, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Birendra Kumar Arya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.Perused the record.The prosecution case, in brief is that the victim was sexually assaulted by the co-accused and four other unknown persons.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case.The FIR has been lodged after one month of unexplained delay.The revisionist is not named in the FIR and FIR was registered against Hannan, Mutlib, Azad and Sarfaraz Ahmad.The name of the revisionist has figured up at the later stage of the incident.There is no proper test identification parade so as to identify the assailant.The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has not attributed any specific role to the revisionist.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that medical examination was conduced at the District Hospital, in the medical report there is no injury on the private part of the victim or there is no sign of blood or spermatozoa, as such the victim is not subjected to any sexual assault and no attempt of rape has been committed upon her.Further submission is that the age of the victim was determined as 18 years by the Medical Board.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history.The natural guardian of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly.Further, the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings.There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist.There is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.The revisionist was a juvenile on the date of occurrence.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh, upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for.Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:(i) That the bail application of the revisionist was rejected by the court below in a very cursory and arbitrary manner.(iv) That the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned courts below are apparently illegal, contrary to law and based on erroneous assumption of facts and law.(v) That there was absolutely no material on record to hold that the release of the Juvenile would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, yet the courts below have illegally, arbitrary and on surmises refused the bail of juvenile.The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending.Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the revisionist can renew their prayer for bail after one year.After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court.In the aforesaid circumstances the revisionist be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."State of U.P. (supra)., this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 09.06.2020 passed by Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Azamgarh dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2020, filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh dated 18.12.2019 refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No. 43 of 2019, under Sections 376-D, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bilariyaganj, District Azamgarh, are hereby set aside and reversed.The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.Let the revisionist, Shahil through his natural guardian/ mother Shamima be released on bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2019, under Sections 376-D, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bilariyaganj, District Azamgarh upon his mother furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia subject to the following conditions:(i) That the natural guardian will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.(ii) The revisionist through his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of December, 2020 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,434,732 |
(Delivered on the 7th day of May, 2015) The applicants have preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of criminal complaint case No.273/2009, pending before the JMFC, Chhindwara for offence under Sections 294, 506-B, 323, 342, 147, 148, 149 and 500 of IPC and Sections 3, 10, 11 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as "Special Act").The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the respondents No.2 and 3 had lodged a criminal complaint before the CJM, Chhindwara on 28.3.1994 that the applicants being SHO and ASI at Police Station Kotwali, Chhindwara called the respondents No.2 and 3 at Police station on 24.9.1994, at about- 2 -C.No.14793 of 2013 10 a.m. Jaya Bai, mother of the respondents No.2 and 3 also accompanied them.The applicants and their companions shouted upon Jaya Bai to go away but, she could not go and therefore, the applicant No.2 gave a slap on his face and therefore, swelling was caused on her mouth and thereafter, she went to her house.The respondents No.2 and 3 were tortured.They had been abused with the words relating to their caste and assaulted by an iron rule on their backs.Both of them sustained injuries on their back, mouth and face.It was the duty of the trial Court to consider that report and it was the duty of the trial Court to examine Manish Pandey, who accompanied the respondents No.2 and 3 while they were called in the police station and lady constable Tilak to arrive at proper conclusion.There are two sets of evidence available to the trial Court.Thereafter, a complaint was filed for the aforesaid offences.- 3 -C.No.14793 of 2013The Magistrate has passed an order under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and after due investigation, SDOP Chhindwara has submitted a written report in the case addressed to S.P.Chhindwara, in which it was found that the complaint was false and baseless.Again they were called on 25.4.1994 and again at 4 p.m. they permitted to leave the police station.Entries were made in the concerned Rojnamacha, which was duly maintained in the police station.After getting the report under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. The trial Court examined the various witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter registered a complaint case.Arrest warrants were issued against the applicants and on having knowledge of criminal complaint, they preferred the present petition.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that Ganpati Manekar and his wife Nirmala Manekar had been killed on 16.1.1994 by one Dilip Manekar alongwith his companions.The respondents No.2 and 3 were the sisters of accused Dilip.Respondents No.2 and 3 alongwith their mother- 4 -C.No.14793 of 2013 were called for interrogation to know the whereabouts of absconding accused Dilip and interrogation took place before Manish Pandey, who accompanied the respondents No.2 and 3 and lady constable Tilak and on both the days, the respondents No.2 and 3 were permitted to go back to their house.Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that report under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. was negative and before registration of case, it was for the JMFC to consider the report submitted by the superior officers of the applicants.It is further submitted that the complaint was registered by order dated 5.7.1997, if that order is perused then, it is totally a non speaking order.The Magistrate did not apply his mind that there is no penal provision under Sections 10 and 11 of the Special Act. Various Sections of offences as mentioned in the complaint were reproduced in the order passed by the JMFC on 5.7.1997 and therefore, order is bad in the law.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that the respondents No.2 and 3 were not required for investigation in the murder case of Ganpati and his wife.Also the respondents No.2 and 3 were kept in the police station for approximately 34 hours and they were tortured and beaten by police officers.C.No.14793 of 2013After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, some discrepancies and unnaturalness is visible in the allegations made in the complaint.It is true that the Judicial Magistrate First Class did not apply his mind while registration of a complaint case.He has reproduced the Sections in his order, which were mentioned in the complaint.Firstly, that the respondents No.2 and 3 and their mother blamed the applicants and their companions for such torture and harassment done by them and second set was a report of DSP, a superior officer of the applicants, in which it was mentioned that the respondents No.2 and 3 were called for two days in day light and they were sent back after asking some questions in a respectful manner.Hence, it was for the trial Court to compare the evidence and to right down the reasons as to why the statements given by the respondents No.2 and 3- 7 -C.No.14793 of 2013 were believable but, unfortunately the trial Court did not mention a single word as to why he registered the case.According to the respondent No.2, she and her sister Gunta were given seats separately.Thereafter, T.I. has called both of them in a room and abused them with words relating to their caste.Thereafter, T.I. gave slaps to the respondent Gunta.However, no such specific allegation is made in the complaint that the applicant No.1 gave any slap to the respondent No.3 Gunta.Thereafter, according to Gunta, she and her sister were tortured at the same place and assaulted by "Policewala".When the respondents No.2 and 3 could file a complaint case against police officers and officials by their name then, pleadings and allegations should have been given against the particular person, who assaulted them.If they did not know the name of concerned "Policewala" then, no specific names should have been given in the complaint of these persons, who were made accused in the complaint case.Again Chandrakala (P.W.1) in para 2 has stated that she and her sister were separately kept in two separate torture rooms and they were separately assaulted by "Policewalas".Again she had claimed that she saw that her sister was assaulted by an iron- 8 -C.No.14793 of 2013 rule on her back and thereafter, they were directed to put their signatures on blank papers.According to the pleadings made in the complaint, the respondents No.2 and 3 were released on 25 th March.Their mother had filed an application before CJM, Chhindwara, so that the respondents No.2 and 3 be produced before the Court within 24 hours after their arrest and thereafter, they were released.Respondents No.2 and 3 were released on 25 th March and a private complaint was lodged on 28th March.Thus, in these three days, respondents No.2 and 3 and their mother Jaya Bai would have been treated for their injuries and they could file treatment papers to show that they sustained injuries due to torture caused upon them.C.No.14793 of 2013 their testimony comes in the cloud of doubt and the enquiry report submitted by DSP, Chhindwara appears to be acceptable.It was possible that since brother of the respondents No.2 and 3 was required by the police for a double murder case and they were called to the police station to know the whereabouts of Dilip Manekar then, to shelter their brother, a complaint was lodged before CJM, Chhindwara, so that a pressure would be created upon the SHO and I.O. of that case and they might have turned loose in investigation of double murder case.Innocent police officers cannot be tortured by facing a criminal complaint for a longer period.Copy of the order be sent to the Court below for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 7/5/2015 Pushpendra
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
751,051 |
The second count of the charge was that on the same day and at the same place he attempted to commit suicide and did an act to wit caused stab injuries on his person with a view to commit suicide and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 309 of the Code.The accused appellant is the son of the informant Tinkari Adhikary by his first wife.Tinkari Adhikary was the postmaster at Purulia and was residing in the official quarters meant for the postmaster at the relevant time.The appellant lost his mother when quite young and Tinkari married again.Tinkari has several children by his second wife named Puspa.The elder sister of Puspa is the mother-in-law of the appellant Mihir.Up to this there is no dispute.The prosecution case now is that at about midnight Tinkari and other members sleeping in the rooms were awakened by shouts raised by Hira to the effect that she was being killed, by her husband.Immediately Tinkari along with Dhanapati and Nirupama, a son and daughter of Tinkari by his second wife, rushed to the police station.The police station is about 1/8th of a kilometre from the house.There Tinkari made a statement which was recorded in the G. D. being Entry No. 586 (Ext. 6).Immediately after recording the G. D. S. I. Atul Chakrabarty came to the house of the informant.Then the door leading to the eastern verandah was opened and the party came into the verandah.Some outsiders also were in the party.They found Hira and the baby lying dead in a pool of blood.The accused was lying in a cot with a knife stuck to his chest.On seeing the people the accused threw away the knife to the courtyard and made a statement confessing that he had murdered his wife and the child and thereafter attempted to commit Suicide.The injured, viz., the appellant was then sent to the hospital in a rickshaw.In fact, some miscreants raided the house and the accused repeatedly asked his father to open the door.The door was not opened.The miscreants killed his wife and daughter and also attempted on his life.He became unconscious and lay unconscious when the witnesses came and when he was sent to the hospital.He denied to have made any statements in the nature of confessions either at the house or at the hospital.Of the remaining witnesses P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are inmates of the house.P. Ws. 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are outsiders who assembled at the house on the night of occurrence.P. W. 1 says that on the relevant night he and the other members of his family went to sleep at about 10.30 p.m. after taking their meals.He was occupying one of the rooms with his wife Puspa and 3 of their children.The other room was occupied by his mother-in-law, the mother-in-law of the accused and Dhanapati, the eldest son of P. W. 1 by his second wife.JUDGMENT B.C. Chakrabarti, J.This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1979, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 309, Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life on the first charge and simple imprisonment for one year under Section 309, I. P. CThe charge against the appellant Mihir Adhikary was that on 15th day of September, 1977 he did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Hira (wife of the appellant) and Sarada (daughter of the appellant aged about 11/2 years) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Code.On the relevant date the accused-appellant went to sleep in the eastern.verandah of the quarters along with his wife and daughter after taking their meals while the other inmates, viz. Tinkari, his wife Puspa, his children, viz. Dhanapati, Nirupama, Sanjoy and others slept in the two rooms of the quarters.The mother of the deceased Hira was also there in that house on that night.At the hospital too the appellant made a statement confessing his guilt.The statement was recorded by the medical officer countersigned by two witnesses.The accused was formally arrested at 4 a.m. and was forwarded to Court on the very same day.After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the : accused on the two charges aforesaid.As many as 21 witnesses have been examined in this case for the prosecution.The defence did not adduce any evidence.Of the witnesses examined P. Ws. 13, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are police officers and constables.P. W. 14 is the autopsy surgeon who held postmortem examination on the dead bodies of Hira and Sarada.P. W. 16 Dr. Mahanty was the medical officer attached to Purulia Sadar Hospital at the relevant time.He examined the appellant and also recorded the alleged extra-judicial confession made by him at that time.P. W. 21 is a formal witness proving a report of forensic examination of certain articles sent for the purpose.The knife was one of the articles sent and it was found to contain stains of human blood.The accused and his wife along with their daughter Sarada went to sleep in the Eastern verandah.There were two cots in the verandah for their, use.At about 12.30 in the midnight P. W. 1 heard Hira shouting that she was being killed by the eldest son of.the witness.She was shouting for help.Out of fear the witness did not venture to open the door and come out to the verandah.Instead he rushed to Purulia Town P. S. along with his son Dhanapati and daughter Nirupama.At the police station the information given by him was recorded and thereafter the police came to the house when the door leading to the verandah was opened.The party went into the verandah and found Hira and Sarada lying dead with bleeding injuries and also found a knife stuck in the body of Mihir the appellant.On seeing the people Mihir drew out the knife and threw it into the court-yard.Mihir at that time gave out that he had murdered his wife and daughter and also made attempt to put an end to his life.The police arranged for removing Mihir to the hospital.The witness again went to the police station and made a statement which was recorded and was signed by him (Ext. 1).The knife which the accused threw away was also seized by the police under the seizure-list (Material Ext. I).From the cross-examination it appears that the quarters occupied by P.W. 1 has two rooms with a verandah on the east and a compound thereafter surrounded by compound walls.It also appears that a new post-office building was under construction close to his quarters and the office of the telephone exchange is also close by.The Witness or the other members of the household did not raise any alarm after hearing the shouts of Hira.The first thing that they did was to rush to the police station.He has also stated that 4 or 5 outsiders came along with them when they entered the varandah along with the police.Ha materially corroborates P. W. 1 and also speaks of the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant when they came to the varandah.He has stated that while going to the thana they shouted for help.He has denied the suggestion that the appellant was lying unconscious at the time they entered the varandah.9. P. W. 3 Nirupama Adhikary is the eldest daughter of P. W. 1 by the second wife, and P. W. 4 Puspa Adhikary is the second wife of P. W. 1, They too have materially corroborated P. Ws.1 and 2 in regard to the main incident.P. W. 4 has categorically stated that even after hearing the shouts raised by Hira they did not attempt to go to the verandah out of fear and that her elder sister (mother of Hira) also did not come out to the verandah.They came to the varandah only after the police came and that was within about 2 minutes.She too has denied the suggestion that the appellant was unconscious at that time.The obvious defence suggestion was that he was not in a fit state to make any confessional statement at that time.He was merely tendered and cross-examination was declined.P. W. 7 Aparna Chowdhury is the mother of Hira.She was living in the quarters of P. W. 1 on the relevant night.Her evidence is that her daughter, son-in-law and their daughter went to sleep in the varandah, that sometime later she heard her daughter shouting to the effect that her husband was killing her and at once Tinkari went to call the police along with Dranpati and Nirupama.After the police came they all entered inside the verandah.She also corroborates P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 when she says that the appellant drew out the knife from his person and threw it away and that he made a statement to the effect that he had killed his wife and daughter and that he attempted to commit suicide.P. W. 5 Abdul Samad Khan, P. W. 8 Nemai Chandra Sen, P. W. H Gouri Sankar Mondal, P. W. 12 Rengtu Bauri were some of the outsiders who had assembled at the house.P. W. 5 and P. W. 8, have spoken about the statement made by the appellant to the doctor at the hospital.P. W. 5 has further stated about the statement made at the house before removal to hospital.They both claimed that the doctor recorded the statement at the hospital and that they signed the paper.P. W. 9 is a witness who came after the incident and is not a very material witness in proving the prosecution case.He found as many as 12 punctured wounds of varying sizes and depths-- all on the back of the victim who was aged only about 11/2 years.The doctor opined that the injuries might be caused by a pointed weapon like a knife and when Material Ext.1, was shown he further corroborated that the injuries could have been caused by that weapon.The injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.On the same day he held postmortem examination on the dead body of Hira and found 5 punctured wounds of varying sizes and depths from 3" to 4", all on the front of the chest between the breasts.These injuries too in the opinion of the doctor could be caused by the knife (Ext. I).On behalf of the accused this doctor was cross-examined to some length to find out if it was possible for Hira to have shouted after having received the injuries of the nature found by the doctor.The cross-examination was directed possibly to indicate that the prosecution story that Hira gave out the name of her husband as the assailant could not possibly be correct.The doctor has stated that it might be that the injured person became unconscious after receiving some injuries and that he was unable to say whether she became unconscious immediately after receiving the first blow.P. W. 16 Dr. P.C. Mahanty examined the appellant at the hospital and found 5 stab injuries all in the front of his chest of which two were on the upper part of the sternum and three on the lower part.The sizes of the injuries were about 1" in length and 1/4" in breadth.The patient was fully conscious.He made a statement which P. W. 16 recorded and got signed by P. Ws. Nemai and Abdul Samad.In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries found on the person of the accused might be self-inflicted.The other witnesses are police officers and some formal witnesses as has already been indicated.Upon a consideration of the evidence, the circumstances of the case and relying upon the extra-judicial confessions made at the house and also at the hospital the learned Judge found the accused guilty of the charges brought against him.He overruled the contention that the extra-judicial confessions made at the two different places were hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and were not therefore admissible in evidence.The theory that some miscreants from outside had raided the house was also disbelieved.Accepting the prosecution evidence the learned Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him in the manner aforesaid.Mrs. Moitra appearing for the appellant contended before us that the conduct of the inmates of the house was most unnatural and unusual, that the document which has been treated as the F.I.R. could not have been so treated in view of the earlier information given by P. W. 1 at the police station, viz., Ext. 6, that the initial entry in the G. D. contained no reference to Hira crying out that she was being killed by her husband and that the story that was subsequently given at the trial was a later concoction.She also complained that the alleged extra-judicial confessions at the house and the one made before the doctor are hit by Sections 25 and 26, Evidence Act. She also made a grievance that the statement recorded by the doctor was not corroborated by P. Ws.Nemai and Samad in so far as they had blindly put their signature to the document without trying to ascertain what was written there.It is true that normally the inmates of the house were expected to open the door when they heard the shouts of Hira.There was a large number of people present there including some outsiders.The statement was made generally to the crowd who had assembled at the place.Custody includes a state of affairs in which the accused can be said to have come into the hands of the police or have been under some form of police surveillance or restriction on his movements by the police.In the present case after the accused was sent to hospital by the police after he had made the confessional statement at the quarters he curtainly had no freedom of movement and he was in the custody of the police from that very moment even if the formal arrest was made sometime later.The fact that the formal arrest was made at 4 a.m. in our view, make: no difference.The accused certainly was in the custody of the police from before the formal arrest.Therefore the confession recorded by the doctor at the hospital is hit by Section 26, Evidence Act. Incidentally it.may be mentioned that at the time when the alleged statement was recorded by the doctor, two police constables were standing in close vicinity.Admittedly the accused, his wife and daughter after taking their night meals went to sleep in the eastern varandah of the quarters.It may be useful to bear in mind the topography, of the house as has transpired from the evidence.The appeal accordingly fails.J.N. Chaudhuri, J.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,107,181 |
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 10.01.2019 in connection with Crime No.19/2019 registered at P.S.Nohata District- Damoh for the offence punishable under sections 384, 354, 292, 363, 366(A), 342, 323-A, 506 of IPC & Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.The trial will take time to conclude.It is further submitted that applicant is a first offender and no other case of similar nature has been registered against him.Learned Government Advocate opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant has prayed for rejection of the bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE nd Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI Date: 23/01/2019 03:59:11
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,121,053 |
Certified copy as per rules.2.5.4.20=3ef8745c6370f82dacdeead96 cacf73eb5be4686c0c728c8b32e39801 a8fdf0e, cn=ALOK KUMAR Date: 2017.11.14 17:54:07 +05'30'The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to compound the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short "DP Act") for which they are facing trial in Criminal Case No. 4710/2013, which is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gwalior (Shri R.P. Mishra).The short facts of the case are that upon the FIR of respondent No.2 Smt. Saroj, the Police of Mahila Police Station Padav Gwalior registered a case at Crime No. 78/2013 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC and 4 DP Act. As per the FIR, petitioner No. 1 Sandeep is the husband of respondent No. 2 and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 namely Rajendra and Vinod are her jeths.Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners in the aforesaid MCRC.11451/2016 Sandeep Imaliya & Ors.State of M.P. & Anr.Sections of law in the Court.Thereupon, Criminal Case No. 4710/2013 is registered and is pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gwalior.The learned ACJM framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 (part II) IPC and 4 DP Act. In the course of trial, the petitioners and respondent No. 2 filed the compromise application.Vide the order dated 15/6/2016, the learned ACJM allowed the compromise under Section 506 (part II) IPC, but disallowed the same under Sections 498-A IPC and 4 DP Act on the ground that the offences are non-compoundable.Hence, this petition.According to the report, they have arrived at the compromise voluntarily without any threats or coercion or inducements.It has been brought to the notice of this Court during the arguments by learned counsel for the parties that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have filed joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce on mutual consent before the concerned family court.It has also been stated by them that in the said criminal case, the MCRC.11451/2016 Sandeep Imaliya & Ors.State of M.P. & Anr.In the cases of B.S. Joshi Vs.State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs.State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others Vs.Babita Raghuvanshi and others (2013) 4 SCC 58 the Supreme Court has compounded the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC with other incidental offences holding that compounding of the offences would lead to amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes between the parties.P.C by the High Court.In the present case the guidelines are applicable in toto.In view of the above case-law and the filing of petition for grant of divorce on mutual consent by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.2 deserves to be accepted as the nature of offences does not impact the society adversely at large.On the other hand, the petitioners and respondent No.2 would lead their future life peacefully and happily without wasting their time and money in litigation.The bail-bonds of the petitioners are hereby cancelled.A copy of this order be sent to the aforesaid court for information and necessary compliance without delay.Accordingly, this petition stands finally disposed of.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,512,553 |
Case Diary is available.This is first application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.The applicants have been arrested on 8.9.2018 in connection with Crime No.26/2018 registered by Police Station GRP, Morena for offence under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 336, 427, 353, 332, 186, 341, 325, 333, 120-B of IPC and Sections 150, 152 of the Railways Act.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge van VANDANA VERMA 2018.11.19 17:55:12 +05'30'
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,127,035 |
