id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
191,581,568 | The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and one Aman S/o Kamaljeet Sehgal are partners of Swastik Infrastructure, a real estate development firm.They launched a project with the name of "Classic Singapore City" and publicized it through media and brokers.The complainant Tarvez and his brother Gulrez were interested in purchasing flat nos. 401 and 402, "F-Block" and flat nos.102, 304 and 501 of "A-block".work for the one reason or the other.Doubting their conduct, when the complainants inquired for the reason, they came to know that flat nos.401 and 402 which were shown to them as flats of "F-Block", were actually flats of "E-Block".Building of "F-Block" was actually not even constructed by that time and only structure upto 3rd floor was constructed by the petitioner by that time.Relying on the petitioner and his other partner and believing on the sale deed executed by the petitioner, the complainant had obtained loan of Rs.40,00,000/- + 5,00,000/- from Devan Housing Finance and he is repaying the installments of that loan also.The complainant further came to know that flat no.501 of "A-Block" is sold by the petitioner to one Ravikant Pawar.In this way, the petitioner and his partner deceived the complainants by showing them forged and fabricated documents and obtained huge money from them.This is second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by petitioner--Ankit in Crime No.491/2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station--Heera Nagar, District--Indore.His first application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.08.2018 passed in M.Cr.They paid Rs.54,00,000/- and 40,00,000/-, respectively and got the sale deed executed for flat nos. 401 and 402 "F-Block" and entered into an agreement for flat nos.102, 304 and 501 "A-Block".Finishing of these flats were due and it was agreed between the parties that promoters will finish the flats soon and handover the possession, but they protracted the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.20726 of 2019 Ankit Vs.Objection of the State is that about 15 cases of such type of fraud/cheating have been registered against the petitioner, therefore, he be not granted bail.List of cases registered against the petitioner has been supplied which reflects that Crime No.680/2015 U/s.420, 467,468, 471 IPC, Crime No.54/2016 U/s. 420, 467, 468,471 IPC, Crime No.167/2016 U/s. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Crime No.436/2016 U/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Crime No.558/2016 U/s.420, 467, 468,471 IPC, Crime No.374/2016 U/s.420, 467, 468,471 IPC, Crime No.474/2016 U/s.420, 467, 468,471 IPC, Crime No.682/2017 U/s.420, 467, 468,471 IPC, Crime No.491/2017 U/s.420, 467, 468,471 IPC, Crime No.21/2018, U/s.420, 467, 468,471 IPC, Crime No.381/2018 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.20726 of 2019 Ankit Vs.State of M.P.U/s.420, 467, 468,471 IPC, Crime No.298/2018 U/s.420, 467, 468,471 IPC, Crime No.379/2018 U/s.420, 467, 468,471 IPC, Crime No.130/2017 U/s.341, 506, 34 IPC and Crime No.30/2017 U/s.420/34 IPC have been registered against the petitioner.This time the petitioner has come forward with the plea that in all 15 cases, respective complainants have compromised the case, therefore, he be granted bail. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,592,287 | As per the prosecution case, on 04/03/2019 Manjo Bai, Chandravati, Usha Raidas, Mithla, Rukmani, Soni Bai, Mithla w/o Santosh Raidas all of whom were residents of Village-Kharkhari, Police Station-Kuthla, District- Katni lodged the written report at Police Station A.J.K. Katni averring that co- accused Gudda@Ram kumar Yadav, and appellant Daduram Chaudhary approached them and on the assurance to get loan sanctioned to them from Bank under Government Scheme took their I.D. and papers of their land.Thereafter, they got loan sanctioned in the name of complainants by taking their forged signatures.However, said loan amount was not paid to the complainants.Co-accused Rajkumar Agrawal, Manager of Central Madhya Pradesh Rural Bank, Branch Devri Tola, got the cheques of Margin Money Signature Not Verified SAN worth Rs.10,50,000/- from the government and misappropriated that amount Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.07.23 16:02:48 IST 2 CRA-2906-2020 in connivance with co-accused Suresh Rajak, Jeewan Burman, Subham Burman and other co-accused persons.The appellant is also the victim.The appellant did not sign any cheque for withdrawal of said amount from his account.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.There is no allegation against the appellants that they prepared any forged document.Regarding this incident appellants also filed a complaint against Bank Manager.Appellant is even ready to deposit the amount Rs.4,50,000/- from the alleged amount under protest.Charge sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail.Signature Not Verified SAN Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.07.23 16:02:48 IST 3 CRA-2906-2020 there is sufficient evidence available on record against the appellant to connect him with the crime.The appellant will cooperate in the trial;The appellant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.The amount so deposited by the appellant in fix deposit, shall be subject to final outcome of the case.C.C. as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.07.23 16:02:48 IST | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,594,075 | [Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu herein, viz. Priyakannan, Son of Veerapandian, aged 20 years.The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.14/Goonda/2018/C1, dated 26.07.2018, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.The detenu has come to adverse notice in the following cases:- S.No.Police Station & Crime No. Section of LawErode North Police Station Crime Section 394 IPC @ 395 No.213/2015 r/w 397 & 201 IPC and Sec. 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Property Damage & Loss Act 1992 r/w 34 IPCNamakkal District Elachipalayam 457, 380 & 302 IPC @ Police Station Crime No.197/2015 396 & 201 IPCAnthiyur Police Station Crime 457 & 511 IPC No.97/2018Anthiyur Police Station Crime 380 IPC No.279/2018Anthiyur Police Station Crime 380 IPC No.280/2018Anthiyur Police Station Crime 454 & 380 IPC No.282/2018http://www.judis.nic.in 3 The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Cr.No.284/2018 on the file of the Anthiyur Police Station, for offences u/s. 397 & 506(ii) IPC.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention.The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition.He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed.The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.14/Goonda/2018/C1, dated 26.07.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, namely, Priyakannan, Son of Veerapandian, aged 20 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District, Erode.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.H.C.P.No.2472 of 2018 10.01.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,601,517 | sh The photographs of the two at various places where the e applicant and the prosecutrix and her child are seen ad together, this Court refrains from observing any further upon the said photographs.The ou applicant shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so by the police.C C.C. as per rules.h ig H (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE Digitally signed by JULIE SINGH Date: 2018.04.04 10:51:40 +05'30' juliesh This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail e ad to the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.16/2017 for offence under Section Pr 376 of I.P.C registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Rewa, (M.P).On the threat of disclosure of the video, he is H stated to have had physical relationship with her repeatedly on account of which she became pregnant.The applicant is stated to have given a medicine which resulted in partial abortion.Learned counsel for the State and the objector have drawn the attention of this Court to the M.L.C and her treatment papers which reflect that the prosecutrix was tested positive in pregnancy.Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-A/2 from pages 14 to 16 of the application, which is a petition filed by the prosecutrix against her husband for grant of divorce before the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Nagpur. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,602,461 | This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for grant of bail to applicant Viru Kachi Patel in connection with Crime No.355/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 IPC and sections 5 read with 6 and 3 read with 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Hata, district Damoh.The applicant herein is in judicial custody since 24.6.2020 in the aforementioned case.The allegation against him, as per the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., is that he abducted and forcibly took her to Chhatarpur where the main accused Hemant had raped her.On 17.6.2020, the prosecutrix was recovered and in her statement before the Magistrate she has stated that on 17.6.2020 she and her brother were grazing goats.When she had gone to drink water, a white coloured vehicle, which she has identified as Marshall jeep, arrived before her and two to three people got down from it.They caught and dragged her into the vehicle and made her unconscious by making her to inhale something.When she woke up, she found herself in front of accused Hemant who, she says raped her.She says that she escaped from the custody of Hemant and got in touch with her parents and ultimately she was recovered.In the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has specifically named the applicant herein that he was the one in the white coloured vehicle who had participated in her abduction.Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant 2 MCRC-23966-2020 has been falsely implicated and that a first information report was registered against one of the family members of the prosecutrix on 5.7.2018 under sections 294, 323, 506, 302 read with 34 IPC in which the applicant is a witness against the family member of the prosecutrix and also that in order to bring unlawful pressure to bear upon him to change his statement, he has deliberately been implicated in the aforementioned case.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE ps Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2020.09.22 17:07:37 +05'30' | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 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. |
191,605,700 | C.R.M.6130 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10/08/2018 in connection with Lalgola P.S. Case No. 277 of 2017 dated 01/07/2017 under Sections 323/325/307/34 of the Indian gd Penal Code along with Sections 25(1)(a)/27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive SubstancesAnd In the matter of: Ranjit Mandal & Ors.The petitioners do not press the prayer in respect of the second petitioner who has already been arrested.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Lalgola P.S. Case No. 277 of 2017 dated 01/07/2017 under Sections 323/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 25(1)(a)/27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive SubstancesConsidering the nature of the charge and the fact that the charge- sheet has been filed, there may not be any immediate need to take the petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 into custody.In addition, the petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 will attend the trial on every day that the matter is fixed and any default on the part of the petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 will entitle the trial court to cancel the bail without reference to this court.This order is subject to the further condition that the petitioner nos.1, 2 3 and 4 will not enter any place within the Lalgola Police Station till the conclusion of the trial.The petition for anticipatory bail is 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.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,612,106 | (a) The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Subbani, hardly aged about 26 years.P.W.1 is her husband.They were residing at Door No.15, 6th Street, Ulaganathapuram Village, Ponneri Taluk.P.W.1 was employed in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board during the relevant point of time.The deceased was doing milk vending business.There was nobodeyelse residing with them.P.W.1 used to go to his office everyday in the morning and to return in the evening.Meanwhile, the deceased was doing the milk vending business at her house.(b) On 05.02.2010, at about 2.00 p.m., the deceased spoke to P.W.1, who was in his office, through her cell phone and informed him that two persons had come to present an invitation for a function.P.W.1 wanted her to hand over the cell phone to the persons who had come.One of the persons received the same.He enquired as to whether he was Mr.Panneer who was working in ETPS.P.W.1 informed that he was working in Electricity Board and not in ETPS.Thus, he meant that he was not the one to whom the invitation should be extended.Thereafter, the cell phone talk was disconnected.P.W.1 continued to be in his office.( c ) Around 3.00 p.m., a neighbour of the deceased informed P.W.1 over phone that the deceased was found lying dead inside the house with injuries on her neck.(These material objects have not been marked in evidence).Thereafter, he arrested the 2nd accused in Meenjur Market in the presence of the same witnesses.He recovered a Black Colour Shirt from the 2nd accused.The 2nd accused produced M.O.11 Knife and M.O.12 Lungi.P.W.15 recovered all these material objects under a Mahazar.[Judgment of the court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.109 of 2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri.They stood charged for offences under Sections 376 read with 511, 302, 201 and 379 of IPC.By judgment dated 31.01.2013, the trial court convicted them under Sections 302, 379 and 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 201 of IPC.They were acquitted from the charge under Section 376 read with 511 of IPC.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court with this appeal.Immediately P.W.1 rushed to his house and found his wife lying in a pool of blood.Immediately, he went to Ennore Police Station and made a complaint under Ex.(d) P.W.15, the then Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2010 under Section 302 of IPC.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.7 is the First Information Report.Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.15 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem.During inquest also, the assailants were not known.(e) P.W.11, Doctor Shanthakumar conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 06.02.2010 at 11.00 a.m. He found the following injuries:''Injuries: 1)Vertically oblique reddish brown scratch abrasion 3.8 x 0.1 cm on the lower part of left side of the chest along the mid clavicular plane.2)An oblique incised wound 2.8x0.1x0.1 cm on the front of upper third of left forearm, 3cm below the left elbow crease line.3)A vertically oblique, perforating stab wound on the lower third of back of left arm; entry wound was 4.5x0.4cm with blunt upper end and acute lower end; the margins were regular; the exit wound was 3x0.3cm with blunt upper end and acute lower end; the margins were regular; the track of the wound was in the subcutaneous plane and was gradually narrowing from the entry to the exit wound.4)An oblique cut wound 7.5x0.2x1.3-0.2 cm on the upper part of right palm.5)An oblique stab wound 4x0.5x7.5 cm on the lower part of left side of the chest; the lower inner end was blunt and was along the plane of the left midclavicular line; the upper outer end was acute, the track of the wound was in the subcutaneous plane, and the direction of the wound was backwards, inwards and horizontal.6)Horizontally oblique stab wound 3.5x0.4cmxcavity deep on the upper part of the left side of the abdomen; the inner end was acute and 2cm left lateral to the midline of the abdomen; the upper outer end was blunt; On dissection: the wound had entered into the abdominal cavity through the subcutaneous soft tissues and the underlying soft tissues of the anterior abdominal wall; in the abdominal cavity the wound had passed through the lower border of the pyloric part of the stomach, underlying transverse mesocolon and the mesentry of the small intestine; abdominal cavity contained 90ml of fluid blood; the direction of the wound was backwards, downwards and from the left to the right.7)An oblique cut wound 13x0.5x3-1cm on the lower part of front and sides of the neck; the upper left end was 5cm below the left angle of the mandible and was 3cm in depth; the right end of the wound was 4cm right lateral to the midline of the neck and 3.5cm above the inner third of right clavicle, and was 1cm in depth; the cut ends of the underlying subcutaneous soft tissues, the lower part of the anterior portion of the left sternocleido mastoid muscle, left digastric muscle, left common carotid artery, left vagus nerve, left jugular vein, lower part of both the lobes of the thyroid gland, trachea at the level of the 4th tracheal ring, oesophagus at the level of the 4th tracheal ring, left and right ribbon muscles of the neck, anterior border of the right sternocleido mastoid muscle were exposed through the cut wound with surrounding extravasated clotted blood.Heart:Normal in size; C/S: All chambers were empty; Valves: Normal; Coronaries; Patent; Great vessels; Normal.Hyoid Bone: Intact.Stomach: Contained 250ml of thick yellowish brown fluid; No definite smell; Mucosa:Pale.He examined P.Ws.1 and 5 and recorded their statements.He recovered blood stained earth and sample earth as soon as he prepared the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch.On such arrest, he produced M.O.7 Shirt, M.O.8 Lungi and M.O.9 knife.He has also stated that he recovered (29 grams weighing) a Gold Thali, two Niyan Tube, one coin with a yellow thread.On returning to the police station, he forwarded both the accused to court for judicial remand and also handed over the material objects to court.On 07.02.2010, he altered the case into one under Sections 302 and 379 read with 511 of IPC.P.11 is the Alternation Report.Then, he arranged for searching for the cell phone from Thirumullaivoyal Lake.But the attempt proved futile.Finally, on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 11 documents and 12 material objects were also marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, who is the husband of the deceased, has stated that when he was at his office around 02.00 p.m., his wife called him over phone and informed him that two persons, claiming to have known him, had come to extend invitation for a function.He asked his wife to give the cell phone to them.One of the persons received the cell phone and spoke to him.He enquired whether he is Panneer working in ETPS.P.W.1 told him that he is not Panneer working in ETPS, but, he is Panneer Selvam, working in TNEB, thereby indicating that the invitation was not meant to him.Thereafter, the telephone talk was discontinued.During work in his office at about 3.00 p.m., he received an intimation from a neighbour that his wife was found dead .He went to his house to verify the same and then, made a complaint to the police.P.W.2 is a neighbour of the deceased.She has stated that on 05.02.2010 at about 02.00 p.m., two persons were seen in front of the house of the deceased talking to her.She was under the impression that they had come in connection with the milk vending business.Thereafter, at 03.00 p.m., yet another boy, who had come to the house of the deceased to purchase milk, found the deceased lying dead inside the house.P.W.2 went and found the deceased lying dead inside her house and then, he informed the same to P.W.1 and the mother of the deceased over phone.This witness has not identified the accused in court as to the persons she found lastly in the company of the deceased.P.W.3 has stated that at 03.00 p.m. on 05.02.2010, he went to the house of the deceased to purchase milk.Since there was no response from the house, when he opened the door, he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood and he informed the same to P.W.2. P.W.4, who is the mother of the deceased, has stated that the deceased was found lying dead in her house.P.W.5 has stated that on 05.02.2010 (time not mentioned), he was in a tea shop (the location of the tea shop was also not mentioned).At that time, these two accused, who were not previously known to him, had also come to the tea shop.At that time, from the waist of one person, a knife fell down.Thereafter, P.W.5 left the tea shop.In the evening, he came to know that the deceased had been done to death.P.W.6 has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch from the place of occurrence.P.Ws.7 and 8 have turned hostile, who were examined to speak about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recoveries made on the disclosure statement.P.W.9 has spoken that as instructed by P.W.15, he dived into Thirumullaivoil Lake in search of a Cell Phone.But he could not trace out.P.W.10 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.11 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding cause of death.P.W.12 is a Scientific Assistant who examined the material objects scientifically.According to her, human blood was found on all the material objects including the knife.P.W.13, a Head Constable has stated that he took the dead body from the place of occurrence to the hospital for postmortem.P.W.14 photographer has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the instance of P.W.15 P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed by him.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.Their defence was a total denial.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on their side.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court.We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.Though we directed the Investigating Officer P.W.15 Mr.Manoharan to be present before this Court, he has not made appearance.The present Inspector of Police, Ennore Police Station Mr.Jagannathan is present.This is a case, admittedly, based on circumstantial evidence.At any rate, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is expected to prove the circumstances projected by it beyond reasonable doubts and such proved circumstances should form a complete chain, without any break so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any hypothesis, which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused.The first and foremost circumstance projected by the prosecution is that on 05.02.2010 at her house, the deceased alone was there and there was nobodyelse.P.W.1 had gone to his Office.At around 02.00 p.m., he received a phone call from the deceased informing him that two persons claiming to have known him have come to extend an invitation.When the phone was given to one of the persons who had come, he asked P.W.1, whether he was Mr.Panneer working in ETPS.He, in turn, told that he was Mr.Panneer Selvam working in TNEB thereby informing that he was not the one to whom the invitation had meant to be given.P.W.1 quite naturally could not identify these accused.Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1, it cannot be said that one of these two accused was one, who spoke to him over cell phone.Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 would not be in any manner go to advance the case of the prosecution.She has admittedly a neighbour of the deceased.She has stated that on 05.02.2010 at around 02.00 p.m., she found two persons standing in front of the house of the deceased and talking to her.She was under the impression that they had come there in connection with the milk vending business.Then, thereafter, at about 03.00 p.m., P.W.3 informed her that the deceased lying dead inside her house.This witness was not even called upon in court, while under examination, to identify whether the accused were those two persons who were lastly seen in the company of the deceased.It is not explained as to why it did not strike the legal mind of the learned Public Prosecutor, who conducted the case, that an attempt should be made to call upon this witness to identify as to whether the accused are the ones who were lastly seen in the company of the deceased or not.It did not unfortunately strike the mind of the Investigating Officer P.W.15 also that an identification parade should be conducted calling upon P.W.2 to identify those two persons in the Test Identification Parade.Absolutely, there is no explanation.Thus, P.W.2 has not at all identified these two accused as the ones who were lastly seen in the company of the deceased.She has only stated that two persons, who were unknown to her, were talking to the deceased.Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 also would not be in any manner incriminating the accused with the alleged crime.Their evidence also would not be in any manner incriminating the accused with the crime.He has stated that on 05.02.2010, these two accused had come to the tea shop.It is not in evidence as to where was the tea shop as to whether it was anywhere near the place of occurrence or elsewhere.No details about the tea shop have been elicited from this witness.It is again unfortunate that it did not strike the legal mind of the learned Public Prosecutor that it is so relevant to elicit from him as to whether the tea shop, where these two persons were lastly seen, was situated anywhere near the place of occurrence or not.Further, the movement of the accused at or about the time of occurrence somewhere near the place of occurrence was also not known.Apart from that, in this case, unfortunately, the learned Public Prosecutor did not even elicit from this witness as to what was the time when these two accused were seen in the tea shop.Further, though this witness has stated that when these two accused were in the tea shop, from the waist of one of the persons, a knife fell down, among the two accused, who was the one from whose waist the knife fell down, was also not elicited by the learned Public Prosecutor.The knife so fell down, if it is really available in court, was not even shown to P.W.5 so as to identify the said crime weapon.He has admitted during chief examination itself that these accused were previously not known to him at all.When that be so, it is not known as to why it did not occur to P.W.15, the Investigating Officer that a Test Identification Parade should have been arranged for him to identify those persons.Thus, the evidence of this witness also does not in any manner incriminate the accused.14. P.W.6 has spoken only about the preparation of the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch and the recovery of the material objects.P.Ws.7 and 8 were examined to speak about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of the material objects on the disclosure statement.P.W.9 has stated that he searched for the cell phone in the lake.Thus, the evidence of these witnesses would not be in any manner helpful to the prosecution case.P.W.11 has spoken about the postmortem and his final opinion regrading cause of death.But no such jewels were marked in evidence.It is not known as to what had happened to those jewels.If it is a case of murder for gain, recovery of gold jewels would play a vital role in the investigation and also in the proof of guilt.Though there is a charge under Section 379 of IPC alleging that the Thali Chain and other gold jewels attached to the Thali Chain were found missing and though P.W.1 has admitted that M.O.1 was the one which was stolen away, there is no evidence that M.O.1 was recovered from the 1st accused.Further, P.W.1 in his complaint had not stated that the Thali Chain was also found missing from the body of the deceased.Assuming that the said Thali Chain was missing, from whom M.O.1 was recovered is not known.P.Ws.7 and 8 have turned hostile.P.W.15 the Inspector of Police has not identified M.O.1 as the one which was seized from the 1st accused and even the mahazar for the recovery of Thali Chain has not been marked in evidence.Therefore, we are not in a position to attach any importance to the evidence of P.W.15 wherein he has simply stated that he recovered the jewels from the 1st accused.As we have pointed out, the only circumstance proved by the prosecution in this case is that the deceased died by a homicidal violence.Except that, there is no other circumstance proved against the accused warranting conviction.The fine amount, if any, paid, shall be refunded to the respective accused. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,916,176 | Accordingly, the order has been passed.Hence,the detention order has got to be set aside.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and paid itsanxious consideration. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,916,278 | As I have already mentioned, the other three F.I.Rs are also more or less of the same nature.The amounts involved in all the four F.I.Rs also come to a gigantic figure.The F.I.Rs contain clear allegations of cheating, fraud and even forgery. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,627,950 | As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a minor girl aged about fourteen years and five months.The friend of the appellant took a nude photograph of the prosecutrix through instragram; and blackmailed her, that if she does not do what he asks her to do, then he will viral the photograph.The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 being aggrieved by order dated 24/04/2020 passed by Special Judge (Children's Court and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act), Ratlam in R.C.T. No. 139/2020, whereby the bail application filed on behalf of child conflict with law has been declined.It is admitted fact that the appellant is aged about 16 years and he is a Juvenile and he is facing trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 384, 506, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 449, 376(d), 363, 366, 120(B) and 380 of the IPC alongwith Section 5(i)(g) read with Sections 6,15 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 before the Children's Court, Ratlam.On 10.09.2019 at about 04.30 PM, when the prosecutrix was alone in her house, the appellant with his friend (another juvenile) came to the house of prosecutrix on scooter and his friend (another Juvenile) went inside the house; and taking advantage of prosecutrix being alone, Cr.A. No. 2966/2020 2 he committed rape with her and threatened the prosecutrix to kill her.Then appellant came in the house and he also committed rape with the prosecutrix.When she tried to shout, he covered her mouth.Bleeding started to the prosecutrix due to sexual intercourse committed by the appellant.Then appellant and his friend warned her not to tell the incident to her family members.On this, the prosecutrix scared and did not disclose anything and went to her grandmother's place to sleep.Next day, on 19.09.2019 at about 03.00 PM, the appellant again called the prosecutrix at Aashirwaad Hotel in Room No.108 and there, he committed rape on her, due to which bleeding again started from her vagina.The appellant and his friend persistently making demand from the prosecutrix, that either she give them money to shut their mouth, otherwise, she will have to regularly make physical relationship with them.Then the prosecutrix informed the incident to her parents on 24.09.2019; thereafter she went to the Police Station Industrial Area Ratlam and lodged FIR bearing Crime No. 505/2019 registered at Police- Station-Industrial Area, Ratlam against the appellant and others for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 506, 376(2)(i), 376(2)Cr.A. No. 2966/2020 2After holding an enquiry, the Juvenile Justice Board come to the conclusion that the appellant has completed age of 16 years and he has committed heinous offence, therefore, there is need for trial of the appellant as an adult, thus, the Juvenile Justice Board transferred the case to the Children's Court, who tried such offence.This order is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.Under these circumstances, he prays for rejection of the present appeal.Cr.A. No. 2966/2020 7 | ['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,916,389 | MydeenKhan, Edaikattu Vilai Veedu, M.M.Manzil, Verkilambi at Brite Manzil, Vettuvenni,Marthandam.The total payment deposit is Rs.1,20,670/- with written acknowledgementreceipt issued by the accused Rekha and others.The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to call for therecords pertaining to C.C.No.47 of 2010 on the file of the learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Nagercoil and quash the same.The petitioners have come forward with this Crl.O.P. to quash the saidprivate complaint given by the respondents in C.C.No.47 of 2010 under Sections190(1)(c) read with Section 200 Cr.P.C.It is the case of the first respondent that himself and his father hadchit transactions with the first petitioner and her deceased mother/RoseletRani, from 01.05.1999 to 13.07.2000 and in toto paid Rs.1,20,670/- bycalculating both of their transactions.Though the first respondent made anattempt to pay back the balance amount in the year 2001, the same was rejectedby the petitioners by saying that the said transaction was concluded and therespondents were denied to pay the amount and the petitioners along with goondasthreatened the respondents and chased them upto 1-1/2 kms.Even though, therespondents preferred a complaint before the Police Station, the Police failedto initiate action and so, the respondents earlier preferred a complaint beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate, Kuzhithurai, which was forwarded to DistrictCrime Branch for enquiry and stated to have been referred to as "mistake offact".Hence, the respondents have preferred the present private complaintbefore the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil.It is the contention of the petitioners that they have no nexus withthe allegations mentioned in the private complaint.Originally, the firstpetitioner's mother nominated the father of the first respondent as a care-takerof her properties and he used to receive several thousands of Rupees as loanfrom her.After the demise of the first respondent's father, the mother of thefirst petitioner demanded back the amount from the first respondent, but he onlyfailed to pay back the amount due to the death of his father and hence, therespondents have come forward with the private complaint.The allegations in thepresent complaint are only civil in nature and no action could be initiatedagainst the petitioners.Since it is time barred, the amount cannot be legallyrecovered, and so indirectly, the respondents have filed the present privatecomplaint to recover the amount.After investigation, the District Crime Branch,in respect of the earlier complaint, referred the case as 'mistake of fact', andthe same was suppressed by the respondents before the trial Court.M.P.No.748 of 2010, failed to analyse the earlier privatecomplaint alleged to have been filed by the second respondent before theJudicial Magistrate, Kuzhithurai.M.P.No.1085 of 2009, which has beenstated to have been referred to as "mistake of fact" by the District CrimeBranch on being forwarded for enquiry.Hence, the petitioners pray for quashingthe private complaint filed by the respondents.5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counselfor the respondents.