Deceased Vandana aged about 22 years died due to h asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.There is no external or ig internal injury except a ligature mark and the hyoid bone fracture.H Deceased Vandana allegedly committed suicide in her residence.There was no direct or a indirect instigation.The allegation levelled against the petitioners do hy not constitute the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.The petitioner ad No.1 Mahesh Pawar is a government servant posted in the army and is on duty at Lucknow.The deceased wanted to marry with Mahesh.M According to the statement of Pawan Malviya, the deceased was of frustrated because of the poor condition of her father and also not being able to provide a job for her brother Sachin.Deceased Vandana has committed suicide because of the petitioners, who unnecessarily created pressure on her to marry the petitioner No.1 Mahesh Pawar.On behalf of the respondent No.2, it is argued that the petitioner No.1 Mahesh Pawar was at Betul from since morning and he was there till the evening.At the time of incident also when Vandana called her sister Kavita, informed her that she was not able to go to Sarini and the cell-phone went dead.The owner of the Internet Cafe informed her that Insaf Micro Finance Company, Nagpur, has promised to give a job to her brother for Rs.13,000/-.She asked Sachin Soni that her brother should go for job or not.She suggested Sachin to speak to the owner of the Gaurava Internet Cafe and she made her talk to the person.He asked him in which company they are providing job.Deceased Vandana again called him, but he could not pickup the sh phone.On the following day, he received the information that e Vandana has committed suicide.Heard on I.A. No.15642/20017, an application for taking ad documents on record.Considering the fact that the documents are the M copies of order and the charge framed by the trial Court, I.A. No.15642/2017 is allowed and the documents annexed therewith are of taken on record.rt Heard.The petitioner No.2 Deepika, the friend of the deceased Vandana, knocked the door then she informed the petitioner No.1 Mahesh Pawar, who is the cousin brother of petitioner No.2 Deepika.Mahesh Pawar after entering the room, cut the rope by which deceased Vandan hanged herself.The statements of Vandana's parents, brother, sister and other neighbours indicate that deceased Vandana was being pressurized to marry petitioner No.1 Mahesh Pawar and the petitioner No.2 Deepika allegedly was also pressurizing the deceased to marry Mahesh.After due investigation, Police Station Kotwali, Betul, has filed the charge- sheet.On behalf of the petitioners it is argued that the petitioners are sh innocent.They have never abetted the deceased to commit suicide.e The element of abetment is completely missing.Before committing ad suicide, the deceased informed her father in the cell-phone about severe pain in the head and she did not want to stay in Betul.She Pr committed suicide due to her own problems.She was also rt perturbed due to the fact that, she could not provide a job to her ou brother.The Insaf Micro Finance Company, Nagpur, demanded C Rs.13,000/- which she could not provide, therefore, she committed h suicide.When Kavita called back, a male person received the phone and stated that he is speaking from M.P. At about 6:30 p.m., it was informed to her that Vandana is dead.Counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that the person who received the phone sh might be the petitioner No.1 Mahesh for he remained throughout with e the petitioner No.2 Deepika and deceased Vandana.ad Perused the record.Statement of Pawan Malviya recorded under Section 161 of the Pr Cr.P.C. shows that Vandana informed him that she has recited to a marry with Mahesh.Vandana's friend is Deepika whose cousin brother hy is Mahesh Pawar.They are of the same caste.He assumed that ad Deepika and Mahesh Pawar might have harassed the deceased Vandana, therefore, she might have committed suicide.The statement M of Kavita also shows that she knew that the Deepika is the friend of of deceased Vandana and Mahesh Pawar is the cousin brother of Deepika.On 20.04.2016, she received a phone-call from Vandana rt stating that she should take care herself and the phone was ou disconnected.When she called back on the cell-phone, a male voice C stated that he is speaking from M.P. At about 6:30 in the evening, h news of Vandana's death received.She also apprehended that Deepika ig and her cousin Mahesh might have harassed Vandana, therefore, she H committed suicide.Sachin Soni in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that on 16.04.2016 Vandana called her and stated that at about 8:30 and stated that they are sitting at Gaurav Internet Cafe along with her brother Bhupendra.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,127,119 |
"My daughter Janani, four years old has been studying in UKG CBSC A Section in the A.K.T.School.Boshiya, was my daughter's LKG Teacher and Lasi Bosco is the Principal of the CBSC.Both of them used to take my child to a separate room and compel her to remove her clothes and used to pinch my daughter's breasts, try to insert their fingers into the vital part of my daughter, asking my daughter to lick their vulva, touch their vulva, such their breasts, nakedly make her lie down and insert pencil into her vulva.They also lift their dresses and asking my daughter to insert pencil in their vulva.Every time, when this happens they used to threaten my daughter not to tell this to any one outside and if so she will be locked up in the snack room.They also told my daughter they already locked a girl who did not obey their words.My daughter told all these one by one crying as we gave her courage.From the day my daughter joined in UKG she did not study well.My daughter says even when the class is going on Boshiya us to take her with permission of the UKG miss for the above stated acts.This is also known to the Class Teacher and the LKG Section Teacher.A counter affidavit has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station, Villupuram District stating inter alia that on receipt of complaint with regard to sexual abuse committed against a girl child aged four years, investigation was conducted and six witnesses were examined .It is stated that after investigation, one accused was arrested and another one accused is yet to be arrested.It is a matter of great concern, and even astonishing to note, that even the Police Department of the State is not in a position to arrest the named persons, who have committed such a heinous crime on a girl child, aged four years.The Inspector of Police concerned has not even disclosed the name of the person, who has been arrested after investigation.Before we pass any order, we direct all the respondents, including the Director General of Police, to immediately arrest all the accused involved in such a barbarian act, within 24 hours and submit a report to this Court."Pursuant to the direction issued by us, the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District and the concerned Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi appeared before us today.Today, a report and additional counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent-Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, wherein he has stated that on receipt of the complaint by the Inspector of Police on 3rd August, 2011 by one Kalaiselvi W/o Suresh reporting about the sexual abuse committed against her child Janani aged about four years, the Inspector of Police went to the spot and investigated the matter and examined the witnesses.M.Shyamala Devi, DCH., MRCP (UK), MRCH (UK) with the history of child sexual abuse.The Doctor was informed by the parents that the child Janani showed some sexualised behaviour at home, and on enquiry with her daughter, she told that her school teacher is doing this to her.THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE &T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.This Writ Petition designed as a Public Interest Litigation has been filed challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 14.8.2011, by which the third respondent declined permission to the petitioner to conduct a demonstration on 17.8.2011, condemning the sexual abuse made on a girl child studying U.K.G. class in A.K.T. Matriculation School, Kallakurichi, demanding arrest of the lady Teachers who were involving in the case.The permission was rejected on the ground that it may cause disturbance to the public and may also interfere in the pending criminal complaint.3.It was alleged that a four year old girl child studying in UKG in the A.K.T.Matriculation School, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District was sexually abused by two lady Teachers namely the School Principal and the L.K.G. class Teacher.F.I.R. in this regard was filed before the Police on 3.8.2011 and the petitioner claiming himself to be a Member of the Human Rights Protection Centre, Villupuram District, sought for permission from the third respondent to hold a demonstration on 17.8.2011 near Ambedkar Statue, Kallakurichi, to ventilate their grievances.4.When the matter came up for hearing before this Bench on 26.9.2011, taking note of the seriousness of the allegations, we passed the following order:"By this writ petition, it has been brought to our notice that a serious and heinous crime is alleged to have been committed by a teacher and the Principal of the School.As per the complaint given by the mother of the four year girl child, her daughter Janani, who is studying in U.K.G 'A' Section in the A.K.T.Marticulation School, Kallakurichi, has been sexually harassed by one Boshiya, the class teacher of the LKG standard, and Lasi Bosco, who is the Principal of the School.The complaint given by the mother of the child reads as follows:-"My daughter Janani, four years old has been studying in UKG CBSC A Section in the A.K.T.School.Boshiya, was my daughter's LKG Teacher and Lasi Bosco is the Principal of the CBSC.Both of them used to take my child to a separate room and compel her to remove her clothes and used to pinch my daughter's breasts, try to insert their fingers into the vital part of my daughter, asking my daughter to lick their vulva, touch their vulva, such their breasts, nakedly make her lie down and insert pencil into her vulva.They also lift their dresses and asking my daughter to insert pencil in their vulva.These kind of sexual abuses were done to my child.Every time, when this happens they used to threaten my daughter not to tell this to any one outside and if so she will be locked up in the snack room.They also told my daughter they already locked a girl who did not obey their words.My daughter told all these one by one crying as we gave her courage.From the day my daughter joined in UKG she did not study well.My daughter says even when the class is going on Boshiya us to take her with permission of the UKG miss for the above stated acts.This is also known to the Class Teacher and the LKG Section Teacher.Therefore, I request you to take action against the above said four persons."On the basis of the aforesaid complaint a case has been registered in Crime No.585 of 2011 on 08.11.2011 for the offences punishable under Section 342, 323, 506 (i) and 377 IPC.A counter affidavit has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station, Villupuram District stating inter alia that on receipt of complaint with regard to sexual abuse committed against a girl child aged four years, investigation was conducted and six witnesses were examined .It is stated that after investigation, one accused was arrested and another one accused is yet to be arrested.It is a matter of great concern, and even astonishing to note, that even the Police Department of the State is not in a position to arrest the named persons, who have committed such a heinous crime on a girl child, aged four years.The Inspector of Police concerned has not even disclosed the name of the person, who has been arrested after investigation.Before we pass any order, we direct all the respondents, including the Director General of Police, to immediately arrest all the accused involved in such a barbarian act, within 24 hours and submit a report to this Court.7.So far as the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition is concerned, we are not inclined to permit the petitioner to hold a public demonstration, since we have taken notice of this matter on judicial side.8.Put up this matter tomorrow (27.09.2011).The Inspector of Police Kallakurichi Police Station and the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District shall appear in person before this Court."5.When the matter was heard on 27.9.2011, after taking note of the report of Dr. M.Shyamala Devi of Appollo Children's Hospital, Chennai, who had examined the child and after seeing the manner in which the investigation was done on the complaint by the mother of the victim girl, we were constrained to record our dissatisfaction and deep anguish with the way in which the Police Officials behaved with the Doctor of Apollo Children's Hospital and tried to influence her and therefore we were of the opinion that CBCID must take charge of the investigation.6.The learned Advocate General fairly submitted that the State has no objection in transferring the investigation to CBCID to be headed by a lady Deputy Superintendent of Police and agreed to transmit the entire file immediately.Accordingly, on 27.9.2011, we passed the following order:A reference may be made the order dated 26th September, 2011, which reads as under:-"By this writ petition, it has been brought to our notice that a serious and heinous crime is alleged to have been committed by a teacher and the Principal of the School.The complaint was taken on file and registered as a case in Crime No.585 of 2011 under Sections 342, 323, 506 -Part I and 377 IPC.The FIR copies were sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi, and a case was registered against Mrs.Juno Portia, Class Teacher and Mrs.Lisy Bosco, working as School Principal of A.K.T.Matriculation School.The Police Department started the search vigourously to apprehend the first accused Mrs.Juno Portia.However, the accused moved this Court for anticipatory bail in Crl.Similarly, the second accused Mrs. Lisy Bosco approached this Court for bail in Crl.Steps are also being taken to examine the child by a Psychiatrist, Government Hospital and a petition to that effect has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner produced before us the medical examination report of the child conducted by a Doctor attached to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District dated 04th August, 2011, and the following facts emerge from the report:-The child was also brought to Apollo Children's Hospital, Chennai and was examined by Dr.The parents also brought before the Doctor a DVD, which contains the full conversation of the child relating to what the teacher did to her.The Doctor advised for many tests.In her report, the Doctor has stated that on 12th August, 2011 at about 12.42 p.m. she received a call from a number (918825020003) and one Mr.Vivekananthan, Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi spoke, and asked her about the patient Janani, to which the Doctor replied to get a consent letter from Janani's parents and also Apollo management for receiving information about Janani.It is alleged by the Doctor in the report that on the same day at about 3.15 p.m. Mr.Vivekananthan, Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi came to her room (Room No.4, OP Room) asking information about the child .When the Doctor again asked him to produce the consent letter from the parents, the Inspector replied that the Doctor has to come to Court, for which she replied that she is ready to support the police department, but needs the consent letter.While physically examining the child at the Apollo Children's Hospital, the following facts reveal:-Justice C.T.Selvam) and another accused namely, Mrs. Lisy Bosco has been granted regular bail on 30th August, 2011 by another single Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.Rajasuria).Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, in his affidavit filed today, expressed his inability to arrest the accused persons.Prima facie from the complaint made by none-else than the mother of the victim girl child aged four years about the sexual abuse, supported by medical examination conducted both in the Government Hospital, Kallakurichi and Apollo Children's Hospital, Chennai, it can safely be concluded that the matter is a serious one and the offence committed is horrendous in nature.Learned Advocate General also submitted that liberty may be given to move for cancellation of bail allowed to both the accused, which prayer we allow, and give liberty as prayed for.In the circumstances, we direct the CB-CID to hold an investigation into the matter, and submit the final report within a period of four weeks from today.We are constrained to observe that we record our dissatisfaction and deep anguish with the way in which the police officials behaved with the Doctor of Apollo Children's Hospital and tried to influence her, as alleged by her in her report.12.Put up this case after four weeks, awaiting the final report. "7.When the case came up for further hearing on 23.12.2011, the learned Advocate General sought extension of time to examine further witnesses and subject the child for psychometric test.M.Shyamala Devi of Apollo Children's Hospital, Chennai.After noticing certain contradictions in the reports submitted from time to time by the Panel of Doctors as well as the two individual Doctors named above, we directed Dr.Athitha Anandhi attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Kallakurichi and Dr.M.Shyamala Devi of Apollo Children's Hospital, Chennai, to show cause and file affidavits as to why they should not be prosecuted for giving false information and false medical examination after examining the child.Accordingly, we passed the order on 2.1.2012 issuing notice to both the Doctors, which is to the following effect:"In compliance of the order dated 23.12.2011, the final report has been submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch- CID, Villupuram along with an affidavit seeking some more time.The matter relates to the alleged sexual abuse on a four year old girl child, who is studying in U.K.G 'A' Section in A.K.T.Marticulation School, Kallakurichi, by the lady teachers of the School.The child was subjected to medical examination conducted by a Doctor attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.In the final report, it is mentioned that the Crime Branch-CID got the child examined by a Team of Doctors, which included Dr.The report submitted by the Team of Doctors contradicted the earlier finding recorded by Dr.Anitha Anandhi and also the finding of Dr.M.Shymala Devi of Apollo Childrens Hospital.It is stated in the final report that Dr.Anitha Anandhi admitted that her opinion and the opinion of the Team of Doctors differed, and further admitted that the opinion given by the Team of Doctors was correct.In paragraph-34 of the report, it is also mentioned that Dr.M.Shyamala Devi has also contradicted her statement made earlier to the fact that a police officer had intimidated and threatened her.She denied her earlier statement that on 12.08.2011 an Inspector of Police, attached to Kallakurichi Police Station came to her room and threatened her.In the aforesaid premises, before we proceed further in the matter, we direct Dr.Anitha Anandhi, attached to Government Headquarters Hospital, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District and Dr.M.Shyamala Devi, Apollo Children's Hospital, Chennai to show cause and file an affidavit as to why they should not be prosecuted for giving false information and false medical report after examining the child.Let notice be issued to both the Doctors.Simultaneously, notice shall also be served on both the Doctors through Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB-CID.Put up this case on 18th January, 2012"9.As directed the matter is listed today.Today both the Doctors to whom notices have been issued have appeared and filed affidavits.Dr. Athitha Anandhi, is a Doctor working in Government Headquarters Hospital, Villupuram and she has stated on oath that when she was on duty on 4.8.2011, the victim girl was brought to the Hospital by the third respondent with a Police Memo and she medically examined the victim girl at about 2.45 p.m. and issued Accident Register copy wherein she had mentioned apart from other facts that the hymen of the victim girl was found ruptured.It has been further stated that within a few days, the victim girl was taken to Apollo Children's Hospital at Chennai, and Dr.Shyamala Devi medically examined the girl and she has also opined that the victim girl's hymen was ruptured and thereby concurred with the findings and opinion recorded by Dr.Athitha Anandhi.It is further stated that subsequently, the fourth respondent Police arranged for medical examination of the victim girl by a team of Doctors attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Kallakurichi, Villupuram, comprising of one Pediatrician, one Gynaecologist, one Forensic Medicine Expert and two Psychiatrists.It is further stated that the said Team persuaded Dr.Athitha Anandhi to be a member of the Team.However, it appears that she was not part of the Team, but was present when the entire medical examination was carried out by the Team of Doctors.10.In the affidavit, the Doctor has stated that the examination done by the Team was on 18.10.2011 i.e. after 75 days after she had examined the victim girl.The Medical Team gave its report and opined that the hymen of the victim girl was found intact.It is stated that since the examination of the Team of Doctors was done after a lapse of 75days from the date on which Dr.Athitha Anandhi examined the victim girl, there is a reasonable possibility of healing of the ruptured hymen of the girl that too it is faster in a growing child.Further, it has been stated that she did not put her signature in the opinion given by the Team of Doctors and that she has not given any false information or false medical report.11.The Doctor attached to Apollo Children's Hospital, Chennai namely M.Shyamala Devi, has also filed an affidavit inter alia stating that on 8.8.2011 at about 1.30 p.m., the father of the victim girl approached the Hospital and wanted the girl child to be examined and treated at the Paediatric clinic as an out patient.The said case was allotted to Dr.M.Shyamala Devi and she examined the child and has recorded her observation in the report and in order to maintain confidentiality, she has not stated elaborately about the report and she is willing to provide the case record in a sealed cover for the perusal of the Court.Further, it has been stated that she did not examine the child from the perspective of a medico legal case because the child was not referred to the hospital by the Police for the purpose of examination and only her parents brought the child to rule out the possibility of any infection.Further, it is stated that on 12.8.2011, at about 12.42 pm., she received a phone call in her mobile phone from a person who introduced himself as Vivekanandan, Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi and sought information about the patient.The Doctor appears to have informed the Inspector of Police to get a consent letter from the parents of the girl and also from the Hospital Management.Later, on the same day i.e. on 2.8.2011 at about 3.00p.m., the Inspector came to the Chamber of the Doctor and when she asked to produce his identity card, the Inspector produced the same and the Doctor informed him that she cannot reveal any information as it would amounts to violation of patient's confidentiality/Medical ethics.On such information the Inspector of Police said "Madam you may have to come to the Court", for which the Doctor appears to have stated that she is happy to support the Police in their investigation, but things should be done officially.12.Therefter on 13.8.2011, the patient was once again examined by the medical panel comprising of three Doctors including Dr.Shyamala Devi and the Doctor is willing to place the observation and the report of the panel of Doctors in a sealed cover for the perusal of the Court.It is further stated that CB CID Police obtained two medical reports dated 17.10.2011 and 15.11.2011 from the Hospital.Further, the Doctor has stated that she has not contradicted her earlier statement with regard to the interaction with the Inspector of Police and she has not given any false information or false medical record.The Doctor has further stated about her academic career and that she never suffered any insinuations as having given false information.13.The learned counsel appearing for the mother of the victim girl contended that the investigation is not proceedings in the proper direction and the concerned Teachers against whom allegations of sexual abuse have been made, have not been examined and there appears to be attempt to derail the investigation so as to save the Teachers.Further, the learned counsel would submit that the Correspondent of the School Authorities in a meeting of Mill owners had openly stated that he is very happy that CBCID has taken up the matter.The learned counsel further submitted that all the relatives of the parents of the victim girl have been examined and as many as 50 people have been examined and it all shows that CBCID is not interested in property investigating the matter, but attempting to defuse the entire situation with a view to help the school Authorities and the teachers who have been accused of committing the sexual assault.14.The learned Advocate General by placing reliance on the final report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, contended that the investigation is proceeding in a proper manner and the accused will be dealt with in accordance with law.15.When the case came up before us on 27.9.2011, we did not appreciate the manner in which the Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi under the guise of seeking information from the Doctor was attempting to impead the investigation to be conducted in a proper manner.Earlier, when the mater came up on 23.12.2011, a Status Report was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, stating that the girl should be subjected to further tests.Since we were of the opinion that already the victim girl has been examined by the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital namely Dr. Athitha Anandhi, who confirmed that the hymen was ruptured and that finding was concurred by Dr.Shyamala Devi of Apollo Children's Hospital, Chennai.Subsequently, a differing opinion was recorded by a team of Doctors which was submitted pursuant to a medical examination done on the victim girl after nearly 75 days.The team of Doctors appear to have requested Dr.Further, Dr.Athitha Anandhi refused to sign the information recorded by the Team of Doctors.In the affidavit filed by Dr.Athitha Anandhi, she has specifically stated that since the third examination done by the Team of Doctors was done after a lapse of 75 days, there is reasonable possibility of healing of ruptured hymen that too such healing is faster in a growing child.In that, we are surprised to find that the investigating officer has stated that an anonymous person had called and made certain allegations against the teachers and that investigation is being done on the basis of such anonymous call and both the Teachers have denied any such abnormal behaviour and steps are being taken to trace the anonymous caller.16.We fail to understand as to what is the relevance of such anonymous call making certain allegations against the lady Teachers.The complaint before the CBCID is that the four year old girl studying in the A.K.T. Matriculation School, Kallkurichi was subjected to sexual assault by two lady teachers of the said School.Therefore, the investigation ought to have proceeded in such a direction to bring the books to culprits.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,131,119 |
(06/03/2018) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J :-The State has filed Criminal Appeal No.301/2002 against accused-Raju and Criminal Appeal No.2181/2003 against accused Jhabbu and others.Both appeals arise out of the judgments dated 19.07.2001 and 18.10.2001 passed by the First Additional Sessions 2 Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No.108/2000, whereby the respondents/accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court from the charge under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to I.P.C.).State challenged the aforesaid conclusion of learned trial Court on the grounds that the Court below has wrongly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses.There is sufficient evidence on record to convict the respondents under Section 436 of I.P.C.3. Charge-sheet under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149, 436 and 294 of I.P.C. has been filed by the Police Station Baheriya, District Sagar against the respondents alleging that on 11.02.2000 at about 7.45 pm near tempo stand at Karrapur due to enmity of election of Upsarpanch, the respondents committed mischief by fire with intent to destroy the tapare and shops of Bhawanibai, Churaman, Ramnath etc.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Perused the record."In exercise of appellate power under Section 386 of I.P.C., High Court has full power to reverse an 3 order of acquittal and if accused are found guilty, they can be sentenced according to law."The question for determination is that whether the findings of trial Court acquitting accused are perverse and unsupported by evidence on record ?In the instant case, the trial Court held that for the offence under Section 436 of I.P.C. the prosecution evidence on record is contradictory.On the contrary, as per paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment, on the evidence of Asharam (PW-1), Shriramju Prasad (PW-2), Manohar Singh (PW-3), Swaroop Singh (PW-4) and Premnarayan (PW-7) learned trial Court held that the appellants guilty for committing offence under Sections 147, 323/149 and 294 of I.P.C. The trial Court also held that on the date of incident the election of Upsarpanch was conducted.In result of election Kalyan Singh won the election, he defeated Indar Singh.Respondents were follower of Indar Singh and Asharam (PW-1), Shriramju Prasad (PW-2), Manohar Singh (PW-3), Swaroop Singh (PW-4) and Premnarayan (PW-7) were followers of winning party of Kalyan Singh.This is the reason for this happening.The findings of leaned trial Court clearly indicates that the trial Court has not relied on the testimony of Ashram (PW-1) for offence punishable under Section 436 of I.P.C. In fact, Asharam (PW-1) clearly deposed against all the respondents (except Khumbalal) that the respondents committed mischief by fire, 4 intending to cause destruction and damages of shops belongs to Churaman, Ramnath and hut of Bhawanibai.Asharam (PW-1) clearly stated that occurrence started by respondents Sitaram and Jhabbu, at the same time other respondents were assisting them.From the testimony of Asharam (PW-1), it is apparently clear that he is eye witness of the incident.His presence on the spot at the time of incident is unchallenged.For the other offence, learned trial Court relied on him as trustworthy eye witness.It is important to mention here that an FIR (Ex.P/1) has been lodged by Asharam (PW-1) on the same date of the incident.In FIR, he specifically narrated that the respondents (name mentioned in FIR) committed mischief by fire to shops and huts of Churaman, Ramnath and Bhawanibai.Name of Premnarayan and Pappu were narrated as an eye witnesses.Shriramju Prasad (PW-2), Manohar Singh Rajput (PW-3), Swaroop Singh (PW-4) and Premnarayan Pandey (PW-7) all these witnesses duly supported testimony of Asharam (PW-1).Churaman (PW-5), Gopal Prasad (PW-8), Hariom Shrivastava (PW-14), Janki Prasad (PW-15) husband of Bhawanibai, Bhawanibai (PW-16) admitted that their shops/huts were ablaze by someone.Of course, they did not state against the respondents but their testimony partly supported the prosecution story.Therefore, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of Asharam (PW-1), Shriramju Prasad (PW-2), Manohar Singh (PW-3), Swaroop Singh (PW-4) and Premnarayan (PW-7).They have no intention to falsely implicate the respondents.On their same set of the evidence, the respondents were convicted for other offence by the trial Court.Mahesh Kumar, Head Constable (PW-18) established that he registered crime under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 506-B, 435, 323 and 427 of I.P.C. against the respondents on the FIR lodged by Asharam (PW-1).On the same date, he sent Asharam (PW-1), Shriramju Prasad (PW-2), Manohar Singh (PW-3), Swaroop Singh (PW-4) and Premnarayan (PW-7) to District Hospital, Sagar for treatment and medical examination.In the impugned judgment, learned trial Court found that aforesaid witnesses were injured in the same incident.The testimony of injured witnesses also inspires confidence of the prosecution story.S.N. Pindra, Sub Inspector (PW-19) came to the spot on the next date of incident, i.e. 12.02.2000, he prepared "Nuksani Panchnama" (Ex.P/12, P/16, P/22 and P/23).As per Nuksani Panchnama (Ex.P/12, P/16, P/22 and P/23) due to fire, loss of Rs.5000/- was caused to Gopal Prasad, loss of Rs.1000/- was caused to Hariom, loss of Rs.1500/- was caused to Jankiprasad 6 husband of Bhawanibai and loss of Rs.40,000/- was caused to Churaman.This evidence is still unshaken and unrebutted.Even though, the owner of the aforesaid properties may not support the prosecution story but further they have not denied the aforesaid damages in their shops/huts by mischief.We do not find any material, contradiction and omission in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.Trial Court erred in unnecessarily emphasizing that there was no direct evidence to connect the accused with crime.It should be reversed.There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the respondents committed aforesaid offence in furtherance of their common intention.