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the firstpetitioner is the daughter of Roselet Rani and the second petitioner is thefirst petitioner's husband and to prove the same, their Marriage Certificate hadbeen placed in Page No.1 of the typed set of papers filed along with theCrl.O.P. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that alreadythe second respondent gave a private complaint under Section 200 read with156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai andthat has been forwarded to Police authority and it was referred to as "mistakeof fact".The first petitioner/A.1 and her mother conducted the chittransactions and the father of the first respondent was one of the subscribersto those chit transactions.The father of the first respondent died subsequently.It isfurther submitted by the petitioners that in the year 2008, the first respondentdemanded money, and that at that time there was no criminal intimidation by thepetitioners and so, the case has been taken foisted against the petitioners.The case has been taken on file against the first petitioner/A.1 forthe offences registered under Sections 420 r/w. 506 (Part 1) IPC and against thesecond petitioner/A.2 only under Section 506 (Part 1) of I.P.C. The learnedcounsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no evidence to show that thepetitioners received money from the public and did not repay the amount andhence, he submitted that the ingredients of Sections 420 and 506 IPC, are notmade out, since the District Crime Branch referred the matter as "mistake offact".Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of theSupreme Court reported in 2005 SCC (Crl.) 190 (Poonam Chand Jain Vs.Fazru) andstated that the second application is not maintainable and hence, he prayed forquashing the private complaint.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the secondrespondent paid 15 instalments, but it was not repaid back to him and theinvestigation is going on, and it is in premature stage and hence, he prayed fordismissal of this Crl.Admittedly, the father of the first respondent is the subscriber of thechit conducted by the first petitioner and her mother Roselet Rani and they paidthe amount from 01.05.1999 to 13.07.2000 and the total amount is Rs.1,27,670/-.The first respondent's father died on 30.03.2001, and after that, the firstrespondent was unable to pay the chit amounts and when the first respondentapproached in the month of April 2001, at that time, the petitioners stated thatthe chit transactions had been closed and then they gave an undertaking thatthey will repay the amount.On 15.09.2008, when the firstrespondent demanded the money, the petitioners threatened the respondent(s) andattempted to murder them and hence, the respondents have given a complaint.Admittedly, no criminal complaint had been given by them.It is pertinent tonote that the respondents have given the private complaint earlier on 01.12.2008and that has been referred to the District Crime Branch in Crl.M.P.No.1085 of2009, which was referred to as "mistake of fact".Now, the respondents have comeby way of second round of litigation by filing the present private complaintbefore the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil.It is pertinent to note that the first complaint was filed before theDistrict Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, at Nagercoil, dated 16.9.2008,received on 17.09.2008 and in that complaint, it was stated that when thesecond respondent demanded money, the first petitioner refused to pay the money,which was evident from Page No.2 of the typed set of papers filed along withCrl.O.P., and in paragraph 6 of the said complaint, dated 16.9.2008, it isstated as follows:@vdnt vjphp vd;id jtph;g;gjw;fhf bgha; brhy;tjhf bjhpfpwJ/ filrpahfvjphpapd; fzth; gpufhc&;;Fkhh; giHa fld; nfl;L te;jhy; bfhiy bra;J tpLtjhfkpul;odhh;/@After the said complaint dated 16.9.2008, received on 17.9.2008, thesecond respondent has given another complaint before the learned JudicialMagistrate No.I, Kulithurai, which had been forwarded to the District CrimeBranch, Economic Offences Wing, for enquiry and it was stated to have beenreferred to as "mistake of fact" and only after that, the present privatecomplaint had been filed.Considering the same, it is clearly proved that thereare alleged chit transactions between the mother of the first petitioner andthe father of the first respondent and the petitioners have not taken any stepsto pay the amounts and the respondents have also taken any due steps to recoverthe amounts then and there and as contended by the petitioners, since it hadbecome time-barred transaction, the respondents have come forward with thepresent private complaint.While perusing the order dated 6.5.2010 in Crl.We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the complaint and theorders of the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge.Merely because an agreement to sell was entered into whichagreement the petitioner failed to honour, it cannot be said that the petitionerhas cheated the respondent.The accused was running a Finance Company and collected money inmonthly instalments from parties and issued acknowledgement receipts duly signedby the accused and by Roselet mother of accused and Rajesh brother of theaccused, on behalf of the accused.I deposited Rs.1,20,670/- on behalf of my cousin Abdul Wahab S/o.I, Kuzhithurai, was dismissed after full consideration. | ['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,639,920 | Heard learned counsel for the parties finally.This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' has been filed by the applicant for quashing the proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Katangi, District Balaghat, in Criminal Case No.312/2014, arising out of FIR registered under Crime No.88/2014 at Police Station Katangi, District Balaghat, for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 498-A of IPC.The respondent no.2 had filed a written complaint dated 29.03.2014 alleging that the applicant being husband, was harassing her mentally and physically, consequently, she was residing separately. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,645,069 | During the pendency of this Revision case, the first petitioner has passed away and the Death Certificate has also been produced by the petitioner's counsel.Therefore, this Criminal Revision abates as far as he is concerned.No costs.The Revision petitioners are three in number.They were convicted and sentenced by the trial Magistrate as follows:-A1/Ganesan Nadar U/s.323 of I.P.C.(3 counts) and sentenced to undergo 3 months S.I., for each counts and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each counts in default 2 weeks S.I.A2/Madava Singh U/s.324 of I.P.C. sentenced to undergo 1 @ Madavan year S.I., and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default 1 month S.I., U/s.506(ii) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 3 years S.I., and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 1 month S.I.A3/ U/s.323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to Bhagavath Singh undergo 3 months S.I., and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default 2 weeks S.I., U/s.336 of I.P.C.(2 counts) and sentenced to undergo 1 month S.I., for each counts, and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- for each counts, in default to undergo 1 week S.I. for each count.U/s.506(ii) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 3 years S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 1 month S.I.The appellate Court modified the said Judgment by acquitting the appellants only under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C. Challenging the same, this Criminal Revision has been filed.http://www.judis.nic.in 3He however pleaded for leniency in the matter of sentence.Taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court even while sustaining the conviction passed by the appellate Court, modifies and reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by them.It is submitted that the petitioners were in prison for about 24 days.Petitioners 2 and 3 herein have come forward to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- each.They shall deposit the same to the credit of C.C.No.134 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Upon such deposit, the learned trial Magistrate shall hand over the said compensation of Rs.30,000/- to P.W.2 Vanaja and P.W.3 Rajasekar in equal shares (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-).The Criminal Revision stands partly allowed, accordingly.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1, Tuticorin.The Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kurumbur, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin Taluk, Tuticorin District.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.pmu Crl.R.C.(MD)No.992 of 2011 08.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,649,946 | Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that victim lady had been compelled to sexual intercourse by blackmailing her with surreptitious video footages of intimate acts.We have considered the materials on record.It appears that the parties had met each other on a social media site which promotes free and intimate relationship between consenting adults.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and on further condition that while on bail the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of New Town Police Station until further orders except for attending Court proceeding and shall report to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station once in a week until further orders and shall not take step to contact the victim lady personally or via electronic mode in any manner whatsoever.In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail automatically without further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.Needless to mention that the trial court shall proceed with the trial particularly examination of the victim at the earliest.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3 | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,980,374 | in connection with Dubrajpur Police Station Case No. 102/14 dated 04.06.2014 under Sections 147/148/149/332/333/338/186/353/325/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code subsequently added Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and under Section 9(b)(ii) of the Indian Explosive Act and under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 9 of the M.P.O. Act.In re: Golam Rasul & Ors.... Petitioners....for the Petitioners. | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,112,485 | no.2/State.Heard on I.A.No.14600/2018 for taking additional documents on record.For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the additional documents are taken on record.Heard on admission.This M.Cr.C. has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioner Manoj Tiwari for setting aside the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Court of Learned JMFC, Jatara, District-Tikamgarh, whereby a criminal case under Sections 307, 324, 323, 294, 506-B, 147, 148, 149, 341, 342 read with section 34 and 120-A of the IPC was registered against petitioner Manoj Tiwari.The facts giving rise to this miscellaneous criminal case may briefly be stated thus.Complainant Arvind Rajoria lodged a first information report in P.S.-Palera, District-Tikamgarh on 16.07.2015 to the effect that at the time of the incident, following a trivial altercation, petitioner Manoj Tiwari and his father Dharamjeet Tiwari came near Bhagwandas's house.Dharamjeet was armed with a rifle, Rajesh Ahirwar was armed with Rod, Suresh was armed with Sabbal, Sutaiya @ Dashrath was armed with an axe and Shyamlal and Radhe were armed with sticks.They started to beat the brother of first informant.His brother sustained grievous injury to his left arm and head.Dharamjeet and petitioner Manoj were standing and instigating co-accused persons.When the complainant Arvind and his mother Mankunvar intervened in the matter, Shyamlal and Radhe beat his mother with sticks.His niece Arti also Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 16/11/2018 16:50:21 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR M.Cr.C.No.30540/2018 (Manoj Tiwari Vs.Bhuvneshwar and anr.) interceded on behalf of his brother.His Niece Arti sustained injury by axe to her leg and started to bleed.During investigation, SHO of P.S.-Palera, District-Tikamgarh reached a conclusion that Dharamjeet and petitioner Manoj Tiwari were not present on the spot.As per call details, at the time of the incident, they were present at Palera.They have been falsely implicated in the case because the complainant Arvind bore a grudge against them on account of election to the post of Sarpanch.Petitioner Manoj and his father Dharamjeet had nothing to do with the offence and they have been falsely implicated in the case.A perusal of copy of the charge-sheet filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner reveals that the FIR, which was registered after three hours of the incident on the same day, contains the names of Manoj and Dharamjeet.The statements of witnesses Ganesh, Arvind, Mankunvar, Govind, Arti and Bhuvneshwar, which were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. on 17.07.2015, also contains their names and specify their roles.Though, Govind Singh in his supplementary statement, has stated that Dharamjeet and Manoj were not present on the spot, in the statements of witnesses Bhuvneshwar, Arvind, Munnalal, Arti and Mankunvar recorded under Sections 200/202 of the Cr.P.C. in the complaint case, the presence and roles of Dharamjeet and Manoj has been shown.In these circumstances, merely on the basis of location as ascertained by mobile phone and supplementary statement of Govind, it cannot be said that petitioner Manoj and his father Dharamjeet have been falsely implicated in the case and they were present elsewhere.The plea of alibi is required to be proved at the trial Court by the defence. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,246 | The facts of the prosecution story are that the District Magistrate, Bhopal, had banned the holding of meetings and taking out of processions under Section 15, Bhopal Public Safety Act, and yet in contravention of the order passed by the District Magistrate, the three accused, along with others, took out a procession on 21.12.1948, and were about to hold a meeting.While they were prevented from taking out the procession from the railway station to the city, they stopped at the level crossing.As they used force and did not listen to the order of the District Magistrate, force was used by the Police, specially as the processionists had assaulted the Police officials who were preventing them to pass.Identification parades were held, at different times and many of the accused, including those acquitted, were identified by various witnesses.JUDGMENT Radke, A.J.C.This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellants under Section 21, Bhopal Public Safety Act, and Sections 147, 332 and 333, Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Code, by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhopal, sentencing them to various terms of imprisonment, all of which are to run concurrently.One Pannalal, who has also been similarly convicted and sentenced, has filed a separate appeal No. 45 of 1951, and this judgment will decide his case also.In the scuffle that followed, many Police officials were injured, one of them having received a grievous hurt.The processionists became an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object of releasing their leader, Tiwari, they used force and caused injuries to the officials concerned.Originally 36 accused were put up in the enquiry proceedings but only 27 of them were committed to the Court of Session, Six out of these 27 absconded and one died during the trial.Thus ultimately only 20 accused were before the Court of Session, out of which 17 were acquitted and only three of them were convicted as pointed out above.All these three accused denied that they were in the procession or that they had used force and violence to the officials concerned in prosecution of the alleged common object.All of them pleaded alibi and two of them, namely, the appellants in this case, led defence evidence to prove that they were present elsewhere at the relevant time which made their presence at the scene of occurrence improbable.Pannalal led no evidence.The learned A.S.J. held that all these three accused had taken part in the procession contrary to the order of the District Magistrate and that they had committed rioting.He also held that they had committed offences under Sections 332 and 333, Penal Code, constructively, inasmuch as they had caused simple and grievous hurts to the police officials concerned.They were accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated above.The first point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the three accused had participated in the procession which was taken out from the railway station and which proceeded towards the city and was stopped at the level crossing.There is abundant evidence on record that the processionists who numbered about a thousand consisted of mill hands who wanted to proceed to the city to hold a meeting in protest of the externment of their leader, Tiwari, They were stopped at the railway crossing by the Police which prevented them from proceeding towards the city to hold a meeting.There was a large number of persons present in the procession and the question is whether these three accused, who denied their presence at the scene of occurrence were legally identified by the witnesses.In the trial, many more accused were identified. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,400,599 | (21.11.2013) Per Justice A.K. Shrivastava:Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, District Raisen in Sessions Trial 2 Cr.A. No. 1773/13 No. 70/2010 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34, 325/34 and also under Section 325/34 IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, 4 years RI and 4 years RI respectively and further imposing the fine with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment, the appellants/accused have knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 Cr.A. No. 1773/13No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal since in elaboration they are mentioned in para 3 of the impugned judgment.However, for ready reference, it would be condign to mention here that in the open field the incident had occurred in which as per the case of prosecution one Har Kishan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) had died on account of wielding lathi blows by the present appellants.It is the further case of the prosecution that these accused persons also wielded lathi blows upon injured Smt. Kamla and Sukun Bai.Initially a case was registered under Section 307/34 IPC by police station Sultanganj, District Raisen against the appellants.However, on account of death of the deceased the offence was registered under Sections 307, 302 and 325 read with 34 IPC.3 Cr.A. No. 1773/13After the investigation was over a charge sheet was submitted in the Committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session where the appellants were tried.The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made in the charge-sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 302 and 325/34 IPC (two counts) against all the accused persons/appellants.Needless to say, the charges were denied by the appellants and they requested for the trial.In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and also placed Ex. P/1 to P/32 the documents on record.The defence of the appellants is of false implication and the same defence they set-forth in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, in support of their defence, they did not choose to examine any witnesses.The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that all the accused persons committed the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.Further the learned Trial Judge came to hold that they have caused grievous injuries to Smt. Kamla Bai (PW-2) and Ku.Sakun Bai (PW-3) and thus committed the offence under Section 325/34 and eventually convicted the appellants and passed the sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove.4 Cr.A. No. 1773/134 Cr.A. No. 1773/13In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.The contention of Shri Verma, learned counsel for the appellants is that the eye witnesses are the interested witnesses and the learned Trial Court erred in placing reliance upon their testimony.An alternative submission has also been put forth by learned counsel that as per prosecution's own case all the accused persons wielded lathi upon the hands, back and legs of the deceased, but, no injury was inflicted on any vital part of the body like head and abdomen region.Learned counsel further submits that during the course of wielding lathi, if one blow of lathi was landed on the rib region of the deceased since there was no intention to kill him, at the most the case would rest under Section 325/34 IPC and if that is the position since all the accused persons are in jail for near about three years and nine months, that would be the appropriate punishment for them.On the other hand, Shri Chourasiya, learned public prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that learned Trial Judge has assigned cogent reasons holding that appellants have committed the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and looking to the injuries sustained by Smt. Kamla Bai (PW-2) and Ku.Sakun Bai (PW-3) they have rightly 5 Cr.A. No. 1773/13 been convicted under Section 325/34 IPC and hence it has been prayed that this appeal be dismissed.5 Cr.A. No. 1773/13Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part.So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of eye witnesses namely Smt. Kamla Bai (PW-2) and Ku.Sakun Bai (PW-3) that they are not reliable is concerned, we do not find any merit in the submission because both these ladies are not only the eye witnesses but they are the injured also because the genesis of occurrence started when the accused persons/appellants started wielding lathis upon them.On bare perusal of the testimony of Smt. Kamla Bai (PW-2) who is the wife of the deceased and who is also the author of the FIR Ex. P/3, it is gathered that the incident had occurred in the field when her daughter Ku.Sakun Bai (PW-3) was uprooting the unwanted grass from the field where the wheat was sown.On that field, there is one temporary structure Dhabua in which deceased was taking rest.Adjoining to her field, the field of accused persons is situated.According to this witness, indeed the accused persons have encroached upon the government land.It has also been deposed by her that all the accused 6 Cr.A. No. 1773/13 persons were making a temporary 'maidh' (mound) upon her agricultural land and when she requested them not to do so, all the accused persons started wielding lathi upon her.On seeing this, her daughter Ku.Sakun Bai (PW-3) screamed and was calling her father deceased Har Kishan.However, before deceased Har Kishan could reach there all the accused persons by leaving this witness, rushed towards her daughter Sakun Bai (PW-3) and started giving lathi blows to her.Thereafter they went to the temporary structure (Dhabua) where all the accused persons started causing injuries to the deceased by lathi.According to this witness, the lathi blows were dealt on the hands, back and legs and also on the chest of the deceased.After wielding the lathi blows upon the deceased, all the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence.This witness has also proved the FIR (Ex. P/3).She has also deposed that deceased could not survive and died after 8 hours of the incident i.e. 4.1.2010 and the dead body was brought to the hospital.This witness was also cross-examined at length but nothing has been carved out in order to hold that her testimony was not reliable.6 Cr.A. No. 1773/13We have examined the testimony of this witness from different angles and by paying heed upon her cross-examination we find her evidence is clear, cogent and trustworthy and the learned Trial Court did not err in placing reliance upon the 7 Cr.A. No. 1773/13 testimony of this witness.7 Cr.A. No. 1773/13We may further add that if the eye witnesses are the injured witnesses, certainly their testimony carries great weightage.For ready reference, it would be condign to reproduce those injuries which are thus:-(1) A Bruise 5 cm x 2 cm Rt side of the forehead (2) A Bruise 9 cm x 4 cm Rt side of the chest middle part frontal region (3) Multiple Bruise 3 cm x 1 cm to 5 cm x 2 cm lateral side of left arm.