|
['Section 436 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 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,131,694 |
W.P.(MD)No.17160 of 2018 Sakthi Auto Component Ltd., Rep. by its Vice President(Technical), K.Sarkaraiappan, 180, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. ... Petitioner Vs.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Erode.Ind-Bharath Energies (Thoothukudi) Ltd., Eppodumvendran Village, Ottapidaram(Taluk), Tuticorin.Trishul Electric and Power Gen Limited, New No.6, Old No.23/1, Yogambal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the impugned communication in Letter No.SE/TEDC/TTN/DFC/AO/REV/AS WM/F. HT.224/D.769/18 dated 14.06.2018 and consequential communication of the third respondent vide Lr.A/cs.Br./SE/EEDC/HT/A1/F.HT SC No. 85/D.114/2018 dated 02.07.2018 and quash the same as being arbitrary and illegal and consequently forbear respondents 1 to 3 from taking any coercive actions against the petitioner.For Petitioner : M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates.For R-5 : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar *** W.P.(MD)No.18399 of 2018 M/s.Ind Bharath Energies (Thoothukudi) Limited, Eppodumvendran Village, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District, Tamil Nadu, Represented by Das, Vice President(Commercial) ... Petitioner Vs.M/s.M/s. Sakthi Auto Component Ltd., Mukasipallagoundanpalayam, Perundurai – 638 056.http://www.judis.nic.in 6Ind-Barath Energies (Thoothukudi) Limited, the energy consumed by M/s.Sakthi Auto Component Limited and M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited were treated as captive consumption and adjusted against the given allocation and were not charged.After the factum of non-injection and lower injection of power during November and December 2016 came to be known, show cause notice dated 19.03.2018 was issued by the first respondent/Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle, Tuticorin, calling upon M/s.Ind-Barath Energies(Thoothukudi) Limited, M/s.Sakthi Auto Component Limited and M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited to submit their explanation as to why the actual charges should not be collected from them.M/s.Ind-Barath Energies (Thoothukudi) Limited as well ashttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 M/s.Sakthi Auto Component Limited and M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited submitted their explanations.Ind-Barath Energies (Thoothukud) Limited in W.P.(MD)No.18399 of 2018, M/s.Trishul Electric and Powergen Limited.When the aforesaid clarificatory order was passed on 10.09.2018, the Commission had Thiru.S.Akshayakumar as the Chairman and Thiru.T.Prabhakararao I.A.S., and Thiru.Rajagopal as Members.The Hon'ble Supreme Court bemoaned that more than half of the Tribunals that were set up to ease the work burden of the High Court are remaining non functional or disfunctional because of the non filling up of the vacancies.13.The learned Additional Advocate General drew my attention to Clause 9 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Grid Connectivity and Intra-State Open Access Regulation, 2014 which reads as follows :V.Krishnaveni, Senior Counsel, for Mr.P.Thiyagarajanhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.Aravindh Pandian, Additional Advocate General, Assisted by, M/s.S.Srimathy For R-4 : Mr.N.L.Rajan, Senior Counsel for M/s.M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd., Sipcot Industrial Growth, Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, No.19-A, Rakmini Lakshmipathy Salai(Marshalls Road), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records leading to the impugned notice bearing Lr.SE/TEDC/TTN/DFC/AO/REV/AS WM/F.HT.224/D.769/18 dated 14.06.2018 issued by the first respondent and quash the same as unsustainable in law.M/s.Ind-Barath Energies(Thoothukudi) Ltd., is engaged in the business of generating power and owns 20 MW Coal based power plant located at Eppodumvendran Village, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District, Tamil Nadu.It entered into an Energy Wheeling Agreement for captive use on 18.05.2016 with Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle, Tuticorin, represented by its Superintending Engineer.The recital of the said agreement clearly mentions that this agreement was for the parallel operation of the Captive Generating Plant (CGP) and wheeling of power/energy from the said plant to the destination of its use through the transmission/distribution network of TANGEDCO.M/s.Sakthi Auto Component Limited, Erode and M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited, Chengalpet were identified as the captive users.The drawl voltage of the captive users was fixed at 110 KV.The quantum at the receiving end was 9.000 and 8.514 of MW respectively.The total MW at the receiving end was thus 17.514 MW.The quantum at injection end was 9.250 MW and 8.750 MW respectively, totalinghttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 18 MW.It was noted that M/s.Ind-Barath Energies (Thoothukudi) Limited had paid the open access registration fee and other fees as notified by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission.Addendum to the said agreement was also made on 07.10.2016 and the following modification was made:-CE/GO/SE/OA&CO/STU/EE/ABT/AEE1/F.Ind.1 Name of the Generator M/s.Details of Captive Users Annexure-I enclosedTerms & Conditions Published in www.tnebldc.org/CAPTIVE APRROVALhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 List of Captive Users Sr Name of Captive HTS Drawl Distribution Quantu Quantu .users C Volta Circle m at m at N No. ge Receivin Injection o KV g End(M End(M W) W)M/s.Sakthi Auto 85 110 Erode 5.700 5.858 Component Ltd.While so, M/s.Ind-Barath Energies (Thoothukudi) Limited entered into a lease agreement in respect of the said plant with M/s.M/s.Ind-Barath Energies (Thoothukudi) Limited had authorised the captive users, namely, M/s.Sakthi Auto Component Limited and M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited to pay the charges directly to M/s.Trishul Electric and Powergen Limited.While so, it was made to appear that during November 2016, there was power allocation of 152432http://www.judis.nic.in 10 units and 6386002 units in respect of the power wheeled for the use of M/s.Sakthi Auto Component Limited and M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited respectively.But it turned out that in the month of November 2016, there was nil allocation.Likewise, contrary to the statement that there was power allocation of 786857 units and 7194246 units, there was the injection of only 858800 units.Based on the statement given by M/s.After considering the same, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 14.06.2018 holding that M/s.Ind-Barath Energies (Thoothukudi) Limited being responsible for the injection of power is liable to pay for the units consumed by M/s.Sakthi Auto Component Limited and M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited for the entire sum of Rs.11,78,16,392/-.Joint and several liability was fastened on M/s.Sakthi Auto Component Limited and M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited for the number of units respectively consumed by them from TANGEDCO i.e., 1,48,317 and 1,31,43,581 respectively.The open access granted to M/s.Ind- Barath Energies (Thoothukudi) Limited which was already suspended was directed to continue to remain under suspension.This order is under challenge at the instance of M/s.Sakthi Auto Component Limited in W.P.(MD)No.17160 of 2018 and M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited in W.P.(MD)No.13806 of 2018.http://www.judis.nic.in 123.The TANGEDCO has filed a detailed counter affidavit controverting the contentions of the respective parties.The first respondent can only raise a dispute and thereafter, refer it to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission if the same cannot be amicably resolved between the parties.6.The learned Senior counsel appearing for M/s.Apollo Tyres Limited would submit that they made the payments based on the invoices raised by the TANGEDCO.As per the relevant Wheeling clauses in the agreement, the distribution licensee would raise bills for the net energy consumed by the captive user after adjusting the wheeled energy, where the consumption by the captive user is more than the generation of CGP holder at the rate applicable.10.The parties have also filed their detailed written arguments.I carefully considered the rival contentions.http://www.judis.nic.in 17The name of the captive user, the quantum at the ceiling end and all other relevant particulars were set out in the said energy wheeling agreement.There is a specific clause with regard to the metering arrangements.They provide for installation of main and check meters which will have the facility to communicate their reading to State Load Dispatch Centre/Distribution Control Centre on real time basis or otherwise, as may be specified by the Commission.Meter reading shall be taken as per the procedure devised by the licensee.The CGP holder can also have a standby meter of the same specification, tested and sealed by the distribution licensee.Reading of main and check meters shall be taken periodically at the appointed day and hour by the authorised officer of the licensee in the presencehttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 of the CGP holder/his representative.The clause relating to billing provides that the distribution licensee shall raise bills for the net energy consumed by the captive user after adjusting the wheeled energy, where the consumption by the captive user is more than the generation of the CGP holder at the applicable rates.The captive user is obliged to make payments based on the bills raised.During November 2016, there was generation of only nil unites as per the CMRI down loaded data.13.Sakthi Auto Component Ltd and Appollo Tyres Ltd have enclosed materials in the typed set of papers indicating that their payments for the use of energy during the months of November and December 2016 were made pursuant to the bills raised by the Trishul including statements of the Superintending Engineers of the jurisdictional distribution circles.14.The stand of the TANGEDCO is that since there was falsification of figures and forgery of records, the captive users namely Sakthi Auto Component Ltd and Appollo Tyres Ltd will have to pay for the energy consumed by them.“115.Estoppel.—When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor hishttp://www.judis.nic.in 22 representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.Illustration A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it.The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title.He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.(i) Firstly, one party should make a factual representation to the other party.(ii) Secondly, the other party should accept and rely upon the aforesaid factual representation.The captive users namely Sakthi Auto Component Ltd and Appollo Tyres Ltd had accepted and relied on the representation made by TANGEDCO and made payments to Trishul.Sakthi Auto Component Ltd and Appollo Tyres Ltd had been directed by Ind- Barath to make payments directly to Trishul and it was agreed that payments to Trishul would be payments to Ind-Barath.Thus, the captive users have altered their position.To call upon them to revert their original position will be monstrous and iniquitous.The demand raised by the TANGEDCO is grounded on the terms of the Energy Wheeling Agreement entered into between the parties.The Clause relating to billing reads as follows :(c)The STU shall raise bills on the CGP holder for the charges payable towards transmission charges, scheduling and system operation charges, etc., as per the order/regulations of the Commission for the time being in force.But, the captive users have consumed energy during both these months.TANGEDCO did not however raise any bills for the consumption of energy by the captive users.That may be so.125.6.In case there is no member from law as a member of the Commission as required aforesaid in para 125.2 of our conclusion, the next vacancy arising in every State Commission shall be filled in by ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 34 Member of law in terms of para 125.2 above.”11.Clarification was sought from the Supreme Court as to whether the Tribunal as then constituted could continue to adjudicate the disputes.On 10.09.2018, the following order was passed :On 09.01.2019, Thiru.Rajagopal retired from the Commission.Thus, the Tribunal that existed on 10.09.2018 has ceased to exist.“9.Eligibilty for Open Access and Conditions to be satisfied.-(1)Subject to the provisions of these Regulations, the licensees, generating companies, captive generating plants and consumers shall be eligible for open access to the intra-State transmission system of the State Transmission Utilityhttp://www.judis.nic.in 36 or any transmission licensee on payment of transmission and other charges as may be determined by the Commission from time to time.captive generating plants and consumers shall be eligible for open access to distribution system of a distribution licensee on payment of the wheeling and other charges as may be determined by the Commission from time to time.(3)Subject to the provisions of these Regulations, open access shall be permissible to the consumers seeking open access capacity up to which the Commission has introduced open access and are connected through an independent feeder emanating from a sub-station of licensee:Provided that the consumers who are not on independent feeders, shall be allowed open access subject to the restrictions in the feeders serving them in line with the Commission's Regulations /Codes/Orders :6)Open Access shall be allowed to the intra state transmission system subject to the satisfaction of the conditions contained in the Act and in these Regulations.Having regard to the operational constrains and other relevant factors, open access shall be allowed to all EHT & HT consumers within their contracted demand subject to the terms and conditions of supply.In case of generation of electricity from new and renewable sources, open access shall be allowed as specifically permitted by the Commission in its relevant regulations/orders in force.”http://www.judis.nic.in 38 The learned Additional Advocate General therefore contended that the TANGEDCO was right in taking the stand that the Ind-barath will not be eligible for open access.Their core contention is that the entire burden should fall on the shoulders of Trishul and not on them.The agreement between the parties provided for installation of a standby meter also.It is not the case of Ind-barath that the said standby meter gave a different reading than what was projected by TANGEDCO.14.Looked at from this angle, there is virtually no dispute whatsoever.This is a simple demand for the energy utilised.Tamilnadu Electricity Supply code 2004 and tariff orders that are issued from time to time provide for levy of appropriate energy charges.The impugned demand of TANGEDCO falls within their framework.I find no merit in the writ petition filed by Ind-barath and I dismiss WP(MD)No.I cannot however leave it at that.Following the the discovery of fraud and forgery, Crime No.8 of 2018 was registered on the file of the District Crime Branch, Tuticorin Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120 B IPC.I granted anticipatory bail to one Sudhakar of Ind-barath as the enquiry revealed that he was not a party to the commission of acts of fraud and forgery.His name was subsequently deleted from the list of accused also.As and when the final report is filed, it shall be taken on file at the earliest and the trial of the case itself shall be fast tracked.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi is directed to submit a status report to the Registry once in three months.17.With this direction, WP(MD)No.18399 of 2018 stands dismissed and WP(MD)Nos.13806 and 17160 of 2018 stand allowed.No costs.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Chengalpet Electricity Distribution Circle, Chengalpet.
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,048,626 |
The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,052,463 |
This is repeat (second) bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No. 388/2015, registered at Police Station Chandan Nagar, District Indore for the offence under Sections 326-B,452,294,506/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a permanent resident of District Indore, having no criminal antecedents.During trial victim Aamin and her husband Ismile have been examined and they were turn hostiled and not deposed anything against applicant.Applicant is detained since 31/03/2015, whereas trial will take considerable time to conclude,in such circumstances, applicant be released on bail.On the other hand, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate vehemently opposes the prayer and prays for dismissal of application.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,053,480 |
He wasremanded to judicial custody.It is within his jurisdiction.A Police Officer in the rank of a Superintendent of Police is being appointedas Deputy Commissioner of Police.He is only a deputy to the Commissioner ofPolice.He is not equal to a Commissioner of Police.Government have passed G.O. appointing Deputy Commissioners (L & O) in certain Metropolitan areas as Executive Magistrates.The G.O.reads as under:?ABSTRACT Police ? Appointment of jurisdictional Deputy Commissioners of Police ?cities other than Chennai City as Executive Magistrate to exercise powerunder Section 107 to 110 of Cr.P.C. - Notification ? Orders ? Issued.Read Also:****ORDER:The Hon'ble Chief Minister among others has made the followingannouncement at the Conference of Collectors and Police Officers held on13.12.2013:-?Deputy Commissioners of Police in all cities will be given magisterialpowers under 107, 108, 110 Cr.P.C. as in the case of Chennai City Police.?4.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tirunelveli City.5.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Salem City.6.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tiruppur City.3.The Government have carefully examined the proposal of the DirectorGeneral of Police and decided to accept it.The Government accordinglyappoint the following 6 Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioners of Police in therespective cities as Executive Magistrates to exercise powers under sections107 to 110 of Code of Criminal Procedure.1.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Madurai City.2.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Coimbatore City.3.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tiruchirappalli City.4.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tirunelveli City.5.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Salem City.6.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tiruppur City.?The Executive Magistrates are different from JudicialMagistrates.Under these circumstances, if he allowedcontinuing his act, he will breach the tranquility of public.Thus, theInspector of Police (L&O), Palayamkottai PS has recommended to take action against the respondent Tr.Balamurugan @ Prabhu u/s 122(1)(b) Cr.PC and to be interned in Central Prision, Palayamkottai continuously.The AssistantCommissioner of Police (L&O), Palayamkottai has also agreed and recommended to take such action against Tr.The said detention order does not show whether the revisionpetitioner was produced before the detaining authority/2nd respondent andwhether he has participated in the enquiry.Whether his views wereconsidered.Whether the petitioner has produced any materials.Petitioner, a detenue, who has been confined in Central Prison,Palayamkottai pursuant to the order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the second respondent/Executive Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Tirunelveli City, directed this revision, challenging the legalityand propriety of the said order of detention.Petitioner belongs to Palayamkkottai in Tirunelveli District.On 05.03.2016, in Crime No.288 of 2016, under Section 110 (e) and (f) Cr.P.C,an F.I.R. has been registered as against him by the Sub-Inspector of Police,Palayamkkottai Police Station, on the ground that he exhibited disorderly andunruly behaviour.On 08.03.2016, the 2nd respondent issued him show cause notice under Section 110 (e) and (f) Cr.P.C. as to why he shall not be asked toexecute a security bond for Rs.30,000/- to keep good behaviour for one yearenclosing a preliminary order containing details as required under Section111 Cr.P.C. On 09.03.2016, the second respondent passed final order, underSection 117 Cr.P.C., directing him to execute security bond for Rs.30,000/-for keeping good behaviour for one year.Accordingly, he has executed thesecurity bond with sureties.Subsequently, based on the complaint of one Anandakumar, a case in Crime No.673 of 2016 under Sections 294(b), 352 and 506(i) IPC hasbeen registered as against the petitioner by the 1st respondent.On 13.06.2016, the 1st respondent sought for taking action asagainst the petitioner under Section 122 (1) (b) Cr.P.C to cancel hissecurity bond executed and detain him in jail for the bond period.It wasalso recommended by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Palayamkkottai Sub-Division.On 14.06.2016, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order cancelling the security bond executed by the petitioner and directed hisdetention for one year in the Central Prison, Palayamkkottai.Accordingly, hewas detained.However, in the instant case, a DeputyCommissioner of Police has been given such a power.The second respondent has mechanically passed the detention order.The executive Magistrate/Assistant Collector, Trichy city and others [crl.o.p(md)no.13878of 2015 etc, dated 29.7.2015].(2) Murali @ Ponnuchamy Vs.The Sub-divisional Executive Magistrate, Sivakasi and another [Crl.r.c.(md)no.161 of 2016, dated09.06.2016].Prosecution filed counter.In this connection, the learned Public Prosecutor citedA.N.Roy, Commissioner of Police Vs.So far the petitioner has not initiated any legal proceedingsquestioning the said order, dated 09.06.2016, directing him to execute thesecurity bond to keep good behaviour for one year.Now, in this revision, hecannot question it.He has perused the report of the 1st respondent, went through the materialsproduced and after satisfying himself, he has passed the order of detentionunder Section 122(1)(b)I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perusedthe impugned order, grounds of revision, counter filed by the prosecution andthe entire materials on record and the decisions cited by both sides.Now, the question before us is whether in the facts andcircumstances, the impugned order of detention, dated 14.06.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent/Executive Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Tirunelveli City, suffers from any legality, propriety,regularity.P.C.It runs as under:Executive Magistrates (1) In every district and in every metropolitan area the StateGovernment may appoint as many persons as it thinks fit to be ExecutiveMagistrates and shall appoint one of them to be the District Magistrate.(emphasis supplied by me) (2) The State Government may appoint any Executive Magistrate to be an Additional District Magistrate, and such Magistrate shall have such of thepowers of a District Magistrate under this Code or under any other law forthe time being in force as may be directed by the State Government (3) Whenever, in consequence of the office of a District Magistratebecoming Vacant, any officer succeeds temporarily to the executiveadministration of the district, such officer shall, pending the orders of theState Government, exercise all the powers and perform all the dutiesrespectively conferred and imposed by this Code on the District Magistrate (4) The State Government may place an Executive Magistrate in charge ofa sub-division and may relieve him of the charge as occasion requires; andthe Magistrate so placed in charge of a sub-division shall be called the Sub-divisional Magistrate (5) Nothing in this section shall preclude the State Government fromconferring under any law for the time being in force, on a Commissioner ofPolice, all or any of the powers of an Executive Magistrate in relation to ametropolitan area.?(emphasis supplied by me)Section 22 of the Code defines the local jurisdiction of theExecutive Magistrates.It runs as under:Local Jurisdiction of Executive Magistrates(1) Subject to the control of the State Government, the District Magistratemay, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which theExecutive Magistrates may exercise all or any of the powers with which theymay be invested under this Code (2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdictionand powers of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the district.?The police force in a Metropolitan City, area is headed by aCommissioner of Police.He is a Superior Police Officer.Joint Commissioner,Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner etc. are his subordinates.2.In pursuance of the above announcement, the Director General ofPolice has sent proposals to Government and requested the Government to appoint the following 6 Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioners of Police in theCities other than Chennai as Executive Magistrates to exercise powers underSection 107, 108, 109 and110 of Code of Criminal Procedure in exercise of thepowers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974).1.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Madurai City.2.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Coimbatore City.3.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tiruchirappalli City.1.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Madurai City.2.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Coimbatore City.3.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tiruchirappalli City.4.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tirunelveli City.5.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Salem City.6.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tiruppur City.4.The following Notification will be published in an ordinary issue ofthe Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated Twentieth February, 2014:- NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 20read with sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby appoints theofficers specified below to be Executive Magistrates in the respective PoliceDistrict so as to exercise the powers conferred under section 107 to 110 ofthe said Code:-On 09.03.2016, the petitioner was asked to execute a securitybond for Rs.30,000/- to keep good behaviour for one year.He has participatedin the enquiry.Above all, as stated already, the revisionpetitioner had accepted the order, consented to execute the security bond andalso executed the security bond.Accordingly, the petitioners have executed thebonds with sureties.When it is stated that a breach has to be proved,then necessarily the person against whom it is sought to be proved has to beheard.A satisfaction of the Magistrate has to be recorded in the order to bepassed.Such satisfaction should be based upon the materials to be producedby the police officer concerned as well as the contra material, if any, thatcould be produced by the persons against whom the said provision is sought tobe invoked.He has also produced the sureties.He was arrested and remanded to judicialcustody.It was also recommended by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai Sub-Division.On 13.06.2016, the 2nd respondent has directed theSuperintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai to cause the production of thepetitioner before him on 14.06.2016 and also issued a show cause notice tothe petitioner under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. through the Superintendent,Central Prison, Palayamkottai.On the next day ie., on 14.06.2016, the second respondentpassed the impugned order cancelling the security bond executed by thepetitioner and detained him for one year in prison.Its English translation runs as under:?Executive Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law & Order, Tirunelveli CityPresent : Thiru Pradip Kumar, IPSM.C.No.90/2016, dated 08.03.2016 Order under section 122(1)(b) r/w 117 Cr.Inaccordance with the aforesaid action, the Respondent/counter-petitionerTr.Balamurugan @ Prabhu was issued show-cause notice on 08.03.2016, as to why he should not be bound over on a bond in Palayamkottai PS cr.No.288/2016 u/s 110 Cr.PC for maintaining good behaviour for one year and fixed a fine amountRs.30,000/- if he violated the provision of bond, since this case comes underthe jurisdiction of this court.Accordingly, the respondent Tr.Balamuruganhas appeared before the Executive Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law & Order, Tirunelveli City on 09.03.2016 for inquiry and afterexamination, the charges against the respondent has been proved and orderedhim to execute bond u/s 117 Cr.PC and on the same day the respondent has been bound over and released him for maintaining good behaviour for one year.The Inspector of Police (L&O), Palayamkottai PS, has informed in his reportthat the counter-petitioner Tr.Balamurugan @ Prabhu (40/16) s/o.Chelladurai,who was executed bond u/s 110 Cr.PC on 09.03.2016 for maintaining good behaviour for one year, violated the provision of bond by involving himselfin a criminal case in Palayamkottai PS Cr.No.673/16 u/s 294(b), 352, 506(i)IPC, and he explained the details of the case registered against therespondent Tr.Balamurugan @ Prabhu (40/16) s/o Chelladurai, as hereunder.On 06.05.2016 evening while the complainant Tr.Ananthakumar (30/16) s/o Murugan, 15/20 Kularchirai Nayanar Street, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli wasreturning to his home from Super Market in his car, the respondent and hisfriends who were chatting at a bridge in his village, intercepted his car andas he blown horn they left away.But, when he stopped his car and got downfrom the car at about 7.30 hours, the afroesaid Balamurugan @ Prabhu and one Ranjith s/o Koilraj and their friends came near the complainant withaggravated mind and abused him with un-parliamentary words, assaulted him on his cheek repeatedly, at that time Balamurugan @ Prabhu threatened him with dire consequences and told him that they will kill him if he does not leavefrom the village.Balamurugan @ Prabhu.On perusal of all relevant records produced by the Inspector of Police,Palayamkottai PS, Tirunelveli City, it is determined that necessary actionshould be taken against Tr.Balamurugan @ Prabhu for preventing breach ofpeace and to maintain protection among public.Such taking of/deprivation of a person's personal liberty will not stand the testof law.The impugned order suffers from legality, propriety and it isvitiated.(2) The impugned order of detention passed by the 2ndrespondent/Executive Magistrate/ Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Tirunelveli City in M.C.No.90/Pro/DC.L&O/Tin-c/2016 dated 14.06.2016is set aside.(3) The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai isdirected to set at liberty the revision petitioner, if his further detentionis no longer required in connection with any case or proceedings.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.1.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Government Advocate (Criminal side), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.3.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.4.The Executive Magistrate/ Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Tirunelveli City.5.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai Sub Division, Palayamkottai.6.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City.7.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,054,255 |
Briefly stated the prosecution story, as mentioned in the written report, is that the first informant's elder brother Ram Vishal Pal was having inimical terms with Dhruv Panda.On 02.11.2005, two persons had taken his brother from his house for showing them a plot.It is further alleged that the first informant along with his brother and several other persons were present at the plot.At about 12:20 PM, while his brother was returning back from the plot to his house, two persons riding a CBZ motorcycle came there.The pillion rider, named Raja Bhaiya @ Kanhiya Lal Panda S/o Dhruv Panda, who was armed with rifle, opened fire upon his brother.Hearing the shot, first informant, who was following him, ran towards him, however, the motorcycle riders made their escape good through the motorcycle.The other person, who was driving the motorcycle, is known to him and has been recognized but he does not know his name.On account of firing made, his brother Ram Vishal Pal received injuries and died instantaneously, resulting into commotion at the place of the incident.Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.) The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Raja Bhaiya @ Kanhiya Lal Panda against the judgment and order dated 29.02.2016, passed by Special Judge, EC Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in Sessions Trial No. 394 of 2007 (State Vs.Raja Bhaiya and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 310 of 2005, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months additional imprisonment.On the basis of the said written report, Exhibit Ka-1 FIR was registered at Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad vide Case Crime No. 310 of 2005 under Section 302/34 IPC.After the registration of the FIR, the Investigation was entrusted to PW-6 Ved Prakash Rai, who along with relevant police papers and other police personnels, reached at the place of the incident and PW-7 SI Ranjeet Singh conducted the inquest on the person of the deceased and prepared the challan lash, photo nash, sealed sample, chitthi RI, chitthi CMO, which have been marked as Ex. Ka-10, Ka-11, Ka-12 and Ka-13 respectively and thereafter, despatched the dead body for postmortem.The Investigating Officer thereafter on the pointing out of the first informant prepared the site plan, which has been marked as Ex. Ka-9 and thereafter, collected the bloodstained earth and plain earth from the place of incident and prepared its fard.On 02.11.2005, an autopsy was conducted on the person of the deceased by PW-4 Dr. Ajeet Singh, who has noted as many as 11 injuries on the person of the deceased and in his opinion, cause of death was due to shock and hameorrhage as a result of fire arm injuries to vital organs.The injuries noted on the person of the deceased are being described herein below :-(1).F.A.W. of entry ¾ x ¾ inch x cranial cavity deep, margins inverted, on right side on nose adjacent to medial of right eye, # of underlying nasal bones and frontal bone.(2).(3).F.A.W. of entry ¾ x ¾ inch margins inverted x bone deep on right side of chin, scorching BT present with # of underlying.(4).(5).F.A.W. of entry ¾ x ¾ inch margins inverted x abdomen cavity deep on left side back of abdomen, 5 inch below inferior L of left scapula.(6).(7).F.A.W. of entry ¾ x ¾ inch margins inverted x abdomen cavity deep of back of abdomen on left side 6 inch above waist.(8).(9).F.A.W. of entry ¾ x ¾ inch margins inverted MM deep on outer surface of right hip.(10).(11).F.A.W. of entry ¾ x ¾ inch, margins inverted x bone deep on back of lower part of left upper arm, two metallic pieces recovered from left tissue.On 02.11.2005 itself, PW-6 Investigating Officer Ved Prakash Rai recorded the statement of the first informant and thereafter, on his transfer, the investigation was entrusted to PW-5 Shail Kumar, who again recorded the statement of the first informant on 26.11.2005 and in this statement, for the first time the name of the other co-accused Hanuman Prasad was disclosed and thereafter, the statement of PW-2 Shiv Lal Pal was recorded.On the basis of the said charge-sheet, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and since the case was triable by Sessions, as such, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions, Allahabad, where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 394 of 2007, State Vs.Raja Bhaiya and another, who made over the case for trial before the Special Judge, EC Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad.The Trial Court, after hearing the prosecution as well as accused, framed the charges against the appellant Raja Bhaiya and Hanuman Prasad under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The charges were read out and explained to the appellant, who did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt against the appellant has produced as many as 7 witnesses :-PW-1 Shyam Lal Pal is the first informant and the eye-witness of the incident, PW-2 Shiv Lal Pal, is another witness of fact, whereas PW-3 HCP Jaswant Kumar, who has registered the FIR and had drawn the check FIR and corresponding GD, which has been proved as Ex. Ka-4, Ka-5 and Ka-6, PW-4 Dr. Ajeet Singh, who had conducted the postmortem on the person of the deceased and has proved the same as Ex. Ka-7, PW-5 Shail Kumar Singh, the second Investigating Officer of the case, who concluded the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant, PW-6 Ved Prakash Rai, the first Investigating Officer, who had prepared the site plan and proved the same as Ex. Ka-9, PW-7 Ramji Singh, who had conducted the inquest and proved the same as Ex. Ka-2 are produced as formal witnesses.After conclusion of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in which, he has denied the prosecution case and has stated that the deceased Ram Vishal Pal was involved in preparing fake documents, as such, he had large number of enemies infact he had been killed at some other place and he has been falsely implicated in collusion with the police, however, the appellant has not produced any evidence in his defence.Learned Trial Court, after hearing the prosecution as well as the defence and scrutinizing the evidence and material on record, has recorded the finding of conviction against the appellant and sentenced him for life imprisonment, hence this appeal.Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri O.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State/respondent and perused the record.He has further submitted that even the name of the other co-accused, who was driving the motorcycle, has not been mentioned at all in the FIR, though, he is said to have been seen and recognized by the first informant.Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court on page 19 of the paper book, wherein he has said that the name of the person, who was driving the motorcycle with the appellant Raja Bhaiya, was Hanuman Prasad @ Raju, however, he could not mention his name in the FIR as he did not remember his name at the time of the incident.He has further stated that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded twice by the Investigating Officer and only in his second statement dated 26.11.2005, he had mentioned the name of the co-accused as Hanuman Prasad @ Raju.Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that both, co-accused Hanuman Prasad @ Raju and the first informant, are resident of Fatehpur Ghat and are very well known to each other, therefore, had PW-1 Shyam Lal Pal being present at the time of the incident, he would have certainly nominated him as a co-accused and this circumstance clinchingly establishes that the first informant was in fact not present at the time of the incident.Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn the attention of the Court on page 24 of the paper book, wherein PW-1 has stated that on account of fear, he had not mentioned the name of the co-accused Hanuman Prasad @ Raju in the FIR.Furthermore, when on the date of the incident, his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer under 161 Cr.P.C., he had not mentioned the name of the other co-accused Hanuman Prasad @ Raju on account of fear and only on 26.11.2005, when his second statement was recorded, the name of the other co-accused was disclosed.This circumstance further fortifies the fact that the PW-1 was not present at the time of the incident and that is why, he could not nominate the accused.Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the presence of PW-1 at the time of the incident is also doubted from the circumstance that PW-2 in his statement on page 27 has clearly stated that Shyma Lal Pal had inquired from him the name of the person, who was driving the motorcycle, as he could not exactly recognize him, then he had disclosed him the name of the motorcycle driver as Hanuman Prasad @ Raju, Son of Girija Shankar, however, despite the said fact the name of the co-accused was not mentioned either in the FIR or in the first statement of the witness, which clearly establishes the fact that PW-1 was not present at the time of the incident and had not actually witnessed the incident.The next argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that even the presence of PW-2 Shiv Lal Pal, as an eye-witness, has not been mentioned at all in the FIR and even his statement for the first time under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 26.11.2005 after a gap of more than 24 days of occurrence.This unexplained delay in recording the statement of PW-2 creates a serious doubt about his presence at the place of incident.Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in the statement of PW-1 on page 18 of the paper book, it has been stated that on the fateful day i.e. on 02.11.2005 at about 10:00 A.M., Nate and Jokhu Patel had accompanied the deceased for seeing the plot and he along with his another brother Sohan Lal and Shiv Lal were present at the plot, however, in the FIR neither the name of Nate nor the name of Jokhu Patel, has been mentioned, even the name of real brother of the deceased Sohan Lal has also not been mentioned at all in the FIR and none of these three witnesses have been produced by the prosecution to corroborate the prosecution story.This circumstance further creates serious dent in the prosecution story and rules out the presence of the first informant at the time of the incident.Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that even there is serious contradiction in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the time of the incident.PW-1 in his statement on page 18 of the paper book has clearly stated that on fateful day i.e. on 02.11.2005 at about 10:00 A.M., the victim-deceased Ram Vishal Pal along with Nate and Jokhu Patel had gone to show them the plot and while returning back to his house, the present incident had taken place near the house of Munna Kushwaha at about 12:20 P.M., whereas, PW-2 in his statement has categorically stated that on 02.11.2005, he along with first informant Shyma Lal Pal, Sohan Lal Pal, another brother of the deceased, Ram Vishal Pal had reached the plot at 12 O'clock and some time thereafter, Ram Vishal Pal along with one another person, who, he did not recognize, accompanied with Nate and Jokhu Patel has reached the plot and after some discussion with Nate and Jokhu Patel, Ram Vishal left towards his house.This circumstance clinchingly establishes that the incident has in fact not taken place at 12:20 P.M., as alleged by the first informant but at some later time, which further creates serious doubt about the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the time of incident.Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn the attention of the Court to the testimony of PW-1 on page 23 of the paper book, wherein it is stated that the deceased along with Nate and Jokhu Patel had reached the plot on foot and stayed there for 15 minutes.As per the statement of PW-1, the deceased left his house along with Nate and Jokhu Patel at 10:00 A.M. and the distance between the house of the appellant and the plot is about 250 meters as evident from the statement of PW-1 at page 23 of paper book and the victim-deceased stayed at his plot for about 15 minutes and reached the place of incident at about 12:20 P.M., however as per the aforesaid statement, the time of incident at 12:20 P.M. does not reconcile in any manner and the incident in any case could not have taken place at 12:20 P.M., as alleged by the prosecution and thus, there is serious doubt even about the exact time of the incident.Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that from the perusal of the site plan, the exact place from where the shot was fired by the appellant has not been mentioned in the site plan, though PW-4 Dr. Ajeet Kumar, who conducted the autopsy on the person of the deceased, has clearly stated on page 35 of his deposition that injury no.3 was containing blackening and tattooing.As per the statement of PW-2, it is clear that all the shots were fired from one place near the house of Munna Kushwaha and the Investigating Officer PW-6 V.P. Rai has admitted in his statement that the site plan was prepared at the instance of PW-1 and has further stated that the distance from the point "A" where the dead body of the deceased was lying and the house of Munna Kushwaha could be 20-30 paces.Thus, in any case, if the firing is made from such a distance, it would not result in causing blackening and scorching on the person of the deceased.The aforesaid medical contradiction further creates serious dent in the prosecution story and makes the eye-witness account doubtful.Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that in the FIR, distance between the place of the incident and the Police Station has been mentioned 3 ½ Kilometers West, whereas in the inquest, the said distance has been mentioned as 3 Kilometers East.Moreover, the police papers sent for conducting the autopsy has not been specifically mentioned in the memo of inquest report which clearly establishes the fact that at the time of conducting the inquest, FIR was not in existence.Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that special report under Section 157 Cr.P.C. has reached the Court of C.J.M. on 16.11.2005 i.e. after 14 days of the incident, which further clinchingly establishes that the FIR was not in existence at the time of conducting the inquest and the same has been got registered by making it ante-time.Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of PW-4 Dr. Ajeet Kumar, who has conducted the autopsy on the person of the deceased on page 38 of the paper book, wherein it is stated that there was no exit wound of injury no.11 and two metallic pieces were recovered from the said wound.Injury no. 11 could be caused by a weapon, in which, 12 bore cartridge is used.The two pellets, recovered in wound no.11, were of size ½ inch x ½ inch and ¾ inch x ½ inch.Thus, the possibility of two weapons being used in the incident cannot be ruled out.Per contra, learned AGA and the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the PW-1 and PW-2 are most natural witnesses of the incident and their presence cannot be doubted as they are said to be accompanying the deceased at the time of the incident.The postmortem report also corroborates the prosecution story.The defence has further not been able to elicit any material contradictions in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2, as such, they are the reliable witnesses and the trial Court, by rightly relying upon their testimonies, has convicted the appellant and sentenced him.The order passed by the trial Court is well considered and does not require any interference by this Hon'ble Court, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.Considering the rival submissions made by the prosecution and the defence, it would be useful to evaluate the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the defence to reach at the just conclusion, if the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant.The first and foremost argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the presence of both the witnesses, PW-1 Shyam Lal Pal and PW-2 Shiv Lal Pal at the time of incident, could not be clinchingly established by the prosecution, particularly in light of the facts and circumstances discussed in earlier part of the judgment.Moreover, the presence of PW-1 Shyam Lal Pal at the time of the incident is rendered highly doubtful, particularly, in view of the fact that the name of other co-accused Hanuman Prasad @ Raju, who belongs to the same village could not be mentioned by him either in the FIR or in the statement under Section 161 CrPC, more so, in the circumstance when PW-2 in his statement on page 27 has clearly stated that he had disclosed the name of Hanuman Prasad, the other co-accused to him.Apart from this, non-mentioning of the name of PW-2 in the FIR as well as in his first statement under Section 161 CrPC further creates serious doubt about his presence at the time of the incident.In view of the said shortcomings in the statement of PW-1, we are of the opinion that the presence of the PW-1 at the time of the incident is highly doubtful.Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that so far as the presence of PW-2 at the time of the incident is concerned, the prosecution has again miserably failed to establish his presence, particularly in view of the fact that his name does not find mention as an eye-witness in the FIR and that his statement has seen the light of the day after about 24 days of the incident and the explanation given by the Investigating Officer for his delayed examination on account of his non-availability does not stand to reason at all and cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination.Furthermore, his presence is doubted from the circumstance that he is resident of Paigambarpur, Police Station Pooramufti, District Kaushambi, which is situate at a distance of 18 Kilometers from the place of the incident and no reason whatsoever has come forth to show his presence at the time of the incident.In the backdrop of the said circumstances, we are of the opinion that the presence of PW-2 in the present case is also highly doubtful.The next argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the prosecution case, the deceased had gone along with two persons, namely, Nate and Jokhu Patel to show the plot, where his other brother Sohan Lal is also said to be present and while returning from the said plot, the present incident has been committed but surprisingly enough, the names of none of the said three witnesses finds place in the FIR, nor anyone of them has been produced as a witness to corroborate by the prosecution story which again creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story itself.We find force in the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.Non-mentioning of the names of the aforesaid three witnesses in the FIR and not producing any of them as a witness creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story and renders it wholly doubtful.The next argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the medical report does not support the prosecution story, particularly in view of finding of blackening and scorching on injury no.3, when the firing is said to be made from a distance of 20-30 paces from the house of Munna Kushwaha and further, the statement of PW-4 Dr. Ajeet Kumar to the extent that there was no exit wound of injury no.11 and two metallic pieces were recovered from the said wound and in the light of the opinion of the Doctor that injury no.11 could be caused by a weapon, in which, 12 bore cartridges were used, we are of the opinion that the possibility of two weapons being used in the incident cannot be ruled out, which further demolishes the prosecution story.Learned counsel for the appellant has then submitted that since in the panchayatnama, the specific note of police papers being sent for conducting the autopsy has not been mentioned and that the copy of the special report under Section 157 CrPC has reached to the court of the Magistrate after 14 days on 16.11.2005 and the fact, that the distance of place of incident as mentioned in the FIR is different from that mentioned in inquest, it is clinchingly established that the FIR was not in existence at the time of conducting the inquest and has been registered by making it ante-time.However, the said submission of learned counsel for the appellant does not appeal to us in view of the fact that from the careful perusal of the postmortem report, it is clearly evident that the Doctor at the time of receiving the dead body has mentioned that along with dead body, 9 police papers were received by him for conducting the postmortem.Furthermore, the FIR has been registered in the present case at 1:45 PM i.e. 13:45 hours and the proceedings of the inquest has been started at 14:30 hours and the same has been concluded at 15:30 hours and thereafter, the dead body has been despatched for postmortem and reached the Headquarters at 16:20 hours and thereafter, autopsy has been conducted on the person of the deceased at 5:20 PM.At the time of sending the body for postmortem, the copy of the FIR as well as corresponding GD Report has also been sent, thus, from the said letters, it cannot be conclusively proved that at the time of conducting the inquest, the FIR was not in existence and the same has been registered by making it ante-time.However, considering the holistic view of the matter and in view of the doubt created by the defence in regard to the presence of both the eye-witnesses at the time of the incident coupled with the medical contradiction, which do not corroborate the prosecution story, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant, as such, the appellant is liable to be acquitted of all the charges framed against him by allowing the appeal.The appeal is accordingly allowed.The appellant is directed to be released from the jail forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case subject to fulfilling the requirement under Section 437-A CrPC.A copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the Sessions Judge, Allahabad for information and necessary compliance.Judgment be certified and placed on record.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,062,438 |
In Re : Sunanda Giri & Ors. ... Petitioners Re: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.3.2013 in connection with Contai P.S. Case No. 70 of 2013 dated 8.3.2013 under Sections 341/447/4487/427/379/323/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is dismissed as not pressed.( Indira Banerjee, J. ) ( Kanchan Chakraborty, J. )
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,068,594 |
No.29 Ct-42 BM Rejected CRM 2401 of 2019 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.02.2019 in connection with Kharibari Police Station Case No.74 of 2017 dated 09.04.2017 under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Harendra Yadav ... Petitioner Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta Mr. Alam Khan Ms. Sofia Nesar ... for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed Ms. Zareen N. Khan ... for the State This is a case under Section 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned lawyer for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 500 days.The implication of the petitioner are not on the basis of statement of eye witnesses rather prosecution has made out case through the recording of statements of persons whose presence are doubtful at the spot.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are eye witnesses who have seen the accused petitioner participating in the alleged offence.Department is directed to communicate this order to the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri.( Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. ) ( Tirthankar Ghosh, J. )
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,068,707 |
The custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be indispensable.In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 01.10.2018 in connection with Posta P.S. Case No. 386 of 2012 dated 12.10.2012 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/ of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner refers to a previous complaint of Zafar against the petitioner and says that the allegations now made in the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code by Banik and Zafar were not made in connection with the earlier complaint where the petitioner has obtained bail.The petitioner claims that the accused in the primary case are attempting to derail the investigation by falsely implicating the petitioner.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,073,125 |
In Kasimedu, Chennai, Prabhu and Raghu were illicit drug dealers.However, on 10.7.2003, they were dismissed.Then the petitioner was 16 years, 5 months and 27 days old.Then, he has not completed 18 years of his age.As per Section 2(h) of the Old J.J. Act, 1986, he will not be a Juvenile.But, as per Section 2(k) of the New J.J.Act, 2000, he is a Juvenile.On 10.07.2003, his Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court.Now he is more than 37 of years old.He is in jail for more than 14 years.In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore is directed to release the petitioner from jail forthwith, if his further custody is no longer required in connection with any other case.In view of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act,2000, petitioner shall not incur any disqualification because of his conviction and the period of sentence undergone by him.kua/rrgToThe Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.(Order of the Court was made by P.DEVADASS, J.) Petitioner, Jayavelu, a lifer, now lodged in Central Prison, Vellore, seeks his release from jail, on the ground that on the date when the offence was committed, he was a juvenile in conflict with law.There was business rivalry between them.On 30.6.1992, at about 11.30 a.m., in Kasikuppam, in Kasimedu, Prabhu, petitioner Jayavelu and others have stabbed Raghu to death.N-2, Kasimedu Police registered a case in Cr.No.2409 of 1992 under Section 302 and certain other sections of Indian Penal Code.On 1.10.2002, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed their appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentences.In the Hon'ble Supreme Court, petitioner filed Special Leave Petition and Crl.M.P.No.5181 of 2003 to condone the delay.Accordingly, enquiry report was submitted.On 1.7.2012, we have directed further enquiry.Thereafter, after further enquiry, on 14.8.2012, the Inquiring Judge submitted his report.In the case before us, the IV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai sentenced the petitioner to life.In the Criminal Appeal filed by him, his life sentence was confirmed by this Court.The Sessions Judge, however, has made a fishing inquiry to determine the basis on which date of birth was entered in the school register, which prompted the father of the appellant to produce a horoscope.In order to claim the benefit of the benevolent provisions of the New JJ Act 2000, the petitioner has to establish that on 30.6.1992, he was below 18 years.If that is so, on the date of commission of the offence, namely, on 30.6.1992, he was 16 years, 5 months and 27 days old.Before the Trial Judge, C.Ws.1 to 5, namely, Jayavel, Dr.Vedanayagam, Parimala, Sankar and Alfred Wilson were examined and Exs.C.1 to C.5 and M.O.1/X-rays have been filed.The claim of the petitioner is that he was born on 3.1.1976 to Thangaiah and Vatsala.From the evidence of C.Ws.3 and 4 Parimala and Sankar, the other daughter and son of Thangaiah, it is seen that in 1996, Vatsala died and when their hut was gutted by fire, her death certificate was also lost.Thangaiah died on 4.6.2011(Ex.The evidence of C.Ws.3 and 4 is that their brother Jayavelu was born on 3.1.1976 to their parents in Rainy Hospital, G.A.Road, Madras-21 and his brith was registered by the Corporation of Chennai.This certificate came into being subsequent to his conviction.So, we cannot solely rely on this.As already stated, C.Ws.3 and 4 his sister and brother have also stated so.The Chennai Corporation issued a computerised birth certificate to the petitioner.It contains his birth details as found in Ex.As to the date of birth, claimed by the petitioner and the age determination report of the Inquiring Judge, there is no dispute from the respondents.Now considering the entire materials placed before us, it is beyond doubt that Jayavelu was born on 3.1.1976 to Thangaiah and Vatsala.The Inquiring Judge summoned Dr.The Doctor conducted some tests and also examined Ex.C.W.5 series- X-rays and issued Ex.C.3 determining the age of the petitioner as on 9.4.2012 as above 35 years and below 40 years.Petitioner claimed his date of birth on the basis of birth certificate issued by Corporation of Chennai.Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 contemplates three type of evidence, namely, matriculation or equivalent certificate, if that is not available, birth certificate from school (other than play school) first attended, if that is also not available, then birth certificate issued by Corporation or Municipality or Panchayat.If the said three certificates are also not available then only medical evidence has to be sought for to determine the age of the person.Now in the case before us, petitioner has claimed his date of birth on the basis of certificate issued by the Corporation of Chennai.It will come under Rule 12(3).In such circumstances, consideration of medical evidence will not arise.However, as against the provisions of J.J. Act and the Rules , the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge besides conducting enquiry as to the genuineness of the birth certificate issued by the Corporation of Chennai also examined medical evidence.This is against 2007 Rules.On the date of offence, namely, on 30.6.1992, he was below 18 years of age but, subsequently, he had crossed 18 years of age and before 1.4.2001 he was above 18 years of age.As per its Section 15, at the most, he can be detained in a Special Home for three years.The Trial Court sentenced the petitioner to life.Subsequently, on 1.10.2002, this was confirmed by this Court.In granting relief to the petitioner, now we come to his case.As per Section 16 of New J.J. Act, 2000, as he is a Juvenile in conflict with law at the time of commission of the offence, he cannot be sentenced to life.As per Section 15 of the said Act, at the most he can be detained in a Special Home for 3 years.IV Additional Sessions Judge, ChennaiThe Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Vellore.The Inspector of Police, N-2, Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai.8.The Additional Public Prosecutor High Court Madras
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,082,208 |
1.1 The prosecution case is that on 20 th October 2009, the PCR received information at 11:45 a.m. from some secret informer stating that House No. C- 41 190, Kinner Wali Building, Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi, was locked and there was something wrong inside.The police opened the main gate with the help of a key maker.On entering the main gate, dried blood was found on the floor, and on the right side a Maruti car bearing No. 800 DL-6CA-3414 was found parked with all four tyres deflated.On the left-hand side, inside the bathroom, the dead body of Meena Kinner, aged 30 years, was found with injury marks on the neck and right arm.On the first floor, the dead body of one Vimlesh Kinner, aged 45 years, was found on the double bed.The body of Vimlesh had injury marks on the neck, chest, arm, toe, index finger etc. Articles were found scattered in the house.Both the deceased were persons of the third gender.1.2 Post-mortem was conducted on the body of Vimlesh by Dr. Sunay M (PW-2) who opined that the cause of death was shock due to haemmorhage caused by injuries from a sharp weapon.Dr. Susheel Sharma (PW-7) conducted the post- mortem on the body of deceased Meena.The injuries were found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The injuries were caused by a sharp pointed heavy weapon.1.3 The Investigating Officer (“I.O.”) - Inspector Amrit Raj (PW-32A), got the FIR registered on the statement of Khalil Ahmed (Accused No. 3) who introduced himself as being in the relationship akin to that of a husband and wife with the deceased Vimlesh.Sub-Inspector Naresh Kumar Sharma (PW-8), In-charge of the Fingerprint Bureau, Crime Branch, Kamla Market visited the spot, and picked up six chance prints.1.4 On 3rd November 2009, at about 8:30 pm on the basis of secret information, the police apprehended Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1) who was the driver of the deceased Vimlesh.Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1) allegedly disclosed that Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) a taxi-driver, Khalil Ahmed (Accused No. 3), and “N” (Juvenile) were also involved in the conspiracy with him.As per the prosecution case, Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1) at the time of being apprehended, was allegedly found to be carrying a 42 black bag on his shoulder containing 15 items of golden jewellery, 2 pairs of payjeb, 6 silver coins, Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash, one wrist watch of ICICI make, and two photographs of the deceased Vimlesh.1.5 Later the same day at night, Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1) led the police to Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2), who was staying in a room in the house of Teja Chaudhary.At the time of arrest, Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2), was allegedly also carrying a black coloured bag containing 15 items of golden jewellery, 2 items of silver, 6 silver coins and Rs. 50,000/- in cash.Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) led the police to his room, and brought out a blood-stained knife, and a blood-stained shirt, from a bucket.1.6 It is further alleged that the police apprehended Khalil Ahmed (Accused No.3) at Hari Nagar who was also allegedly carrying a bag with him.“N” (Juvenile) was sleeping on the floor with a bag under his pillow.On searching the bag, some jewellery items, 1 Nokia 6600 mobile phone and Rs. 32,000/- in cash were allegedly recovered.1.8 On 7th November 2009, Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1) and Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) led the police to Village Bhind, District Morena for the recovery of a Maruti van belonging to Vimlesh.The Maruti van with the broken number plate had already been seized by ASI Udai Bhan Singh Parmar (PW-23) on 1st November 2009 from Gate No. 2 of the Punj Llyod Factory at Noorabad.The Maruti van along with the articles in it were seized by the I.O. - SI Amrit Raj (PW-32A).Accused No.2) is as follows:i. recovery of unaccounted jewellery and cash;This seems improbable and unnatural.In the case of Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2), he was apprehended from his room in the house of one Teja Chaudhary.47 The brother of deceased - Vimlesh, one Mohd. Ayub (PW-4) has denied the suggestion of the learned APP that he was shown the jewellery recovered from the possession of the accused persons, or that he identified the jewellery articles to be belonging to Vimlesh.The jewellery articles were not identified to be of the deceased.ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.Following three reasons aredecipherable from the judgment:Learned counsel for the respondent referring to theevidence of PW32 where he made a statement regardingtaking of fingerprints of the accused, contended thatthere was no cross-examination by the defence on thisaspect.It is useful to extract following portion ofthe written submissions of the respondent:At the same time, there should be no 39 possibility whatsoever of the defence version being true.”In result, the appeal is allowed.The appellantstands acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 392read with Section 34 of the IPC.A broken number plate was allegedly recovered by the police near Gate No. 2 of the Punj Llyod Factory at Noorabad at the instance of Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1) and Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2).1.9 On 12th November 2009, Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1) led the police to the garage of Quarter No.86, Type-II, Jal Vihar and brought out a polythene bag after digging the earth.The said polythene bag allegedly contained Rs. 40,000/- in cash and 2 golden chains.1.10 The I.O - SI Amrit Raj (PW-32A), obtained finger impressions of two of the accused viz. Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1) and Sonvir @ Somvir (Accused No. 2) whilst they were in police custody.1.12 There is no eye witness of the incident.The case is based wholly on circumstantial evidence.1.13 That since “N” was a juvenile, he was proceeded separately by the Juvenile Justice Board.1.14 The trial proceeded against the three accused viz. Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1), Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2), and Khalil Ahmed (Accused No. 3).Khalil Ahmed (Accused No. 3) stated that he was in a relationship akin to that of a husband and wife with the deceased Vimlesh.Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1) was employed as a driver by Vimlesh; whilst Sonvir @ Somvir (Accused No. 3) was a taxi driver, whose taxi had been engaged by Vimlesh on some occasion, as per Sonvir @ Somvir’s statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.2 The Trial Court vide Judgment and Order dated 3 rd June 2014 convicted all the three accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 r.w. Section 34 of the IPC.2.1 The Trial Court held that most of the injuries were stab wounds/laceration/incised wounds.Apart from this, it was found that the articles in the house of the deceased were found scattered, which made it clear 44 that the victims were killed because of robbery.The Trial Court notes that none of the accused claimed the jewellery items/cash allegedly recovered from their possession as belonging to the them.The accused submitted that they had been falsely implicated in the case.The Trial Court records that it is true that no person from the public was joined at the time of recovery.The recoveries were allegedly made only in the presence of police officers i.e. PW-21, PW-25, PW-31, PW-34 and PW-36. 2.2 With respect to the present appellant, it is alleged that a blood-stained shirt, and one blood-stained “churra” were recovered from a plastic bucket lying under a dining table of his room in the house of Teja Chaudhary.As per the Scientific Officer, articles seized from the house of the victim, and the shirts of the accused, had the same blood group “B”.It is further alleged that out of the six chance prints marked Q1-Q6, Q5 was identical with the left palm impression of the present appellant.2.3 The Trial Court holds that the recovery leads to a presumption that the accused along with the other accused had committed the robbery.Hence, no offence punishable under Sections 397 or 120-B IPC is made out.3 That all the three accused preferred appeals before the High Court.The High Court granted benefit of doubt to Khalil Ahmed (Accused No. 3) on the ground that the recovery of jewellery and cash cannot be taken to be incriminating as a stand-alone evidence.That since Khalil Ahmed (Accused No. 3) has stated that he was in the relationship of husband and wife with the deceased Vimlesh, Accused No. 3 could have owned and possessed jewellery and cash.Further, in paragraph 18 of the Judgment, the High Court holds that the prosecution had not proved that the jewellery recovered from the appellant belonged to the deceased.Hence, the recovery of jewellery articles cannot be held to be connected with the offence.3.2 In paragraph 19 of the Judgment, the High Court has further held that with respect to the alleged recovery of a knife from Sonvir @ Somvir, on examination by the FSL, no blood grouping could be given.Furthermore, no opinion was sought from the post-mortem doctor whether the injuries to the deceased were possible by the said weapon of offence.In the absence of any witness identifying the weapon of offence used in the commission of crime, or the opinion of the post-mortem doctor that the injury was possible by the said knife, or the FSL report regarding the blood of the deceased being found, the knife could not be said to be connected with the offence, and cannot be used as a piece of incriminating evidence against him.3.3 The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Sultan @ Rajesh and Sonvir @ Somvir and affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that the prosecution had proved the recovery of blood-stained shirts at their instance, which were found to be blood-stained with the “blood group” of the deceased i.e. “B” group, unaccounted jewellery and cash, recovery of the Maruti van, a piece of broken number plate of the said van.4 Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-5 The legal evidence relied by the prosecution against Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-recovery of the blood-stained knife; iii.recovery of blood-stained shirt; iv.recovery of abandoned Maruti van and broken number plate; v. report of the Forensic Expert stating that the chance prints lifted from the scene of crime, matched the finger impressions obtained from the Appellant whilst he was in police custody.6 The legal evidence adduced by the prosecution is dealt with seriatim, to determine whether the prosecution has proved the case for offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the present Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.6.1 ALLEGED RECOVERY OF UNACCOUNTED JEWELLERY AND CASH As per the prosecution case, 15 items of golden jewellery, 2 items of silver, 6 silver coins and Rs. 50,000/- in cash were allegedly recovered from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) at the time of his arrest on 3 rd November 2009, which was 16-17 days after the date of the occurrence of the offence.The said jewellery and cash belonged to the deceased Vimlesh.Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) did not claim that the jewellery and cash belonged to him, and failed to give an explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., as to how he was in possession of such a large amount of jewellery and cash.Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. stated that the recovery was planted, and that he had been falsely implicated.The prosecution alleged that 16-17 days after the date of occurrence of the offence, when each of the accused was apprehended, each of them was found holding bags of jewellery.In these circumstances, the alleged recovery of jewellery and cash from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) could not be taken as a piece of incriminating evidence.6.2 ALLEGED RECOVERY OF BLOOD-STAINED KNIFE As per the prosecution, a blood-stained knife was also recovered from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2), at the time of his arrest.As per the FSL report (Ex. PW-33/A), while the knife was found to be stained with human blood, no blood grouping could be given.The High Court, in paragraph 19 of its judgment, found that in the absence of any witness identifying the weapon of offence used in the commission of crime, or the opinion of the post-mortem doctors that the injury was possible by the said knife, or the FSL report regarding the blood of the deceased being found on the said knife, the knife cannot be said to be connected with the offence.On the basis of the above finding, the High Court concluded that the recovery of the knife at the instance of Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) cannot be used as a piece of incriminating evidence against him.As a consequence, the weapon of offence allegedly recovered from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) and used in the commission of the crime, cannot be taken as a piece of incriminating evidence against him.6.3 ALLEGED RECOVERY OF BLOOD-STAINED SHIRT As per the prosecution, a blood-stained shirt was recovered at the instance of Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) from his room in the house of Teja Chaudhary, at the time of his arrest.The blood-stained shirt was sent for analysis to the FSL.As per the FSL report (Ex. PW-33/A), the shirt allegedly recovered from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) was found to be 48stained with human blood of “B” group, which was the same “blood group” asthat of the deceased.In paragraph 20, the High Court held the recovery of the blood-stained shirtfrom Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) to be incriminating againsthim, since the blood samples taken from the bed-sheet at the scene of crime,were also found to be of the same blood group.It is relevant to note that as per the FSL report (Ex. PW-33/A), both the blood-stained shirt allegedly recovered from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-AccusedNo. 2) and the blood samples taken from the bedsheet at the scene of crimewere found to be stained with human blood of “B” group.The mere matching of the blood-group of the blood samples taken from thebed-sheet at the scene of crime, and the blood-stained shirt recovered fromSonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) cannot lead to the conclusionthat the appellant had been involved in the commission of the crime.On this issue, reliance can be placed on two decisions of this Court in Prakashv.State of Karnataka [(2014) 12 SCC 133; paragraphs 41 and 45] andDebapriya Pal v. State of West Bengal [(2017) 11 SCC 31; paragraph 8]wherein this Court while deciding cases based on circumstantial evidence hadheld that mere matching of the blood group cannot lead to the conclusion ofthe culpability of the accused, in the absence of a detailed serologicalcomparison, since millions of people would have the same blood group.In the present case, the prosecution has not proved that the room from wherethe blood-stained knife and blood-stained shirt were allegedly recovered, wasin the exclusive possession of the appellant.The prosecution case is that thesaid room was in the house owned by one Teja Chaudhary.The prosection didnot examine the said Teja Chaudhary to prove that the said room was rented toSonvir @ Somvir and/or was in the exclusive custody of the appellant.49 Therefore, the recovery of the blood-stained shirt from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) cannot be used as an incriminating piece of evidence.6.4 ALLEGED RECOVERY OF THE MARUTI VAN AND THE BROKEN NUMBER PLATE The prosecution alleged that both Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1) and Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) disclosed that they had abandoned the Maruti van belonging to Vimlesh 20 kilometers from Gwalior.Further, both these accused allegedly led the police party near Gate No. 2 of the Punj Lloyd Factory at Noorabad from where the Maruti van had already been recovered, and got recovered the broken number plate bearing number “86”.The recovery of the Maruti Van and the broken number plate was held to be a piece of incriminating evidence against Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1) and Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) by the Trial Court.SI Abhisek Singh (PW-30) had stated in his cross-examination that no public person/independent witness was present at the time of the alleged recovery.It is important to note that while ASI Udai Bhan Singh Parmar (PW-23) stated that the broken number plate was allegedly recovered from the garbage dump, SI Abhishek Singh (PW-30) and Inspector Amrit Raj (PW-32A) stated that it was allegedly recovered from the bushes.The absence of any independent witness of the alleged recoveries, and the discrepancy in the statements of the police officers, makes the prosecution case doubtful.6.5 FORENSIC REPORT REGARDING MATCHING FINGER IMPRESSIONS The prosecution relied upon the report tendered by the Senior Finger Print Expert of the Fingerprint Bureau, RN Rawat (PW-35), to state that the finger 50impressions obtained from Sonvir @ Somvir matched with the chance printsobtained from the scene of crime.The Trial Court and the High Court considered the six chance prints liftedfrom the first floor of the house by SI Naresh Kumar Sharma (PW-8), In-charge of the Finger Prints Bureau, Crime Branch.Chance prints Q1 to Q3were lifted from the iron box on the first floor, Q4 from the showcase glass,and Q5 and Q6 from the iron safe.The Senior Finger Prints Expert of theFingerprint Bureau, RN Rawat (PW-35), vide his reports (Ex. PW-35/A andEx.PW-35/B), opined that the chance print marked Q1 was identical to thespecimen right palm impression of Sultan @ Rajesh (Accused No. 1), whilechance print marked Q5 was identical to the specimen left palm impression ofSonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2).The specimen chance prints of both these accused viz. Rajesh @ Sultan(Accused No. 1) and Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) were takenby the I.O. - SI Amrit Raj (PW-32A), without obtaining any order of aMagistrate whilst the accused were in police custody.7 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed to make out the complete chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.As a result, the present appeal is allowed, and the judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 10.12.2014 in Criminal Appeal no. 1300 of 2014 is set aside.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,087,501 |
The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents from taking possession of the trust lands falling in Survey No.187/2A3 to an extent of 0.17.0 Hectares (2 acres and 47 cents) situated in Mathur Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.The petitioner is the registered trust, formed with an object to run Technical Institutes, Dental College, Medical College and Pharmacy Institution with no profit motive.The petitioner, on coming to know that there was a proposal to acquire the land for industrial complex for Cheyyar Industrial expansion scheme by SIPCOT in Mathur Village, Cheyyar Taluk, represented to the District Collector for exempting the trust lands."The efforts that are being taken by Sri Venkateswara Educational and Charitable Trust and SIPCOT organization are found to be of the same nature.If this engineering college is started, every year, thousands of students would be awarded with the engineering degree and they will be prepared for the welfare of the public and that if the SIPCOT Industrial Estate is commence it would offer the job opportunities to the public and also would lead to the economical growth and that as the extent of 33.40> acres is being allotted to the Engineering College the extent of 33.40> acres, out of the total extent of 2300 Acres, which is being acquired by SIPCOT is very less extent and that in Mathur village, even though the extent of 33.40 > acres is deducted there is proposal to acquire the land situated in Azhinjalpattu Village, which are situated in contiguity and that further, if the exemption is granted, the contiguity of the land acquisition for the SIPCOT will not be affected and that if the Industrial Estate and also the Engineering College are started in Mathur Village, it will lead to the progress of the people under the poverty line and that hence, as the request of the petitioner is liable to be considered.I hereby inform that it may be recommended to government that the acquisition of land to the extent of 33.40 > acres as mentioned above for SIPCOT could be dropped."Thereafter, vide Letter dated 29.10.2007, the Chairman, SIPCOT accepted the recommendation of the District Collector (though it was not necessary as Chairman, SIPCOT has no role to play with regard to acquisition of land under the Act).Thereafter, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, by relying upon the letter dated 29.10.2007 of the Chairman, SIPCOT, recommended to the Government to delete lands measuring 33.43 acres.On the recommendation of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, the State Government asked for TOPO Sketch from the District Collector, showing details.The petitioner also made request to the State Government for exempting the land owned by the petitioner from acquisition.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Industries SIPCOT (LA) Department, Fort St.The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District, TiruvannamalaiThe Special Tahsildar, (SIPCOT-LA) No.9, Pathala Vinayagar Koil Street, Cheyyar 604 407M/s. Sri Venkateswara Educational and Charitable Trust prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the notification issued vide G.O.Ms.No.103, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, dated 05.07.2011, under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the notice issued by the State Government in exercise of power under Sub Section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, directing the petitioner to surrender the possession of the acquired lands to the Collector.The reason for seeking exemption was that the petitioner proposed to establish Saraswathi (Ramadoss) Engineering College.It was also conveyed that it was a Public Charitable Trust without profit motive and that the requisite applications had been filed with the authorities for granting of approval for running the College.It was also mentioned in the representation that the plan had been approved for construction of College building by the President of Panchayat on 27.02.2002, and a letter to the Director of National Council for Technical Education had also been sent.The District Collector agreed with the representation / objection of the petitioner and vide Letter dated 28.08.2007 recommended exemption of the lands from acquisition.The reason for exemption by the District Collector was that the petitioner had already approached the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, the Director of Technical Education and Anna University, Chennai.It was also pointed out that the petitioner's other trusts were also running Education Institutions.Finally, it was stated that in the recommendation by the District Collector that out of 2300 acres of land, it was proposed to be acquired for SIPCOT, the exemption of 33.43 acres of land was not likely to affect the scheme.The recommendation of the District Collector, as translated, reads as under:On 13.02.2009, the District Collector issued notice under Section 3 (2) of the Act to the petitioner to show cause as to why the land falling in S.No.187/2A3 should not be acquired for industrial expansion scheme.In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner filed objections by placing reliance on the recommendation made by the District Collector for exempting the lands from acquisition.On 08.06.2009, the Secretary to the Government, after taking note of the recommendations of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, recommended exemption of lands to the extent of 33.43 acres, ordering that the recommendation be examined before issuing notification under Section 3 (2) under the Act.On 17.06.2009, enquiry was fixed by the Tahsildar, wherein the petitioner filed objections again requesting of deletion of land from acquisition to the District Collector.It is also submission of the petitioner that by ignoring he recommendation of the District Collector and Commissioner, the State Government issued notification under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act for acquisition of lands for industrial purpose.This notification was followed by the notification under Sub Section 2 of Section 4 of the Act, directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the land notified under Section 3(1) of the Act.The writ petition is contested by respondents by submitting that the Government of Tamil Nadu, vide order No.281, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department dated 05.12.2007, has accorded administrative sanction for acquisition of patta to an extent of 716.88.5 hectares and also for alienation of Government Poramboke lands for an extent of 214.52.5 hectares for expansion of SIPCOT Industrial Complex.It is further submitted that the Special District Revenue Officer (LA), SIPCOT, vide letter No.A/3/08 dated 11.03.2008, allocated 123.75.5 Hectares for land acquisition in 134, Mathur Village in five blocks.The statutory notice under Section 3 (2) of the Act was issued to each of the land owners / interested persons by registered post on 10.02.2009, calling for objections, if any, from the land owners / interested persons within 30 days of the publication.The stand of respondents is that the decision to acquire the land was taken for the following reasons:"...In this instance, the requisition department was asked to offer their remarks.The Chairman & Managing Director SIPCOT, Chennai, in his letter No.LA/Cheyyar/Expansion/2008 dated 25.11.2009, has rejected the petitioner's request because the petitioner has not initiated any construction or improvement work for the Engineering College and all the lands in Mathur Village which are situated opposite to the existing SIPCOT Industrial Complex should be taken for SIPCOT expansion.Moreover, these lands lie in between the acquisition portion and if exempted, the contiguity of the scheme will be affected.Hence, the survey numbers 192 etc., are included in this 3(1) proposals."The stand of the respondents is that no distinction is drawn in the Act regarding ownership of land to be acquired.The only criteria being that in the opinion of the Government, it should be satisfied, that the land is required for industrial purpose or any other purpose in furtherance to the Act.In the counter, the District Collector has not denied that he had recommended to exemption of the land of the petitioner from acquisition.The reasons for changing the opinion were disclosed in the counter as under:With regard to the contentions made in para 7 to 14 of the writ affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that in the matter of acquisition of lands under Section 3 of the above said Act, the main parties involved in the process are the Requisitioning Department and the land owners.All other Government agencies, including the fourth respondent herein, are merely facilitators for furtherance of the object of the Act. Even if it is true that this respondent recommended exempting these lands from acquisition, the view of the SIPCOT Authorities, being end-users of the acquired lands, will prevail over the views of the other respondents.The petitioner's land are situated in the middle of the scheme area and it was felt by the requisitioning department that if the above lands are exempted, the scheme will be affected and hence, the writ petitioner's objection was rejected.Since the writ petitioner's land is lying in the midst of the SIPCOT Unit area, the Government has no other alternative than to reject the writ petitioner's representation to exempt their land from acquisition.With regard to the contentions made in paras 15 and 16 of the writ affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the Government and the SIPCOT Authorities, being end-users of the acquired lands, have the final say in the matter of accepting or rejecting the representations for exempting any land from acquisition.In the case of the writ petitioner's land, even though this respondent had recommended exempting the writ petitioner's land from acquisition, the SIPCOT Authorities for the aforesaid reasons have rejected the recommendation for exemption.If the writ petitioner's lands are now exempted for running an educational institution, then each and every owner of the acquired lands would come forward with similar requests for exemption for setting up of this or that industry; then, the very SIPCOT Expansion programme will be defeated.As stipulated under Section 3(3) of the Act, the writ petitioner's representation was heard.The writ petitioner's lands are lying in the midst of the SIPCOT Unit area, the Government has no other alternative than to reject the writ petitioner's representation to exempt the schedule mentioned lands from acquisition.The reasons for rejection of the writ petitioner's representation have been duly recorded in the appropriate manner.In the case of the writ petitioner's lands, even though this respondent had recommended for exempting the writ petitioner's land from acquisition, the SIPCOT Authorities for the reasons aforesaid have rejected the recommendation for exemption acquisition.In the case of the writ petitioner's lands, even though this respondent had recommended for exempting the writ petitioner's land from acquisition, the SIPCOT Authorities for the reasons aforesaid have rejected the recommendation for exemption duly recording the reasons therefore.Only after following the procedures laid down under the provisions of law, Section 4(2) Notice was issued to the writ petitioner calling for them to hand over possession of the acquired lands to the Collector within 30 days.No representation received after service Section 4(2) Notice will be entertained.In these circumstances, there is no violation of the well-acclaimed principle of audi alteram partem nor were there any undue haste and hurry exhibited by the District Collector in submitting report to the Government by wholesale disposal of the objections by him.Each objection was considered with due application of mind and in due appreciation of the merits with reference to Law and facts before passing final orders.In these circumstances, it is inappropriate to attempt to equate the observations of this Hon'ble Court made in judgment of the Division Bench in 2011 Writ Law reporter at page 505 (519) Besides, the writ petitioner's are entitled to get suitable compensation for the acquire land."The averments made in the writ petition that enquiry was conducted on 17.06.2009 by the Tahsildar is not denied.There is also no material on record, showing whether the State Government applied its independent mind to the recommendation made by the Collector.The stand of the petitioner that no report has been filed is also not controverted, nor any report has been placed, therefore, there is no material on record, showing that the State Government considered the report or objections before issuing impugned notification under Section 3(1) of the Act. The second notification impugned, being consequential notification, also cannot be sustained, having been passed in pursuance to acquisition under Section 3 of the Act, which stands quashed.The proceedings held and the procedure adopted shows that the petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed, and land of petition was acquired by violating the statutory provisions, rather then by following it.Consequently, this writ petition is allowed.The impugned notifications are set aside.The petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs of litigation, which are assessed as Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only).
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,089,201 |
C.C. as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE MKBThe trial proceeded against other co-accused persons and parents and relatives of the deceased have turned hostile.In the light of such affidavits and previous statements of these two persons before the trial Court, it would be apparent that no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.Nothing is to be recovered from the applicant.Under these changed circumstances, applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,092,355 |
He has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )
|
['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.
|
148,099,468 |
This revision is preferred against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for offences under sections 279 and 304(A) IPC, sentencing him to fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d one month S.I for offence u/s.279 IPC and 1 year S.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d one month S.I for offence u/s. 304 (A) IPC.The prosecution case was that on 03.04.2006 at about 09.40 p.m., on Malliakarai to Attur main road, Echampatti, the petitioner/accused drove a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit one Mangayarkarasi resulting in fatal injuries.She died at hospital.Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid informing commission of offences u/s.279 and 304(A) IPC and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.161 of 2006 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Attur.Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and marked seven exhibits.None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked.On examination of materials before it, the trial Court found the charges proved and convicted the petitioner for offence u/s.279 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d.one month S.I and for offence u/s. 304(A) IPC to undergo 1 year S.I and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d.Hence, this revision.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate [Crl.side].Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per FIR and the charge sheet, the prosecution case is that on 03.04.2006, at 09.40 p.m the petitioner/accused drove motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-48-D-3138 in a rash and negligent manner and hit one Mangayarkarasi, resulting in fatal injuries.He was thus charged of offences punishable u/s. 279 and 304(A) IPC.Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per the FIR and charge sheet, the prosecution case is of the deceased having suffered accident while crossing the road.However, it is the consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the accident took place when the deceased was standing on the side of the road after having alighted from a bus P.W.1/defacto complainant is the son of the deceased, while P.W.2 and 3 are husband and another son.The immediate family members, husband and sons have been cited as eye witnesses to the occurrence and their deposition in Court contradicts the prosecution version.Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court erred in informing P.ws. 1 to 5 to be eye witnesses.The Appellate Court has merely followed the version informed in the FIR and charge sheet in stating that the accident took place while the deceased was crossing the road.Referring to the judgment of the Appellate Court wherein the learned Judge has informed that the occurrence could not have taken place but for the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the petitioner as such was the position borne out by Ex.P.6- Rough sketch.Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex court in State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani and Another, 2003 SCC (Cri) 623, wherein it has been held as follows:... A rough sketch map prepared by the Sub-Inspector on the basis of statements made to him by witnesses during the course of investigation and showing the place where the deceased was hit and also the places where the witnesses were at the time of the incident would not be admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for it is in effect nothing more that the statement of the sub Inspector that the eyewitnesses told him that the deceased was at such and such place at the time when he was hit.The sketch map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that the Sub-Inspector saw himself at the spot; but any mark put on the sketch map based on the statements made by the witnesses to the Sub-Inspector would be inadmissible in view of the clear provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it will be no more that a statement made to the police during investigation.Therefore, such marks on the map cannot be used to found any argument as to the improbability of the deceased being hit on that part of the body where he was actually injured, if he was standing at the spot marked on the sketch map.Heard learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on the above submissions.In decision of this Court in 2012 4 MLJ (Crl) 486 , Mohan Doss vs. State, this Court has taken note of the vital contradiction between prosecution witnesses on whether the accident occurred when the deceased was standing on the road or when she was crossing the same in rendering a finding of acquittal.We would follow such reasoning.The reliance placed on the rough sketch Ex.Bail bonds, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled.25.10.2016Index:yes/noInternet:yes/1.Principal Sessions Judge, Salem2.The Judicial Magistrate II, Attur C.T. SELVAM J.,kprCrl.R.C.No.928 of 2016 25.10.2016http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,477,097 |
(Delivered on __th day of December, 2017) Per J.P. Gupta, J :The appellant has preferred the present appeal from jail being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.11.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balaghat, in S.T.No.95/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- R.I., in default of fine R.I. for 3 months for causing death of deceased Gunthulal by assaulting with lathi on his head.According to the prosecution story, appellant Gunthulal and his wife Jhamalbai were residents of Kokratola-Kasangi.On 22.3.2006, on the occasion on Holi festival, at about 2 AM, deceased Gunthulal was sitting at the door of his hut along with his wife.At that time, present appellant accused, who was neighbour of the deceased, came and asked for liquor, Gunthulal and his wife Jhamalbai told him that they don't have liquor on which accused Dulam Singh dealt a lathi blow on the head of Gunthulal due to 2 Cr.Appeal.No.2224/2006 which he sustained injury.Jhamalbai, wife of deceased asked as to why he assaulted her husband, then accused Dulam Singh went to his house, deceased Gunthulal and Jhamalbai also followed him, then accused Dulam Singh brought axe from his house and dealt an axe blow on the head of Jhamalbai, due to which she sustained injuries and fell down.Jahmalbai died on the spot.Information of the incident was given at Police Station Sonewani by deceased Gunthulal, on which Dehati merg intimation, Ex.P/15 and Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P/16, was registered and after merg enquiry, FIR, Ex.P/13 and P/25, at Crime No.43/2006 and 01/2006 was registered against the accused person for the offence under Sections 307 and 302 of the I.P.C. Later, on the next day, Gunthulal also succumbed to the injuries.After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant / accused for offence under section 302 of the IPC before the J.M.F.C. Baihar, District Balaghat, and on committal, the case was received by Sessions Judge, Balaghat and case was tried by Sessions Judge, Balaghat.The learned trial Court framed charge for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. in two counts against the appellant.However, the appellant / accused abjured the guilt and pleaded for trial.His defence was that he was innocent and he had been falsely implicated.The learned trial court after adducing the evidence of as many as eight prosecution witnesses and after the trial of the case, found the appellant accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of deceased Gunthulal and sentenced him, as mentioned above.The learned trial court however acquitted the appellant for the charge for committing murder of deceased Jhamalbai.Cr.Appeal.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant has filed this jail appeal on the ground that the finding of the learned trial court is contrary to law.The evidence with regard to dying declarations is not trustworthy.It is further submitted that the circumstances in which the incident had taken place it cannot be said that the appellant caused the aforesaid injury with the intention to cause death of deceased Gunthulal.Further, it is submitted that if the prosecution case is deemed to be proved then hardly the appellant/ accused can be convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC as in absence of proof of motive of the incident and specific act of the accused, it cannot be held that the appellant / accused had assaulted the deceased to commit his death or such injury which may likely to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Therefore, the appellant's conviction be converted accordingly.In the view of the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer is made to allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentenceHence, the appeal be dismissed.Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the record, from the statements of Autopsy Surgeon Dr.Sanjay Dhabadgaon, PW3, who have proved the post mortem report, Ex.P/5 of Gunthulal, proving the fact that deceased 4 Cr.Appeal.No.2224/2006 Gunthulal received lacerated wound over mid parietal region and abrasion over anterior aspect of left side of chest caused by hard and blunt object and he died on 23.3.2006 on account of the shock caused by head injury and ruptured liver leading to excessive heamorrhage.Investigating Officer, Naval Arya, PW7, has stated that deceased Gunthulal was brought to Police Station Sonewani, from the place of incident in injured condition.The area was Naxalite affected and in the night generally there was no traffic and he was to be taken to the Hospital on the next day; but, on account of the injury and bleeding he died in the Police Station premises.This statement has not been challenged during the cross examination of the witness.There is no other infirmity and circumstance to doubt about the correctness of the statement or to disbelieve the statement.Hence, there is no hesitation to confirm the findings of the learned trial court that the deceased died on account of the injury caused to him in the incident and the nature of his death was homicidal.Now, the crucial question which arises for consideration is as to whether the appellant assaulted the deceased and caused injury, resulting in his death.In this regard the prosecution case and the findings of the learned trial court are based on the dying declaration in the form of Dehati Marg intimation, Ex.P/15, and Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P/16 proved by I.O. Naval Arya, PW7, and oral dying declaration given by Munnalal, PW1, coupled with the corroboration with medical evidence and recovery of weapon 'lathi' with blood stains.The recovery of 'lathi' from the appellant as per seizure memo, Ex.The seized 'lathi' was sent to the FSL and as per the FSL report, Ex.P/23, human blood was found on the lahti.Cr.Appeal.In the backdrop of the above proposition of law, in the present case, the prosecution has also placed the evidence of aforesaid nature to prove the charge against the appellant accused.After the incident deceased lodged Dehati Marg intimation, Ex.Munnalal, PW1, has also stated that on getting information about the death of his mother-in-law, came to the house of the deceased Gunthulal where deceased Gunthulal narrated the entire story to the effect that on refusal of demand of liquor made by the appellant, the appellant had beaten him and dealt a lathi blow on his head.The testimony of this witness has remained unimpeachable.Similarly, the 'lathi' recovered from the appellant was found having human blood.This circumstance also corroborates the facts mentioned in the dying declarations.Having considered the aforesaid arguments and on minute scrutiny of the prosecution case as putforth by the prosecution, we 8 Cr.Appeal.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,483,951 |
1 .2018 2 KB CRM No. 6995 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 30th August, 2018 in connection with Khanakul Police Station Case No. 208 of 2018 dated 02.08.2018 under Sections 420/406/409 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Smt. Gouri Chakraborty ... Petitioner Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Mr. Tanmoy Chakraborty ... for the petitioner Mr. Debajyoti Deb ...for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Khanakul Police Station Case No. 208 of 2018 dated 02.08.2018 under Sections 420/406/409 of the Indian Penal Code.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 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,490,466 |
Record of the trial Court is available.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Also, heard on I.A.No.23313/2019, which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 (two counts) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years (two counts) with fine of Rs.1,000/- (two counts) with default stipulation.As per prosecution case, on 13.02.2017 appellant-accused was tried to through her son from the roof then her wife-Anuradha (PW-1) caught hold him then appellant-accused abused her with filthy language.Sister-in-law Shivani PW/3 reached there, thereafter appellant-accused also inflicted injuries by axe on her right shoulder.FIR was lodged.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.Appellant is in jail since 13.02.2017 so he has served almost half sentence. .He further submits that there are fair chances to succeed in the case.It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of appellant-Tusharkant Gupta shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the trial 3 CRA-8786-2019 court on 16.12.2020 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard.List this matter for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MISHRA Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2020.08.28 17:09:58 +05'30'
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,492,000 |
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 26-11-2009, at about 6 P.M., the complainant Roopram along with his son Lal Singh was coming on his cycle from Bhind to his village Muratpura.The moment he reached near Lavan Bumba, he saw that the appellants and Ranveer were coming on motor cycle.After noticing the complainant and his son, they started abusing them and scolded that he has encroached upon the land and thereafter gave a lathi blow which landed on the finger of his left hand.When his son Lal Singh tried to intervene in the matter, then Ranveer and appellant Badan Singh, threw him on the ground and Ranveer gave a teeth bite on his back.Betal Singh and Rambabu intervened in the matter.(14/08/2019) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 25-8-2015 passed by Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Bhind, in Special Sessions Trial No. 51/2010 by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged.They were sent for medical examination and accordingly crime No. 111/09 for offence under Sections 323,324,504/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short "Act") was registered.The caste certificate of the victims were seized and after completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 323, 324, 294/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of Act.The Trial Court by order dated 15-6-2011 framed charges under Sections 294, 323, 324/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of Act.The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.It appears that the co-accused Ranveer died during the pendency of the trial.3 CRA-1106-2015The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Roopram (P.W.1), Lal Singh (P.W.2), Dr. R.K. Agrawal (P.W.3), K.M. Goswami (P.W.4) and Harnarayan Dohare (P.W.5).The appellants examined appellant No. 1 - Kok Singh (D.W.1) in his defence.The Trial Court by impugned judgment and sentence acquitted the appellants for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Act and convicted the appellants for the offences mentioned above.Challenging the impugned judgment and sentence, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the appellants have been falsely implicated.The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses.It is an undisputed fact that a case was pending before the Court of S.D.M. which has resulted in favor of the appellants.Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the Trial Court has already adopted a very lenient view while awarding sentence.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.Roopram (P.W.1) in his evidence has stated that about 3 years back, at about 6 P.M., he along with his son Lal Singh were coming from Bhind for his village Muratpura.The moment they reached near Lavan Bumba, the appellants started abusing him and Kok Singh gave a lathi blow and his son Lal Singh was thrown on the ground and Ranveer gave a teeth bite on his back.Betal Singh and Rambabu 4 CRA-1106-2015 intervened in the matter.Thereafter, the appellants went back and were hurling the abuses including Kuria Wale.The F.I.R. Ex P.1 was lodged and the spot map Ex. P.2 was prepared and the caste certificate of the complainant and his son Lal Singh are Ex.In cross examination, this witness admitted that the appellants and he are the resident of same village and are residing nearer to each other.One case on the question of raising a wall is going on in the Court of S.D.M. He further admitted that he has constructed a wall on the land which is lying vacant and on this issue, the case is pending.He further admitted that the allegations of abusing/insulting by caste is not mentioned in FIR, Ex. P.1 and police statement Ex. D.1, and could not explain the reason for the same.Lal Singh (P.W.2) has also stated in the similar lines.He too was cross examined but nothing could be elicited from his cross which may make his evidence wholly unreliable.Dr. R.K. Agrawal (P.W.3) had medically examined Roopram and found following injuries on his body :One lacerated wound 4x1/2 cm on little finger of left hand.One swelling 2x2 cm on left leg The MLC report is Ex. P.5Following injuries were found on the body of Lal Singh :1. one semi circular mark over right side back at T10 level 3x3cm incisor and canine teeth mark seen.Swelling 3x2 cm right shoulder.5 CRA-1106-2015Although Roopram (P.W.1) and Lal Singh (P.W.2) have stated that they were insulted by their caste name, but since, no such allegation was found in the F.I.R., Ex. P.7 and police case diary statement of Roopram Ex. D/1, the Trial Court acquitted the appellants for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Act. As the acquittal of the appellants has not been challenged, therefore, nothing more is required to be considered in this regard.It is the case of the appellants that the complainant party had encroached upon the public place and had raised a wall and a case was pending before the Court of S.D.M., and the same has been decided in the favor of the appellants by order dated 27-10-2014, Ex. D.2 and the complainant party was directed to remove its construction and therefore, they have been falsely implicated.The Trial Court after considering the evidence which has come on record has convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 294, 323, 324/34 of I.P.C.No perversity could be pointed out by the Counsel for the appellants in the findings recorded by the Trial Court.The appeal fails and is hereby Dismissed.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,494,866 |
Shri K.D. Singh, learned counsel for the objector.Heard on this repeat (second) application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.265/2019 registered at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Satna under Sections 353, 332, 294, 506, 327, 34, 307, 333,147 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 28.06.2019 at about 01:00 pm, when complainant Devratna Soni, In- Charge, Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, New Ramnagar was in his office, the applicant, who is the President of Municipal Council, New Ramnagar along with other co-accused persons have reached there and forced him to sign some files in which the proposed orders were not legal.On refusal of the complainant to sign the said files, the applicant felt annoyed and left the office.After about 15 minutes, the applicant along with other co-accused persons again returned back and had beaten the complainant badly by sticks as a result of which he received injuries in his forehead, scalp, arms, shoulder, cheek and other part of the body.It is also alleged that other employees and co-accused person who were present in the Chamber of the complainant namely Rajendra Verma, Ajay Dwivedi, Deepak Gupta, Mamta Dwivedi also sustained injuries.After the incident, the applicants and other co-accused person threatened the complainant regarding his life and fled away from there.The complainant lodged the report immediately after the incident.His medical examination was conducted.During the course of X-ray, some of the injuries on the persons Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 24/09/2019 05:21:17 2 MCRC-37952-2019 of complainant are found to be grievous in nature.On that basis, crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.The earlier bail application i.e. M.Cr.C. No.30042/2019 has been dismissed vide order dated 9.8.2019 on merits.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,034,993 |
Briefly, the prosecution case is that the deceased Neelam along with her husband, the accused, had been living in a room on the 2nd Floor of Quarter No. 34C/1, Railway Colony, Punjabi Bagh.This was a Government flat having been allotted to one Satapal being an employee of the Railways.It consisted of 2 rooms, verandah one kitchen, bath etc. The said allottee had let out the said premises to one Rajender Prasad.Rajender Prasad along with his wife Smt. Chandra Kala (complainant) was living in one room, verandah and kitchen while other room had been let out to the accused where he and deceased, his wife, were living together.However, the wife of the accused had been staying with her parents at Ambala for about 1 1/2 months before 27-11-85 when the accused brought her to Delhi in the house in question.Quarrel had taken place between the husband and wife on that day 2-3 times and he had also slapped her.In the night of 1-12-85, before going to sleep, a talk had taken place between the accused and Smt. Chander Kala, wife of Sh.Rajender Prasad, living in the other room, about the movie which Chander Kala had seen on the television elsewhere.After the talk, the accused and his wife had taken meal together and then went to sleep in their room.On the next morning Smt. Chander Kala, complainant woke up at about 7 a.m. and noticed that the main gate of her flat was lying open and at about 12 noon, she realized that Kuldip Sharma (accused) and his wife had not come out even to use the bath room whereas they generally used to get up in the morning.She had also not heard any voice from their side.She slightly opened their door and noticed that Neelam was lying in sleeping position on a Dewan.She called Neelam but there was no response.Only her mouth was visible and the other body was covered with quilt.She realised that she was dead and then she contacted her husband on telephone in his office who came at about 4.30 p.m. along with their landlord Sh.Satyapal s/o Sh.Badri Nath who was residing at J-116, Kirti Nagar.They also noticed that Neelam was dead and then gave information to the police.On this information DD-16A was recorded.Copy of this DD was entrusted to SI Sh.L. D. Arora who visited the spot along with a constable and on inspection found that Neelam was lying dead.Smt. Chander Kala gave her statement (Ex. PW 2/B) to the said S.I. who forwarded the same through constable Sh.Ranjit Singh at about 6.15 p.m. on 2-12-1985 with his endorsement and on the basis of this statement FIR No. 809 was recorded by duty officer at 6.30 p.m. DD 18A about the registration of the case was also recorded.Investigation was entrusted to S.L. Sh.L. D. Arora.Ravi Malik.SDM was summoned who prepared inquest report.The said S.I. prepared sketch site plan, got the scene photographed and sent the dead body for post-mortem through two constables.Post mortem was conducted by Dr. L. T. Ramani on 4-12-1985 at 11.15 a.m. he noticed the injuries on the dead body internal and external vide his report (Ex. PW 10/A).He had inter alia noticed that a georgete chunni was tied around middle of neck tightly with a single knot situated on the front of the neck with a deep ligature, constriction and brownish ligature mark 1" to 1.25" wide all around middle of neck horizontally.He had opined that the ligature mark was ante mortem caused by chunni present around the neck and the death was due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation.According to him the deceased had died about 60 hours earlier.From the body of the deceased, one gold ring, 2 silver bichuwa, one nose pin, 2 silver ear rings were seized by the said S.I. in sealed cover.The doctor has also preserved in a sealed cover shirt salwar, underwear and chunni of the deceased.The dead body, after post mortem examination was handed over to the parents of the deceased.The accused was not found at his house in Delhi or at Ambala and at the addresses given by his father at Ambala.Later he was arrested on 4-12-1985 at New Delhi Railway Station.At the time of this arrest some injury marks were noticed on the person of the accused which were recorded by S.I. and he was got medically examined.The doctor had found some old dry abrasions marks over left posterior triangle which were opined to be more than 6 hours old.During the investigation inter alia statements of Sh.Om Prakash Bhardwaj, father of the deceased and his sister's husband Sh.Jaibal Joshi were recorded.In their statements they had alleged that the deceased had been visiting her parents and she had been complaining about the harassment by her in laws on account of insufficient dowry brought by her.They also stated that on 24-11-1985, the accused with his younger brother and his mother had visited her parent's house in Ambala and made a demand of Rs. 10,000/- which her father could not pay.However, thereafter on 26-11-1985, the accused had taking the deceased with him to his house in Ambala and on 27-11-1985 brought her to Delhi.According to her father, the accused had killed his daughter on account of dowry demand.PW 9 Smt. Chander Kala, wife of aforesaid Sh.Rajender Prasad has deposed that Neelam, deceased, and her husband Kuldip Sharma used to live as their tenant in a room at quarter No. 34C/1 Railway Colony, Punjabi Bagh.After about 1 1/2 months stay with her parents, on 27-11-1985 she had come with the accused and was living in this house.She had a talk with the accused on previous night about a movie seen by them on that day.Thereafter after their taking meals, the accused and the deceased had gone to sleep in their room.There was no movement in their room till noon next day.Water was flowing from tap and they had not come to take water from that tap.She knocked at the door but there was no response.In his presence he had also got the spot photographed and site plan (Ex. PW 14/D) was prepared by him, then had sent the dead body for post mortem.He was also not cross-examined on these facts.Ex. PW 14/D is the site plan of the second floor of the premises, showing the place in a room where the deceased was lying dead.The accused, under Section 313, Cr.P.C. had also admitted that he along with the deceased were living in that house for about 7-8 months.From this, it is proved that the place of occurrence was a room situated on second floor of this house and the deceased was found dead on a Diwan as shown in site plan Ex. PW 14/D with her body except face covered with a quilt.He also asked the accused to see reason.The accused persons had gone away when Sh.Jaipal Joshi had talked to them and had asked them to see reason.On 26-11-1985 Kuldip, accused, again came to our house and took away Neelam with him to his house at Ambala.The circumstances, as discussed above are as under :-JUDGMENT J.B. Goel, J.The appellant Kuldip Sharma, s/o Sh.Vyas Dev Sharma has been convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi for offence under S. 302, IPC for having committed the murder of his wife Neelam on the night of 1-12-85 by strangulation, vide judgment dated 12-5-89 and vide separate order of sentence, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment.Being aggrieved, he has come in appeal.After completing the investigation, the accused was charged for offence under Section 302, IPC.We have heared Sh.I. C. Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant, Sh.P. S. Sharma, Sr.Standing Counsel for State assisted by Sh.R. P. Kathuria with Sh.Vikas Bhalla, Advocate for the complainant.Certain facts which are not disputed and are also proved on record may be noticed before considering the contentions of counsel for the parties.Place of occurrencePW 5 Sh.Satapal has deposed that he was allottee of quarter No. 34C/1, Railway Colony, Punjabi Bagh, allotted by the Railway Department and that he had given the said quarter for residence to Shri Rajender Prasad.The accused was also living in that quarter.On being informed by Rajender Prasad about the death of Neelam, he had visited the said house and after the police reached there, he had gone inside the room where Neelam was lying dead covered with quilt and chunni tied around her neck.He was not cross-examined on this aspect.She felt suspicious called her husband and the allottee of the quarter.On being informed by them, police reached at about 6 p.m. and pushed open the door and dead body of Neelam was found lying on a Diwan lying inside their room.Her neck had been tied with a veil.She had made her statement Ex. PW 2/B to the police.(This is the statement on the basis of which FIR had been recorded).In cross-examination she stated that the flat was on second floor.They were in the possession of a room, verandha and a kitchen and the accused and his wife were living in the only other room.PW 14, S.I. Sh.L. D. Arora is the IO of the case and he has deposed that on 2-12-1985 while posted at PS Punjabi Bagh, copy of DD 16A (Ex. PW 2/A) was received by him and then he had gone to house No. 34C/1 Railway Colony, Punjabi Bagh along with a constable.Smt. Neelam Sharma was found lying dead in a room of this quarter on a wooden bed covered with a quilt and chunni tied around her neck and her face uncovered.At that time Smt. Chander Kala, her husband Rajender Prasad and landlord Satyapal were with him; and he had recorded the statement of Chander Kala (Ex. PW 2/B) and then, got FIR registered.Ravi Malik, SDM was called who had prepared inquest report (PW 15/B).Time and Cause of DeathAs already noticed PW 9 Smt. Chander Kala has deposed that she had a talk with the accused on the previous night over a movie and thereafter, the accused and his wife after taking their meal had gone to sleep in their room; she had not noticed any movement in their room till noon next day and thereafter she had noticed the dead body lying in the room.Police had also visited there.After preparing the inquest report, the dead body was sent for post mortem and post mortem was done by Dr. L. T. Ramani, Civil Surgeon (PW 10) on 4-12-1985 at about 11.15 a.m. He had noticed inter alia the following external conditions :-Mouth was partially open, tongue was in oral cavity, blood tinged, fluid was oozing out from nostrils and vagina, hails were blue, a georgette chunni, was tied around middle of the neck tightly with a single knot situated on the front of the neck, there was a deep ligature, construction and a brownish ligature mark 11.25 wide present all around middle of neck horizentally.Internally he had noticed sub-cutaneous tissues (of the neck strucature) under ligature showed effusion of blood, cornea of hyoid bone was fractured, tiny sub-mucous haemorrhage on epiglottis, lungs were congested and showed sub-pleural petachial haemorrhage, stomach contained 3-4 onz.of undigested food and whole rice could be identified.He has opined that ligature mark was ante mortem and was caused by chunni present around the neck.Death was due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation.He has proved his report Ex. PW 10/A. According to him time of death was 60 hours earlier.He was not cross-examined about these facts and his opinion.PW 9 and PW 5 as noticed earlier, have also deposed, that they had also noticed the deceased lying dead with chunni tied around her neck.This proves that the deceased Neelam had died an unnatural and non-accidental death and death was caused by strangulation.As opined by post mortem doctor (PW 10), the undigested food was found which showed that probably food was taken not more than one hour before her death.Now the question is who is responsible for the death of the deceased.There is no suggestion put to the post mortem doctor that the injury could have been caused in an attempt to commit suicide.Post mortem doctor had noticed that the deceased was carrying a male fetus of about 12 weeks's size.There is apparently no material brought on record, nor it is suggested why the deceased would have committed suicide.Plea of alibi has been taken by the accused.PW 9 Smt. Chander Kala, as noticed earlier, has deposed that she had a talk with the accused on the night of occurrence about the movie seen by her on television and thereafter, the accused and the deceased, after taking their meal, had gone to sleep in their room.There was no third person with the couple.She has denied the suggestion that because the father of the accused was seriously ill and so his brother had taken the accused away and that he was not present there at the time of the occurrence.Nothing has been shown that PW 9 had any enmity with the accused or any motive for falsely deposing against the interest of the accused.She is an independent and a natural witness and has deposed that the accused and the deceased were seen together by her on the night of the occurrence before they had gone to sleep together.In this respect, she is also corroborated by FIR (Ex. PW2/B) lodged by her and which does not show that she has lodged this report after confabulation with anyone.There is nothing brought on record to discredit her testimony in this respect.The case set up by the accused was that he was not present at Delhi and had gone to Ambala to look after his ailing father.There is one circumstance brought in the statement of Smt. Chander Kala, PW 9, which if it is correct, may support the plea of alibi.However, this circumstance appears to have been introduced by PW 9 to help the accused.The circumstance stated by her is that; "the door was bolted from inside" i.e. where the deceased was found.But she has further stated that; "I knocked at the door but there was no response.I felt suspicious and called my husband and also the allottee of the quarter.We informed the police.The police came at about 6 p.m. The police pushed open the door."In cross-examination, she has further stated as under :-"After giving information on telephone to my husband, I did not see the dead body of Neelam.I did not tell the police that I had seen the dead body of Neelam by opening the door a little before informing my husband.I have heard statement Ex. PW2/B wherein this fact is not so mentioned."There is apparently an error in recording this last sentence where she has been confronted with her statement Ex. PW 2/B. Her statement in this respect on translation is as under :-"At about 12 noon, I thought that Kuldip and his wife have not come to the side of the bath room whereas they generally used to get up in the morning I knocked at the door but there was no response.I opened the door a little and saw that Neelam was sleeping on the plung, I called her but there was no response.Only a little part of her mouth was out of quilt.I thought that she was dead."Obviously she had made this statement in Court that the door was bolted from inside, contradictory to her statement made earlier in first information report (Ex. PW-2/B) and it casts, doubt in the statement made by her in Court on this point.PW 5 Satpal had also visited the room of the deceased and he has stated that;"I informed the police on telephone about this case.I then returned to that quarter.The police came there and we went inside that quarter.She was covered with a quilt and a dupatta was tied around her neck.She was lying dead."From this statement, the reasonable inference would be that the door, where the deceased was lying, was not bolted from inside.He was not cross-examined to say that the door was bolted from inside and was broken open.PW 14, SI, Sh.L. D. Arora, IO, has deposed that when he had visited the house, Neelam Sharma was lying dead in the room of that quarter, she was lying on a wooden bed and covered with a quilt and a dupatta was tied around her neck and her mouth was uncovered, and in cross-examination, he has stated that;"the door of the room in which Neelam Sharma was lying dead was neither bolted from inside nor latched from outside.Shutters were closed."He was not further cross-examined to discredit him on this aspect.There is no reason to disbelieve him in this respect.PW 9, Smt. Chander Kala has also stated in Court that on that night, she had a talk with the accused before the accused and the deceased had gone to sleep.She has also denied the suggestion that the brother of the deceased had taken him away because of the illness of his father and so he was not present in the house at the time of this occurrence.When both the accused and the deceased were present in the room when they went to sleep, the deceased was found dead and the accused was not present inside the room, the door would not have been found bolted from inside.11 Sh.Sumit Singh Jain, an officer from National Insurance Company has deposed that Kuldip Sharma, accused was also employed in his office, that on 28-11-1985 he had absented himself on 10.15 a.m. and that he had not filed any application to go away from office and had left without information and a note to that effect had been made in the attendance register.He had brought attendance register with him.In cross-examination, he has also stated that on 28-11-1985 the accused had come at about 10 a.m. and had marked his attendance.He had denied the suggestion that accused had given the application for leave to one Sh.P. P. Saxena, Assistant Divisional Manager.No steps have been taken to prove that the suggestion was trustworthy.The accused, in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. has stated as under :-"As a matter of fact I was on leave from my office and was at Ambala to look after my ailing father since 22-11-1985 up to 27-11-1985 and thereafer, I went to the office again, applied for leave and went back to Ambala as the condition of my father was deteriorating.My wife remained at Delhi."If he had made an application for leave, there is no reason why such an application would have been withheld by the office and a note would be made in the attendance register that he was absent and had left without information.She was not cross-examined on this aspect at all.If the father of the accused was seriously ill and the accused had remained with him from 22-11-1985 to 27-11-1985 and he was to go back to look after him to Ambala, there would be no valid reason for him to bring his wife on 27-11-1985 to Delhi and leaving her alone in his absence when the parents of the accused as well as of the deceased were residents of Ambala.She would have stated at her inlaws house in case her father-in-law was seriously ill or at her parent house.These circumstances belie the plea of alibi taken by the accused.Accused has examined one Sh.Krishnamurthy DW 1 in his defense.He has deposed that he knew the father of the accused well and often visited him.He even has not stated if he had seen accused at Ambala during 28-11-1985 to 2-12-1985 nor that the father of the accused was seriously or even ill at that time.D.W. 2, Sh.Jaidip Sharma who is the brother of the accused has deposed that :"In Nov. 1985 my father fell ill.On 22-11-1985 (?) had come to Ambala to meet his father.My father improved and the accused returned to Ambala on 28-11-1985."There is apparent error in recording the name as "Ambala" instead of "Delhi".He has not stated that he had come to Delhi to take the accused due to serious illness of his father though the suggestion was made to PW 9 to this effect.The stand taken by the accused to this effect is, thus, inconsistent and cannot be said to be bona fide and in the circumstances cannot be believed.The onus to establish alibi is on the accused and he has not lead any reliable evidence to show that he could not be present with the deceased during the night of occurrence.It is well settled that a plea of alibi must be proved with such probability so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the person concerned at the place of occurrence (State of Maharashtra v. Narsingh Rao, ).The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused was not present with the deceased before or at the time of occurrence, thus, has no merit.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the allegations of demand or harrassment on account of dowry had not been proved.There was no motive and in the absence of motive no conviction can be based whereas learned counsel for the State has contended that the relations were not cordial and also there was demand and harrassment on account of dowry demand.PW 8 Sh.Om Prakash Bhardwaj, father of the deceased has deposed that deceased, his daughter, was married to the accused on 10-9-1983 at Ambala and further stated that;"She often visited me at Ambala and told me that accused had started harassing her and was complaining that dowry was insufficient.I told my daughter to adjust and this was order of the time that the demands were being made from the bride and her parents and I also told her that I will try to make the accused understand and see reason.On 27-10-1985 mother of the accused came and left Neelam at my house.On 24-11-1985 accused Kuldip with his mother and younger brother came to our house at Ambala.Kuldip and her mother stated that no dowry had been given and that they demanded Rs. 10,000/- to keep Neelam at their house.I told them that I had retired from the service in the year 1981 and had also spent money on the marriage of my son and he was not in a position to meet the demand, I had also spent money on the marriage of Neelam in the year 1983 and so had not money with me.I further told them that I shall pay the amount and meet the demand as soon as I was in a position to do so.My brother-in-law Sh.Jaipal Joshi had come on that day to my house.He was also having a house at Ambala.He came to Delhi with Neelam on 27-11-1985 ....."In his cross-examination, it is elicited that the deceased had written one or two letters to him but in those letters she had not made mention of harassment or of demand of dowry.And also that he had not stated in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. made on 4-12-1985 that the demand of Rs. 10,000/- by accused and his mother on 24-11-1985 was made.It is also suggested that he had not made any report of demands or of harassment to the police.However, there is no specific challenge to the fact that the deceased had not lived at his house during 27-10-1985 to 26-11-1985 or that she had stayed at her matrimonial home at Ambala or with the accused at Delhi.In cross-examination, it is also not specifically disputed that the accused, his mother and brother had visited him (PW 8) on 24-11-1985 and rather it was elicited/clarified that they had visited him at 3 p.m. on that day.Thus, it is not specifically disputed that the accused, his mother and brother had visited the witness on that day.Simply because the deceased had not complained in her letter to her father about the harassment on account of dowry demand or insufficient dowry, would not necessarily mean that she would not have been harassed.If she had met her father and had told him orally during her visits to him then there will be no necessity of writing this fact in the letter to him.Also no parents of a daughter would like to report such demands of dowry or harassment on account of dowry to the police till complete break down in the matrimonial relations takes place which is not the case here.There is ring of truth in his statement to this effect.The accused was employed and was living at Delhi.As admitted by him in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he was living in the house where the occurrence took place for the last 7-8 months.PW 9 Smt. Chander Kala who was occupying part of the same quarter has deposed that Neelam had stayed with her parents for about 1-1/2 months till 27-11-1985 when he brought her to Delhi.This fact was not disputed in her cross-examination.She had, thus, corroborated PW 8 to this effect.PW 9 has further deposed that the accused used to quarrel with his wife and once he had slapped her.She has denied the suggestion to the contrary put to her.What could be the reason for this quarrel and disharmony ? If the reason was something else, it was in the knowledge of the accused himself which has not been suggested or proved.The inference is that there was no smooth between this couple and the reason obviously was harassment either due to demand of dowry or being unsatisfied with the dowry already presented to her, as deposed by PW 8 and obviously, the expectations of demand of the accused and his relations remained unsatisfied and thereby resulting in frustration and so it would be the motive to get rid of the deceased.It may also be mentioned that there is no apparent reason brought on the record as to why the deceased had to live for a long time at her parents house especially when it is stated that her father in law was seriously ill at Ambala and the accused was staying alone at Delhi.Though PW 9 has also deposed that the relations between the couple were cordial before 27-11-85, however, as stated by this witness, the wife had lived out of Delhi for the last about 1-1/2 months before that and as such she would not be knowing if they were having cordial relations during that period and the circumstances under which the deceased had to live at her parents house for a long time.The reasons for this having not been explained, it cannot be taken that the relations were normal between the husband and the deceased.The deceased was married to the accused hardly two years ago.The post mortem doctor has noticed that the deceased was carrying a male fetus of about 12 week's size.This would not have prompted her to end her life.The deceased was found covered with a quilt with only her face uncovered.PW 5 Satpal has deposed that the deceased was lying dead covered with a quilt.PW 14 has deposed that on reaching the spot, he had found the deceased lying dead on a wooden bed and was covered with a quilt and her face was uncovered.If the deceased had committed suicide she would not have covered herself except her face only with quilt.Obviously, she had been so covered by someone else and he would be no other than the accused who was with her.This circumstance alone will eliminate the possibility of the death being a suicidal one.The accused was arrested on 4-12-1985 as deposed by IO (PW 14), PW 14 had noticed injury mark on his person and so sent him for medical examination vide Ex. PW 14F. Dr. J. Mahapatra, PW 12 had examined him on 4-12-1985 itself at 3.35 p.m. He had examined him vide Ex. PW 12/A and he had stated that he had found an old dry abbrasion 3 cm.x 1 cm.long on the left side of the neck.The age of this injury is opined to be more than 6 hours.In cross-examination, he has stated that this injury could be 24 hours old or even more than 24 hours.Two suggestions have been put to him about the possible cause of this injury as under :-Question : Can this injury be caused with a friendly hand ?Answer : Yes, with the intention to cause an injury.Question : Was such an injury possible by fall?Answer : Yes, it can be so possible.It is within the knowledge of the accused how it was caused.According to him, he was arrested on 3-12-1985 from his house at Ambala.He has also examined two witnesses to prove the time, date and place of arrest.S.I. Sh.Arora, IO PW 14 had deposed that he had arrested him on 4-12-1985 from New Delhi Railway Station and his personal memo Ex. PW 14/E was prepared by him.The only suggestion put to him in this respect is that he had brought the accused from his house at Ambala but there is no suggestion about the day of his arrest.There is also no suggestion put to him that any beating was given by him to the accused.In the absence of any such suggestion about the injury having been caused by beating to the doctor PW 12 and to IO PW 14, the plea of beating is not bona fide and cannot be believed.In the absence of any other material or explanation to the contrary, in all probability this has been caused to the accused by the deceased in scuffle at the time of her strangulation.The accused was found absent from his house next morning.He was absconding after the occurrence.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the mere fact of absconding or having been last seen together, is not incriminating circumstance justifying conviction.For this, he has relied on State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kamala, , Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab, , Satish Kumar v. State, 1994 (IV) CCR 2579 (DB) (Bombay) and Lakhanpal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1979 Cr LJ 1217 (SC).In these cases, except the evidence of last seen together or absconding, no other circumstantial evidence was proved or found reliable and trustworthy to form a chain of circumstances complete enough to base conviction.As a normal human conduct on the death of a near kith and kin, one laments and would raise hue and cry and even take assistance and counsel from the neighbours and the accused had cordial relations with his immediate neighbours.Instead of doing so, he had slipped away and remained absconding for several days.This conduct certainly destroys presumption of innocence on his part.The deceased and the accused alone were last living together in a single room accommodation on second floor forming, part of railway quarter No. 34C/1, Railway Colony, Punjabi Bagh.PW 9 was living in other part of the same quarter having a single main gate.The deceased was found dead, with chunni (Ex. P1) tied around her neck, next day with ligature mark.As per medical evidence, she had died due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation caused with Chunni (Ex. P-1).As per medical evidence, the deceased had died after about one hour of taking her meal on the night of 1/2-12-1985 and sometime probably before midnight.The dead body was notice next day which was covered with a quilt with her face only uncovered.The relations between the accused and the deceased were not cordial and harmonious.He used to harass her because of demand of dowry or dissatisfaction about the dowry presented to her on her marriage and his expectations remained unsatisfied.At the time of his arrest, an old dry injury (3 cm.x 1 cm.) was found on his neck which remained unexplained.This injury, in all probability, would have been caused at the time of occurrence in a scuffle by the deceased at time of her strangulation.These circumstances, in our opinion, clearly point to the conclusion that it was the accused and none else who was responsible for the murder of deceased Neelam.For the reasons given above, the finding of conviction given by the learned trial Court is reasonable and justified and we do not find any reason to interfere in the same.In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.The appellant is on bail.He shall surrender forthwith to serve the sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,687,430 |
On or about 2nd August 2002, the Complainant entered into ahire-purchase agreement with the Financier, then known as MagmaLeasing Ltd. for hire-purchase of a Mahindra Marshal Economic Jeepbearing the Registration No. UP-42-T/1163, which is hereinafterreferred to as the ‘vehicle’, the cost whereof was Rs.4,21,121/- ofwhich the complainant made an initial payment of Rs.1,06,121/-.According to the Financier, an amount of Rs.1,04,000/- from out ofthe initial payment of Rs.1,06,121/- was paid by the complainant tothe dealer directly.The balance amount of Rs.3,15,000/- was paid bythe Financier.The monthly instalments were to be paid till 1 st June, 2005.The Complainant apparently deposited post dated cheques of 3Rs.12,531/-.A part of the recital and some of the relevant terms andconditions of the said hire purchase agreement between the Financierand the Complainant, are set out hereinbelow for convenience:“…..WHEREAS the Hirer has agreed to deposit post dated cheques with the company at its registered office at 24, Park Street, Calcutta-700016 towards security for payment of monthly/quarterly hire charge and undertakes to ensure encashment of the same on the respective due dates.WHEREAS the Hirer has agreed to hold the Hired Article in Trust for the company subject to user right and not to deal with the same in the manner specified in Clause 3(1) hereof until the entire amounts due under this agreement are duly paid to the company on the terms and conditions more particularly set out hereunder.……..In the circumstances, the Financier took re-possession of thevehicle on 14th July, 2003, allegedly upon notice to the Complainant,and in accordance with the conditions of the hire-purchaseagreement.The factum of notice is, however, disputed by theComplainant.After taking re-possession of the vehicle, the Financier calledupon the Complainant to clear his outstanding dues amounting toRs.2,80,132.59 as on the date of the notice, failing which the vehiclewould be disposed of.Provision-10 That Applicant has done correspondence withOpposite party no.1 and tell the complete situation butApplicant vehicle was not given to Applicant again but it was 12 sold to some other person.Applicant has done very much helter-skelter in relation to this But no result of all these.Beside Assuring that he will pay all the past due Installment soon and will pay all other Installment timely, although vehicle was not Released in the favour of Applicant by Opposite party.That come under the Category of Business Misconception.In Unfair Trade Practice Act. And Due to Deficiency in Service.Then the financiers came into the picture.After repossession thecomplainant contacted the Financier and was informed of the reasonsfor the repossession.He only made an offer to pay outstandinginstalments and gave an assurance to pay future instalments in time.If the Financier was not agreeable to accept the offer, the Financierwas within its rights under the hire purchase agreement.This is not acase where payment had been tendered by the hirer but notaccepted by the Financier/lender.The Complainant had not tenderedpayment.Indira Banerjee, J.This appeal is against an order dated 2 nd August, 2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’], dismissing Revision Petition No.5 of 2018, filed by the Appellant [hereinafter referred to as the Financier], under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against an order dated 31 st August, 2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UttarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byARJUN BISHT Pradesh [herein after referred to as the ‘State Commission’],Date: 2020.10.0118:58:59 ISTReason:dismissing Appeal No. 1704 0f 2008 filed by the Financier, and 2affirming the order dated 22nd August, 2008 passed by the DistrictConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh[hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’], whereby the DistrictForum allowed Complaint Case No. 105/2005 filed by the Respondent,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’],and directed the Financier to pay Rs. 2,23,335/- to the Complainant,along with interest at 10% per annum, Rs 10,000/- towards physicaland mental injury and Rs 1000/- as litigation expenses.A pre sale legal notice dated 26.07.2003 was allegedly sent bythe Financier to the Complainant, calling upon him to clear his totaloutstanding dues of Rs.2,80,132.59 within 7 days from the date ofreceipt of the notice, which was, according to the Financier, dulyserved on the Complainant.The Complainant did not make therepayment demanded, or even part thereof.On or about 15th July, 2005, that is, exactly two years after theFinancier took possession of the vehicle, the Complainant filed thecomplaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,being Complaint No.105 of 2005 in the District Forum, admitting thathe had paid only 7 complete instalments.For the sake ofconvenience, the relevant paragraphs of the complaint are extractedhereinbelow:“Provision-3 That Applicant/Complainant has Submitted1,04,000 as a margin money And 3,15,000 was Finance fromOpposite party.That to be Submitted in 35 Equal monthlyinstalments.Provision-5 That Applicant Started Driving Vehicle AfterCompleting All the Formalities Related to Vehicle Documentsand Started Paying InstalmentProvision-6 That Applicant has Paid Complete 7instalments And in 8th Month Applicant Has notCompleted his two instalments Due to ill health.AfterRecovering in Next Month When He started Driving VehicleThere was A suit Filed for Accident on Applicant VehicleThat’s why Applicant vehicle was sealed.This Informationwas Given to Opposite party no.2 Immediately And it wasAlso said that After Releasing of vehicle he will be able to payInstalment Smoothly.Provision-7 That After Arranging Somehow applicant wasable to release Vehicle And Driver.And After Paying JuneInstalment When Applicant was about to Started DrivingVehicle Opposite party No.2 has Lifted Vehicle Without givingany prior Notice or Information on Dated 14.07.2003.Whereas Applicant has Paid Total of 1,19,335 (One LakhNineteen Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Five Rupees) inthe form of Installment.Provision-8 When Applicant Has Contacted to the office ofOpposite party No.2 in relation to this They Said That yourInstalments were Due to which vehicle was Lifted.WhenApplicant Said that He will Complete all the Due InstalmentSoon And in Future he will pay all the Installment Timely.ButOpposite party No.2 does not heard it And refused to givevehicle.By a judgment and order dated 31 st August, 2017, the StateCommission dismissed the appeal.The Financier filed a RevisionalApplication before the National Commission, under Section 21(b) of 15the Consumer Protection Act, which has been dismissed by thejudgment and order under appeal.Section 27A. Appeal against order passed under Section27.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under Section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from—The Financier admittedly paid Rs.3,15,000/- for acquisition ofthe vehicle, out of which the Financier had been able to realizeRs.1,19,000/- inclusive of all charges.There was depreciation in thevalue of the vehicle by reason of usage by the Complainant, for abouta year.The District Forum did not even notionally assess thedepreciation in the value of the vehicle.The District Forum was not justified in directing the Financierto pay the Complainant Rs.2,23,335/- being the entire amount paidby the Complainant to the Financier from the inception as well as thepayment of Rs.1,04,000/- made by the Complainant to the dealeralong with damage of Rs.10,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.1,000/-after the Complainant had held and used the vehicle for almost a 58year.The Complainant, admittedly a defaulter, has in effect, beenallowed free use of the vehicle for about a year, plus damages, for anerror in the notice of repossession, without considering the prejudice,if any, caused to the complainant by the error and consequential nonreceipt of the notice, and without making any assessment of the loss,if at all, to the Complainant by reason of the error/omission.For the reasons discussed above, the impugned orders of theNational Commission, the State Commission and the District Forum,under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be sustained andthe same are set aside.The appeal is accordingly allowed.
|
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,696,343 |
Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.filed on behalf of the applicant.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the application and prays for dismissal of this application.Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on a perusal of case diary, it is apparent that the applicant is in jail since 30.07.2020, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also looking to the gravity of offence and act attributed to the applicant, this Signature SAN Not Verified Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 2020.09.15 13:42:53 IST 2 MCRC-29565-2020 Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant stands allowed.Jail authorities and State Government are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Health Ministry in the wake of Novel Corona Virus, before and after releasing the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,972,007 |
This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.580/2016 under Sections 354, 354-A, 323, 294 of I.P.C and 7 /8 of POCSO Act registered at Police Station-Chhola Mandir, District- Bhopal (M.P).According to the case of the prosecution, the applicant who is in judicial custody since 12/01/2017 and the charge-sheet having been filed accusing of having beaten his wife and abused her and also threatened to make his own daughter as his wife.Learned counsel for the State has read out from the 161 statement and the 164 statement of the mother of the prosecutrix, in which she states that on account of the persistent drunken behavior of the applicant and on account of the physical and mental cruelty being perpetrated on her by the applicant herein, she had taken a house and was living separately therein with her daughter.The applicant on the date of the incident, is stated to have come to the house of the prosecutrix and her mother, beaten and abused the mother and also alleged to have stated that he will keep the daughter as his wife.This is what comes out in the statement under Section 161 and 164 statement of the mother and in the 161 statement of the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix in her 164 statement however, has stated that on the date of the incident the applicant came to the house in a drunken condition caught hold of the hair of the mother of the prosecutrix abused her, beat her and was insisting on taking the prosecutrix with him to his house.The applicant is the father of the prosecutrix.There is no allegation under 164 statement made before the Magistrate by the prosecutrix that the applicant had ever stated that he would keep his own child as his wife.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 12/01/2017, I am inclined to allow the instant application for grant of bail and direct that the applicant herein be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.Certified copy as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE julie
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,720,084 |
And In the matter of : Suman Chatterjee.... Petitioner Mr. Sandipan Ganguly Mr. Arkadeb Bhattacharyya .. for the Petitioner Mr. Sunirmal Nag .. For the State Mr. Amal Kumar Banerjee .. for the de-facto complainant.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. ) 3
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,297,201 |
In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 4-11-86, Ramesh aged 10 years who is the son of informant, Heeralal, went to see the 'Ramleela' in the Village Sukwan but did not return home, as a result of which the father on 6-11-1986 lodged a report of "missing persons" at the Police Station, Nogaon.According to the informant, in the month of September, 1986 some quarrel took place between his son Ramesh and Ganpat (son of Mattu) to whom the informant gave two slaps.Thereafter, acquitted co-accused Girja Prasad the uncle of Ganpat, gave threats to kill him and his son.On 11-11-1986 a letter was received by him near the well in which a demand of Rs. 70,000/- was made and he was called in the midnight at 12 on 2041-1986 at the "Tallaya Wala Chabutra".The informant also received another letter on the second day by post in which he was directed to remain present on 22nd and 23rd November, 1986 at Badhari Stop alongwith one lakh rupees.In the said letter a threat was given that in case the cash amount was not brought, he would not see his son.In the night of 20-11-1986 the informant, his brother-in-law, Ramdayal, and uncle Har Prasad, went near the Tallaya Wala Chabutra' without carrying any cash.At that place acquitted co-accused Girja Prasad Patel appellant Bahadur Singh, Ramdeen, Premi Nai met them.The appellant said that he had kidnapped the son of the informant and the same is in the custody of his colleague Shivbali and absconded co-accused Ajay Pal.These persons said that in case Rs. 70,000/- was not given to them, they would murder Ramesh and avenge themselves.The informant sought pardon from these persons but they remained unmoved.The appellant Bahadur Singh and acquitted co-accused Girja Prasad happened to make demand of the money after every second and third day from him.On 9-12-1986, the father of the kidnapped son, received one more letter, according to which he was directed to come Badhari alongwith one lakh rupees.It is alleged that on 15-12-1986, Heeralal, his brother-in-law, Ram Dayal, and uncle, Harprasad, went to Badhari alongwith Girja, Bahadur Singh, Premi Nai and Ramdeen.At Badhari, appellant Shivbali, absconded accused Ajay Pal and Govind Singly met and all these three persons and inquired whether the complainant had brought the cash or not.The informant was insisting to show his son and said that he would arrange the money after selling his land.On this, these persons became annoyed and gave threats to put an end to the life of his son.The complainant assured them that he would arrange the money within 10 days.On 18-12-1986, the informant lodged a report at the police station that the accused persons had kidnapped his son and also that there was reason to harbour suspicion that his son might have been killed.The written report is Ex. P-4 on the basis of which the police registered the FIR as Ex. P-5 and in this manner the criminal law was set in motion.The police seized the bones of the deceased vide Panchnama (Ex. P-8) from the forest and the same were sent to the Director, Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal from where report (Ex. P-36) was received.The appellants are acquitted from all the charges.JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 199/1992 as both the appeals arise from the same judgment of conviction.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8-44991 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No. 160/87 convicting the appellants Bahadur Singh and Shivbali under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- rigorous imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 1000, and rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/- respectively to both the accused with the stipulation that both the sentences shall be concurrent, the accused/appellants are in appeal.In furtherance to the investigation, the police seized the letters and were sent to the handwriting expert from where report (Ex. P-49) was received.The police during the investigation seized several old silver Tabeezs which were being worn by the deceased prior to his death from the accused persons.These Tabeezs were identified in the test identification parade by witnesses Heeralal and Ramrati.The police after completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet under Sections 302, 364, 365, 201 and 404 of the IPC against the accused persons in the Committal Court from where it was sent to the Court of Session and ultimately the case was transferred to the Trial Court for trial.All the accused persons were charged under Section 147, 364 read with Sections 149, 302 read with Section 149 in the alternate Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.The accused Bahadur, Halku Singh, Ram-deen, Premilal and Shivbali also with aforesaid charges were also separately charged under Section 404 of the IPC.All the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded their innocence, according to them they have been falsely implicated.The accused persons did not choose to adduce any evidence in defence.In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and placed Exs. P-1 to P-82 the documents on record.The learned Trial Judge after scanning the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that except appellant Bahadur and Shivbali, other co-accused persons did not commit any offence, as a result of which they were acquitted.However, the learned Trial Judge found the offences to be proved under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 404 against the present appellants and convicted and passed the sentence as mentioned hereinabove.The appellants had thus preferred this appeal.We have heard Mr. L.N. Sakle, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Chanchal Sharma, for the State.(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (2) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (3) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else.The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must also be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis that of the guilt of the accused.The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."We have stated hereinabove that nine persons were arrayed as accused persons, out of them Ajay Pal Singh son of Ramgopal was not tried on account of his abscondence.The names of other accused persons who were tried by the Trial Court are Bahadur singh (Appellant) Halku Singh, Ramdeen, Premlal, Girja Prasad, Govind Singh, Shivbali Singh (appellant) and Mangal Singh.Out of these eight persons except Bahadur Singh and Shivbali six accused persons have been acquitted by the Trial Court.The story as putforth by the prosecution is that complainant Heeralal gave 2-3 slaps to the Ganpat, who is the nephew of the accused Girja Prasad, as a result of which the said Girja Prasad, so as to feed his revenge, got the deceased kidnapped.According to the prosecution, the deceased and Ganpat quarreled in the month of September, 1986, in which complainant Heeralal gave two slaps to Ganpat.The investigating agency got the disputed letters (Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3) examined by the handwriting expert alongwith the envelopes (Ex. P-2-A and Ex. P-3-A).The prosecution seized several letters in the handwriting of appellants Bahadur Singh and Shivbali and also obtained their handwriting for the comparison of the handwriting from the disputed letters.The handwriting expert J.L. Rathore (P.W. 11) on the basis of his opinion (Ex. P-49) and his report (Ex. P-48) came to the conclusion that the handwriting appearing on the disputed letters and envelopes, is similar to those of other admitted documents and therefore the persons who wrote the disputed letters are the same persons.Even if that be the situation, why the appellants kept quite and did not take the revenge soon after the month of September, 1996, when the quarrel between Ganpat and the deceased took place and complainant Heeralal gave 2-3 slaps to Ganpat.There is evidence of Heeralal, Ramdayal and Harprasad that they met all the accused persons and they made demand of ransom.However, except appellants other six co-accused persons were acquitted on the ground that there is no documentary evidence against them.The Trial Court has convicted the present appellants on the basis of oral evidence of above three persons coupled with the evidence of handwriting expert.We have already discarded and has not believed the evidence of the handwriting expert in the foregoing paras.Thus, there remains the oral evidence of the above said three persons.The evidence of these persons is common to all of the accused persons and when on the basis of the said evidence, the other six accused persons have been acquitted by the Trial Court, in our view the similar treatment should have been extended to the present appellants.A prudent man would not digest the story that an accused would keep this article with him, which is valueless, so as to implicate himself as an accused.Much reliance has been placed by the Trial Court on the seizure of bones (Ex. P-20).According to the evidence of complainant Heeralal (P.W. 1), these bones were of his son and he identified these bones on the sole basis that one tooth of upper jaw of the deceased was half broken.Surprisingly in the seizure of the bones (Ex, P-20), there is no mention that the jaw which was seized had one half broken tooth.The police seized the bones and prepared Panchnama of the dead-body.Indeed there was no dead-body, but some bones and hair were seized.The witness of this Panchnama is Dashraj (P.W, 8).According to the evidence of Dashraj (P.W. 8), the bones were recovered from two places while the documents (Ex. P-20 and Ex. P-8) do not support the oral evidence that the bones were collected and seized from two places and thus it creates a doubt from where the bones were seized.There is no cogent evidence so as to hold that the bones which were seized by the police were that of the deceased.On the basis of the above said premised reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the appellants Bahadur Singh and Shivbali, hence, the judgment of their conviction is hereby set aside.The appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,721,250 |
(i) Bail Application No.2135 of 2018, is allowed;(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.380 of 2016, registered with with Wadala T.T. Police Station, Mumbai, on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;(ii) Applicant shall report to Wadala T.T. Police Station, Mumbai, on first Friday of every month between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m., till further order;(iii) Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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.
|
1,297,260 |
Some of the relevant facts are that Dinesh Ahluwalia was married to respondent Ms. Roopa Ahluwalia.The marriage was solemnised some time in February1992 at Calcutta.Petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law of Roopa Ahluwalia and petitionerno.3 is the father-in-law of the complainant Roopa Ahluwalia.Both the petitioner no.1 and his wife/respondent (Roopa Ahluwalia) are working in Indian Airlines.Petitioner no.1 is a pilot and the complainant is an Air Hostess in the said airlines.JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.The petitioners assail the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by virtue of which the learned court passed an order admitting the petitioners to anticipatory bail but subject to the condition that they shall deposit Rs.2.5 lakhs as fixed deposit receipt on Indian Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi in the name of the court in two Installments of Rs.1.25 lakhs each.The deposit had to be made without prejudice to the rights of the parties and respondent-wife of Dinesh Ahluwalia, would only be entitled to the amount, if any, after adjudication of her claim.
|
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,297,317 |
Appellant who was theproperty clerk in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chikodi,allegedly misappropriated properties belonging to the Court and sold themto four other persons who were acquitted by the trial Court along with thepresent appellant.While the appellant stood charged for commission ofoffence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (inshort the 'IPC') the rest four stood charged for commission of offencepunishable under Section 411 IPC.The prosecution alleged that while theproperties in question were under the domain of the appellant, he sold themto accused nos. 2 to 5 during the period 2.3.1979 to 6.6.1985 and,therefore, committed the offence as alleged.After charge was framed allthe five persons faced trial before the Principal Civil Judge and JudicialMagistrate, First Class, Chikodi, who by judgment dated 4th July, 1989 heldthat all the accused persons were not guilty of the changes.He, interalia, observed that the evidence was not satisfactory regarding entrustmentand misappropriation.The State of Karnataka preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Courtand the Division Bench by the impugned judgment held that no interferencewas called for in the case of the other four accused who were acquitted.Sofar as the present appellant is concerned, it was held that the accusationswere established by the evidence on record.During the pendency of theappeal the Court felt that there were some aspects which were required tobe gone into, and, therefore, by exercise of power under Section 391 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') directed certainmaterials to be brought on record by the Trial Court.That was done.Afterthat by the impugned judgment, the High Court convicted the appellant forcommission of offence under Section 409 IPC and sentenced him to undergoimprisonment for one year.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted thatthe evidence was unreliable and both the trial Court and the High Court didnot place reliance on major portion of the evidence.The HighCourt has considered the similar stand.In the concerned office order there was no direction tothe appellant to hand over the charge of properties in the court propertyroom to a witness Harugon.When the appellant admitted that he had gone onleave from 4.2.1980 to 28.2.1980 and as rightly held by the High Courtthere is no material to show that after returning from leave the accusedhad not assumed office, this plea is clearly untenable because as a normalconsequence after returning from leave the appellant is supposed to havetaken over as property clerk.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,973,246 |
(184)C. R. M. 12240 of 2014 In the matter of : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.09.2014 in connection with Habra Police Station Case No. 245 of 2012 dated 17.04.2012 under Sections 395/397of the IPC and Sections 25(I)(a)/27 of the Arms Act.And In re : Sankar Biswas........................petitioner Mr. D. C.Kabir Mr. Litan Maitra.............for petitioner Mr. Partho Pratim Das .................for the State The petitioner herein is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 395/397of the IPC and Sections 25(I)(a)/27 of the Arms Act.The learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is in the custody for last two years and six months and charge-sheet has already been submitted although the trial has not even commenced.The learned Advocate of the petitioner further submits that remaining three other charge-sheeted co-accused persons have already been granted bail.Heard the learned Advocate for the State.Therefore, the accused/petitioner, namely, Sankar Biswas be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M, Barasat, North 24-Parganas and subject to the further condition that the petitioner will meet the Officer-in-Charge once in a week until further orders.The application for bail, thus, stands allowed.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Sudip Ahluwalia-J.)
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,733,957 |
Thereafter, he was declared as proclaimed offender.However, the accused/petitioner got bail.ARDR CRR 1758 of 2016 Sudarshan Kolay @ Sudarsan Chandra Kolya Vs.The State of West Bengal Mr. Arindam Jana, Adv.Mr. Soumajit Chatterjee, Adv....for the petitioner.Warrant of arrest was issued against the accused/petitioner in connection with that case.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.