(4) An abrasion with Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm upper part of Lt shoulder.(5) A Bruise 5cm x 3 cm Lt. Wrist ext surface.8 Cr.A. No. 1773/13(6) A Bruise 7 cm x 3 cm Lt thigh frontal part upper.(7) A Bruise 8 cm x 4cm Lt leg middle part Back side.(8) A Bruise 4 cm x 3 cm Rt wrist Ext.surface (9) Multiple Bruise 3 cm x 2 cm to 5 cm x 2 cm on Rt Arm Lateral (10)Multiple Bruise 5 cm x 3cm x8 cmx3cm Back upper part"On bare perusal of the postmortem report we find that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and except injury no.1 and 2, all the injuries were caused by lathi upon the hands, legs and thighs of the deceased.True, one lacerated wound has been found on the right side of the chest and on internal examination of the dead body, 6th and 7th ribs were found to be fractured.But, according to us, while wielding lathi to the deceased, one of the blow must have landed on his chest and on forehead resulting into the fracture of the ribs.According to us, since the incident was occurred all of a sudden on the point of making 'maidh' and further that except injury no.2 all the injuries were not caused on the vital part of the body of the deceased, we can infer that intention of the accused persons/appellants was not to kill the deceased but to cause bodily harm by inflicting injuries to him.9 Cr.A. No. 1773/13 The injury no.1 upon the forehead is a bruise but, on dissecting the body no internal injury was found on the scalp or parietal region.9 Cr.A. No. 1773/13Hence, according to us, looking to the evidence of doctor and the postmortem report we find that all the appellants have committed the offence under Section 325/34 IPC.The conviction of the appellants from 302/34 IPC is accordingly altered to Section 325/34 IPC and they are sentenced to suffer four years RI each for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC for causing lathi injuries to the deceased.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court has passed the sentence to deposit fine of Rs. 1000/- each to be deposited by the appellants, apart life imprisonment.According to us, apart from the jail sentence of four years for causing lathi injuries to the deceased for which the appellants have been convicted under Section 325/34 IPC, they are hereby directed to deposit further amount of Rs. 25,000/- each towards fine (in total Rs. 1,00,000/-).Thus, the total amount of fine which now we have imposed Rs. 1,00,000/- and also the total amount of fine Rs. 4,000/- directed to be deposited by the learned Trial Court against the appellants, in total Rs. 1,04,000/- (Rs.One Lac Four Thousand only) be paid to Class I heirs of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 of Late Har Kishan, S/o Khilai, resident of 10 Cr.A. No. 1773/13 Village Bamhori Subedar, Thana Sultanganj, District Raisen equally towards the compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. It is further made clear that in case the learned Trial Court finds that there is no heir of Class I, the compensation will be paid to Class II heirs and so on.The appellants shall be released from the jail only after they deposit the entire amount of compensation in the Trial Court.It is further made clear that the entire amount of compensation be paid within six months from today failing which the appellants shall further undergo jail sentence of three years each.10 Cr.A. No. 1773/13We have already scanned the testimony of the aforesaid injured witnesses Smt. Kamla Bai (PW-2) and Ku.Sakun Bai (PW-3) and we find that there is clear, cogent and trustworthy evidence of them saying that all the accused persons wielded lathi blows upon them.Their testimony is also corroborated by the evidence of MLC Doctor R.K. Wlem (PW-6).The MLC report of Smt. Kamla Bai is Ex. P/1 while that of Ku.We have also gone through the reasonings assigned by learned Trial Judge convicting the appellants under Section 325/34 IPC and we find that it had rightly passed the sentence to suffer 4 years RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- to each of the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellants further submits 11 Cr.A. No. 1773/13 that the punishment of fine Rs. 1000/- which has been imposed upon each of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC apart from the jail sentence, the said amount of fine has also been deposited in the Trial Court.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby direct that out of total fine of Rs. 4000/-, a sum of Rs. 2000/- each be given to Smt. Kamla Bai, wife of Late Har Kishan, resident of Village Bamhori Subedar, Thana Sultanganj, District Raisen and Ku.Sakun Bai, daughter of Late Har Kishan, resident of Village Bamhori Subedar, Thana Sultanganj, District Raisen who appeared in the Trial Court as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively towards damages under Section 357 Cr.P.C.11 Cr.A. No. 1773/13All the accused persons shall be produced from jail where they are undergoing the jail sentence on this date in the Trial Court.12 Cr.A. No. 1773/13 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,455,649 | Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under section 498 I.P.C. pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. is clearly barred by section 198 Cr.P.C., hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, prima facie, appear to be correct.The matter requires consideration.He prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file counter affidavit.List this matter immediately after eight weeks before the appropriate Court.Till the next date of listing further proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. dated 17.12.2015 registered as Case Crime no.590 of 2015, under sections 498, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Maudarwaja, District Fatehgarh/Farrukhabad shall remain stayed.Order Date :- 27.1.2016 RU | ['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,510,016 | In addition, the petitioners 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.C.R.M. 11171 of 2018 is allowed as above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 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. |
1,917,039 | It was a double murder case of one Mushtaq aged about 35 years and Km.Reshma aged about 13 years (own daughter of the accused-appellant).The incident took place on 9-5-96 at about 10.00 A.M. in Mohalla Takia Gausganj.Police Station Musa Nagar, Kanpur Dehat.The report was lodged by Smt. Julekha Khatoon PW 2 wife of deceased Mushtaq the same day at 10.40 A.M. after getting it scribed by one Abdul Khalil.The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was about 2 furlongs.The prosecution case was that the accused-appellant was a weightlifter with the deceased Mushtaq in Radhey Govind Dal Mill.About six months before the incident, the mill owner had dismissed the accused-appellant for his allegedly being involved in some theft.The accused-appellant laid blame against the deceased Mushtaq that he was responsible for his dismissal.The accused-appellant also held out on 9-5-96 at about 10.00 A.M. that deceased Mushtaq had developed illicit relations with his (accused-appellant Riyazat Ali's) daughter Reshma.Mushtaq questioned back as to why he (accused-appellant) was defaming him.Thereupon, the accused-appellant lost his temper and retorted back that he would kill him as well as his daughter Reshma.Smt. Julekha Khatoon PW 2, Kazim Ali and some other residents of the locality had come when such altercation was taking place between the accused-appellant and deceased Mushtaq.The accused-appellant quickly went to his house and reappeared with a country-made pistol and cartridges.He opened fire on Mushtaq in front of the shop of Shyamu and then he proceeded to the house of his own Sadhu Imami and shot his own daughter Reshma.He flaunted his weapon that he would kill anyone daring to catch him.He then ran away towards Musa Nagar Garh.above from iliac crest 8 cm.away from midline of back.Blood oozing out.Margins everted.Injury kept under observation.With intervention of certain residents of the locality, he got the matter pacified.JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.Sri Ram Jeewan Gupta, the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat has convicted accused-appellant Riyazat Ali under Section 302, I.P.C. He has sentenced him to death and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- within three months or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in default.He has made reference under Section 366, Cr.P.C. to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence passed by him.The accused-appellant has also preferred appeal against his such conviction and sentence passed.Mustaq and Reshma were admitted in the Hospital in injured condition.As per her injury report Ka-22, the following injuries were found on her person:Firearm wound of entry 3 cm.x 2 x cavity deep omentum coming out on rnidline of front of abdomen in epigastric region 7 cm.above from umbilicus at 12 O'clock position, margins inverted, blood oozing out.Blackening and tattooing present on whole of abdomen including lower part of chest in an area 30 cm.x 22 cm.kept under observation.Firearm wound of exit 0.75 cm.x 0.5 cm.x cavity deep on right side back 4 cm.The injuries had been caused by firearm.They were fresh.The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her person :Firearm wound of entry 2 cm.x 2 cm.6 cm above the umbilicus, in epigastrium area, blackening, tattooing and charring present around the wound.Margins inverted.Firearm wound of exit 1.5 cm.x 1.5 cm.right side hand.The death had occurred as a result of ante-mortem injury sustained by her.The following injury was found on his person :Firearm wound of entry 5 cm.x 1 cm.x cavity deep on right side back of abdomen 26 cm.below from root of neck 1.5 cm.away from middle of back, oozing of blood present.Margins inverted.Blackening present surrounded by tattooing mark on back in and area of 30 cm.x 28 cm.Kept under observation.The injury had been sustained by firearm and was kept under observation.The X-ray of abdomen and chest was advised.He ultimately died on 24-5-96 at 3.30 P.M. The post-mortem over his dead body was conducted by Dr. D. K. Vaisha PW 7 on 25-5-96 at 10.00 A.M. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person :Firearm wound of entry 2 cm.x 1.5 cm.x chest cavity deep on right side back 1 cm.from midline and 8 cm.from inferior angle of right scapula, margins inverted.Black colour present on the margin of wound.Tattooing not present.Lacerated wound 1 cm.x 1 cm.x chest cavity deep on left side chest 6 cm.from left nipple at 2 O'clock position.Lacerated wound 1 cm.x 1 cm.x chest cavity deep on right side chest in mid axillary line 10 cm below axilla.The cause of death was septicemia with shock.After investigation, the accused-appellant was booked.The defence was of denial and of false implication.According to him, about l 1/2 months before this incident, deceased Mushtaq had attempted to commit rape on his daughter Reshma and he had been informed about it by his daughter.As a responsible father, he did not air the said incident.But the day before the incident.Mushtaq's wife Julekha Khatoon quarrelled with his wife.On the day of incident, he had gone to his work at 7 A.M. After about half an hour he was informed that Mushtaq and his wife were quarrelling with his wife.He came back to his house and learnt that Munna Cyclewala had opened fire on Mushtaq and Reshma, for he was having a love affair with Reshma and he had acquired knowledge that Mushtaq had committed rape on her.To be short, he laid blame on one Munna for the given offence that in a fit of rage he opened fire on Mushtaq as well as on Reshma.At the trial, the prosecution examination in all eleven witnesses.Out of the witnesses examined, Niyamat Ali PW 1 and Smt. Julekha Khatoon PW 2 were the eye-witnesses.Rest were the police personnel including the Investigating Officer and Doctors.The prosecution case and evidence found favour with the Court below.The guilt of the accused-appellant was found proved to the hilt.The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that it was the rarest of rare cases, calling for the extreme penalty of death.He accordingly passed the impugned judgment and order.The matter is now before this Court.We have heard Sri P.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and the learned A.G.A. in opposition thereof, besides carefully going through the material and evidence on record.It has first been argued for the accused-appellant that Niyamat Ali PW 1 and Smt. Julekha Khatoon PW 2 examined as eyewitnesses by the prosecution are not the natural witnesses.The factum of their close relationship of the deceased only requires testing of their testimonial assertions on the anvil of reliability with great caution and nothing more.Both of them were subjected to searching cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited from the testimony of any of them to create a dent in prosecution story.Niyamat Ali PW 1 is the eye-witness of both the murders by the accused-appellant i.e. of Mushtaq and thereafter of Reshma as part of the same transaction, whereas Smt. Julekha Khatoon PW 2 is the eye-witness only of the first murder of Mushtaq committed by him.We may point out that Smt. Julekha Khatoon PW 2 is also the maker of the F.I.R. which she lodged without loss of time at 10.40 A.M. on the day of incident itself after getting it scribed by Abdul Khalil.The Police Station was situated at a little distance of two furlongs.The incident having taken placd at about 10 A.M. on 9-5-96, it is obvious that no time gap intervened for deliberation and concoction for the false nomination of the accused-appellant as the culprit of the crime.To us, both the eye-witnesses named above sound to be the most natural witnesses of the incident.The first Investigating Officer Mohd. Ahmad Ansari PW 10 had visited the scene of occurrence and blood and sample earth had also been collected by him from the spot where Mushtaq had been shot at.The distance so spoken by him was not challenged by the defence side.Thus, having regard to the distance from the house of Smt. Julekha Khatoon PW 2 of the place where Mushtaq had been shot at by the accused-appellant she appears to be a natural witness of the incident of the shooting of her husband.She clarified in her cross-examination that at that time she was standing near the shop of the elder brother of her husband.It could be recalled that the incident took place near the shops of Shyamu and Kalloo is the own son of Niyamat Ali PW 1, doing tailoring work in his shop.It has come to be stated by Niyamat Ali PW 1 that the incident of shooting of Mushtaq by the accused-appellant took place in front of the shop of Kalloo and at that time he himself was sitting at his shop.The shop of Shyamu is just after the shop of Kalloo.There is nothing unusual if Niyamat Ali PW 1 was present at the shop of his son Kalloo when his brother Mushtaq was shot at by the accused-appellant.Really speaking, both the eyewitnesses are of the same vicinity where the occurrence took place and their presence there was quite natural.It has come to be stated by him that after opening fire on Mushtaq, the accused ran towards the house of his Sadhu Imami and shot at his own daughter Reshma.He had followed him and had seen this incident of shooting also with his own eyes.We note that there was no sizeable distance between the spot where Mushtaq was shot at by the accused-appellant and the house of Imami where he opened fire on his daughter Reshma.Smt. Julekha Khatoon PW 2 stated in paragraph No. 7 of her testimony that the distance from the shop of Shyamu (near whose shop Mushtaq was shot at) of the house of Imami was only of one plot.She is an illiterate lady.Her above statement, which went unchallenged, was indicative that the two places were at stone throwing distance.The point that we wish to drive home is that the statement of Niyamat Ali PW 1 has the ring of truth when he says that after shooting of Mushtaq by the accused-appellant, he followed him who went to the house of his Sadhu Imami and opened fire on his own daughter Reshma in continuation and as part of the same transaction.It is also worthwhile to point out that the eye-witness account delivered by Niyamat Ali PW 1 and Smt. Julekha Khatoon PW 2 is in full agreement with the medical evidence also in that both the victims sustained firearm injuries, capable of being caused by a country made pistol made use of by the accused-appellant.To come to the point, we reject the argument of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant levelling criticism against the testimony of the two eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution and terming them to be unnatural witnesses.We find their testimony to be perfectly believable and in harmony with the medical evidence.It has next been argued by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that Mushtaq died on 24-5-1996 at 3.30 P.M. but his dying declaration was not recorded.We, therefore, reject this second argument also advanced in support of this appeal by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant.Pausing here for a moment, we think it worthy to mention that there does not appear to be any earthly reason as to why the accused-appellant would be falsely implicated by the eye-witnesses.The two eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution had no motive or reaosn to falsely implicate him, giving clean chit to the real culprit.We also desire to say a few words about the defence case set up by the accused-appellant that one Munna Cyclewala was having a love affair with his daughter Reshma and on discovering that Mushtaq had committed rape on her, he opened fire on both of them in a fit of rage.This appears to be a cock and bull story. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,705,221 | It is the grievance for the petitioner that though the FIR has been registered u/s 174 Cr.P.C., FIR has to be altered u/s 306 of I.P.C. It is the contention of the Petitioner that his daughter died on 16.04.2020 and the Police has registered a case in Cr.No.175 of 2020 for the offence u/s 174 of Cr.P.C. It is further contended by the Petitioner that on verification of the call history of the victim mobile, an unknown person contacted the victim for several times before her death.Therefore, crime has to be altered to 306 IPC.Page 2 / 5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7525 of 202012.05.2020 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No ggs Page 3 / 5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7525 of 2020 N. SATHISH KUMAR,J.The Inspector of Police, N4 Fishing Harbour Police Station, S.N.Chetty Street, Wahermenpet.O.P.No.7525 of 2020 Page 4 / 5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7525 of 2020 12-05-2020 Page 5 / 5http://www.judis.nic.inThis Petition has been filed seeking direction to the Police to alter the First Information Report in Cr.No.175 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, N4,Fishing Harbour Police Station, Chennai-600081, by including the offences under Section 306 I.P.C.within a time stipulated by this Court.It is the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that since the deceased died by suicide, crime has been registered u/s.174 Cr.P.C. and investigation is in process and they have also sought call history from the authorities and they do investigation properly.In such a view of the matter there cannot be any direction to alter the FIR.It is for the investigating officer to investigate the matter properly and collect all the materials and if found somebody is reason for abetment of suicide, it is well within the right of the investigating officer to alter the FIR and investigate the matter as per law.With the above observation, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.Chennai – 600081The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,708,584 | On 22.11.1998 at about 10.00 A.M. the complainant alongwith his two sons namely, PW-11 Ranjit Debnath and PW-12 Santosh Debnathwas doing agricultural work in his field-collecting harvested paddy cropsand tying the same.Deceased Nripen Debnath, brother of the complainantand his son Nikhil Debnath (PW-10) proceeded towards the field in abullock cart for bringing the bundles of harvested paddy crops.Theonly way to reach their field was through the field belonging to theaccused persons and as soon as the bullock cart touched the border of thefield of the accused, the accused took exception to the same, whichresulted in a wordy altercation between the parties and injuries wereinflicted by the appellants on the deceased and witnesses.AppellantDinesh inflicted injuries in the abdomen of Nripen Debnath with the pasliand the appellant Dilip attacked him with a dau.The other two accusedalso assaulted the deceased.When Nikhil Debnath (PW-10) tried to rescuehis father, he was also badly beaten by the accused.On seeing theincident, PW-3 -Fatik Chandra Debnath rushed to the place of incident andraised alarm.In the process, PW 11-Ranjit Debnath and PW-12-SantoshDebnath also sustained injuries.On hearing hues and cries, the villagersgathered at the place and the accused fled away.R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.All the four injured persons were immediately taken toGodhanpara Hospital wherein PW-10-Nikhil Debnath and PW-11 -RanjitDebnath were discharged after first aid.As the condition of NripenDebnath and PW-12 Santosh Debnath was precarious, they were referred toN.G. Hospital, Berhampore.Nripen Debnath succumbed to the injuries on hisway to the hospital.Law was set in motion by PW-3 Fatik Chandra Debnath bylodging a complaint at Police Station Raninagar, District Murshidabad.Onthe basis of the complaint, a case was registered under Section 302/34 IPCand 326/34 IPC against the accused persons.PW-14 Dr. Gobinda Banerjeeconducted autopsy on the body of Nripen Debnath and PW-14 opined that thedeath was due to shock and haemorrhage and issued Ex P6-Post mortemcertificate.After completion of due investigation, chargesheet was filedagainst the appellants and two other accused under the above statedprovisions.To prove the charges against the accused, prosecution hasexamined 16 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents and materialobjects.The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about theincriminating evidence and the circumstances but the accused denied all ofthem and pleaded innocence.The accused have stated that they have beenfalsely implicated due to political rivalry and they have beenvictimized .Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, theSessions Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and326/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to paya fine of Rs.2000/- with default clause.For the offence under Section 326IPC, the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years andto pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with default clause.Accused Arjun Mondal wasacquitted of all the charges giving him the benefit of doubt.Fourthaccused-Vipad died pending trial.Aggrieved by the conviction, theappellants preferred appeal before the High Court of Calcutta which by theimpugned judgment has confirmed the conviction of the appellants underSection 302/34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them.Their conviction under Section 326 IPC was set aside.Being aggrieved, theappellants have preferred this appeal by special leave.It was contended that the accusedwere already armed with deadly weapons with which the appellants inflictedinjuries on the deceased and the complainant party.It was submitted thatafter inflicting fatal injuries on the deceased, appellant Dilip rushed tohospital, just only to evade arrest.It was urged that there is nopolitical rivalry between the parties and courts below rightly negativedthe defence put forth by the appellants.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentionsurged by the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment andthe materials on record.10. PW-3-Fatik Chandra Debnath, brother of the deceased, hasdeposed that at the relevant time he was busy in the field with his sons incollecting the harvested paddy and he witnessed the incident from hisfield which is adjacent to the place of incident.PW-3 stated that theappellants assaulted his brother Nripen Debnath in the abdomen and when hisnephew Nikhil, PW-3 rushed with his sons PW-11 Ranjit Debnath and PW-12Santosh Debnath to rescue his brother, his sons PWs 11 and 12 were alsoassaulted.PW-3 being the eye-witness, his evidence was relied upon ascreditworthy by the courts below.Evidence of PW-3-Fatik Chandra Debnath is assailed contendingthat in the complaint lodged by him, it is not mentioned that Dilip causedhurt to Nripen Debnath with dau and the only fact that is mentioned thereis that appellant Dinesh chopped the stomach of the deceased and otheraccused also joined in the assault.Insofar as thecontention that the details of attack with dau are not mentioned in thecomplaint, by and large, people cannot be expected to have a photographicmemory of the incident to recall the minute details of the incident.Immediately after the incident, PW-3 must have been under shock and in suchdisturbed mental condition, while he was narrating the incident to Pradhanof village to reduce the complaint into writing, PW-3 might have omittedto mention that Dilip caused hurt to Nripen Debnath with dau.Insofar as the plea that PW-3 could not have witnessedthe assault as he reached the scene after the fight started is notsustainable for the reason that the place of occurrence is just adjacentland within a short distance.Obviously, even from his field, PW-3 musthave seen the attack before he rushed to the rescue of his brother NripenDebnath.12. PW-10 Nikhil Debnath son of deceased Nripen Debnath has alsosustained injuries while he was trying to rescue his father and PW-10 hadspoken about the incident.PW-10 Nikhil Debnath deposed that on22.11.1998 at about 10.00 A.M. while he was proceeding with his father on abullock cart towards the field where his uncle PW-3-Fatik Chandra Debnathwas collecting harvested paddy crops, the accused persons who were in theirlanded property shouted that no one could enter the landed property andimmediately after their entering the land of the accused, the appellantsattacked his father and inflicted injuries on him and when PW-10 tried torescue his father, they also assaulted him.PW-11 -Ranjit Debnath son ofPW-3 -Fatik Chandra Debnath who also sustained injuries had deposed thatthe accused threatened the deceased as soon as bullock cart entered theland of the accused saying "saladarka aj sosana pathabo" which means "wewill send the rascals to the crematory".PW-11 further stated that NripenDebnath came down from the bullock cart, appellant-Dinesh caused injurieswith henso and Dilip attacked him with a dau and when PW-11-Ranjit Debnathand PW-12-Santosh Debnath tried to intervene, the accused (Arjun and Bipad)attacked them with a lathi.Evidence of injured witnesses PWs 10 and 11 lends credence totheir testimony and their evidence is entitled to great weight.Despite searching cross-examination, nothingsubstantial was elicited from PWs 10 and 11 to discredit their evidence.14. PW-6 Anil Kumar Mondal who was doing agricultural work in hisfield had also stated that he had heard one jhamela and when he went tothe place of incident, a maramari took place.PW-6 had spoken about theovert act of each of the appellants and causing injuries to thedeceased and others.PW-8 Mastoram Debnath labourer who was working inthe field of the deceased at that time had also deposed that analtercation crept up between the parties.As far as evidence of PW-2-Abul Kasim Sk is concerned, thecourts below have rightly recorded him unworthy of credit as he statedthat Nripen Debnath was lying dead on a village road.As pointed out bythe courts below, it appears that PW-2 has just deposed whatever he heardfrom others.PW-4 -Intajul Haque, an agricultural labourer had deposed theincident and the overt act of the appellants in causing hurt to Nripenand that while PW-10 -Nikhil Debnath attempted to save his father, Dilip caused hurt to Nikhil with dau and that all the accused attackedsons of PW-3 Fatik Chandra Debnath with bamboo split.The core of the prosecutionstory remains the same that Nripen Debnath and his son PW-10 Nikhil Debnathalong with two sons (Ranjit Debnath and Santosh Debnath) of PW-3 FatikChandra Debnath were assaulted by the accused on their landed property.As pointed out earlier, the accused persons were objecting tothe entry of the bullock cart in their field and before the attack, therewas a wordy altercation.PW-6 Anil Kumar Mondal had also deposed that heheard jhamela and when he rushed to the place of offence, he noticed amaramari took place and the appellants inflicted injuries on Nripen andPW-10 Nikhil Debnath.PW-10 son of deceased himself deposed thataccused persons were guarding their landed property so that no oneenters their land and as he along with his father Nripen entered theirland in their bullock cart, the accused persons restrained them saying"sala toder gari jete debo na".PW-11-Ranjit Debnath, another injuredwitness had also spoken that there was fight between the parties.The High Court had referred to the evidence and the defence putforth by the appellants that the incident was a sudden fight between theparties.The High Court declined to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 onthe grounds that:- (i) the defence plea of sudden fight was not clearlyput forth by the accused during their questioning under Section 313Cr.The appellants are said to have inflictedinjuries with henso and dau.By a perusal of Ext. P6 post-mortemcertificate, it is seen that the deceased sustained one incised injury onthe back which has caused injury to scapula and spinal cord and anotherincised wound over the back just below the right scapula causing injury tothe right lung and pleura.Insofar as the injuries caused to RanjitDebnath and Santosh Debnath, there is no sufficient evidence as to thealleged injuries caused to them.As far as PW-10-Nikhil Debnath isconcerned, he was discharged from the hospital after giving first aidtreatment indicating thereby that the injury was not grievous.The incident was not premeditated andthe scuffle between the parties led to the causing of injuries to thedeceased Nripen Debnath and considering the circumstances of the case, inour view, the offence would fall under Section 300 IPC Exception 4 and theconviction of the appellants is to be modified and altered under Section304 Part I IPC.In the result, the conviction of the appellants under Section302/34 IPC is altered to one under Section 304 Part I IPC and theappellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years.The appeal stands allowed to the above extent.A.NO....../2015 arising from SLP (Crl.) No(s).9447/2012(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/02/2012 in CRANo.747/2008 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta)DILIP KUMAR MONDAL & ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s)Date : 14/01/2015 This petition was called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENTtoday.Leave granted.The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,710,788 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is 1st application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 16.12.2018 by Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No. 906/2018, registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 419, 420 and 384 of IPC.Previously one letter was received by the complainant which was verified by S.T.F. Head Quarter, Bhopal and it was found that the same was forged and no letter was issued from the STF.Thereafter present applicant has manipulated the facts and has committed the offence.A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned. | ['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,715,570 | She further confirmed that in terms of the said settlement, she has to receive from the first petitioner a total sum of Rs. one crore twenty five lakhs, which includes Rs. Sixty five lakhs to be paid to her on account of her claim towards permanent alimony and stridhan etc., the balance amount of Rs. Sixty lakhs to be paid in the form of fixed Crl.M.C. No.995/2019 Page 2 of 8 deposit receipt (FDR) taken out in the name of the minor child of the parties, who is in her care and custody.The marriage ran into rough weather, the second respondent raised allegations of she having been subjected to cruelty and deprived of her stridhan, first information report (FIR) no. 02/2016 having been registered by police station CAW Cell, Nanak Pura, New Delhi on her complaint involving offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the case being directed against the husband (first petitioner), his parents (second and third petitioners) Crl.M.C. No.995/2019 Page 1 of 8 and his sister (fourth petitioner).On conclusion of investigation, police filed report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on which cognizance was taken, the said matter now pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate.M.C. No.995/2019 Page 1 of 8It is on the basis of the said MoU that the present petition was filed seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of the criminal case.Along with the said affidavit, she has placed on record copy of her aadhar card as proof of her identity.By the above-mentioned affidavit, and at the hearing in person, the second respondent confirms the settlement in terms of the MoU dated 21.01.2019, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure P-2 to the petition.At the hearing, Mr. Bharat Sharma, associate of Mr. Ramesh Gupta, has handed over to the second respondent, the above- mentioned FDR against proper acknowledgement, a copy thereof having been submitted on record as Annexure P-4 (page 68 of the paper book).The learned counsel on both sides having taken instructions from their respective clients, jointly submit for record their mutual agreement and understanding that the minor child of the parties i.e. Rishita Mittal, will be entitled to encash the proceeds of the FDR upon attaining the age of majority.The parties are constrained to move this court for Crl.In fact-situation wherein the matrimonial relation has been brought to an end by mutual consent and the parties are eager to move on with their respective lives seeking closure and if there is nothing to indicate lack of bonafide on the part of any side, denial of the prayer for quashing the criminal case would restore acrimony rather than bring about peace. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,716,604 | Learned A.P.P waives service.It reveals from the impugned judgment and order dated 17thJanuary, 2020 that applicants No.1 to 5 have been convicted of the offencepunishable under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.3000/-each has been imposed, failing which, they will have to undergo simpleimprisonment for two months.1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2020 04:48:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2020 04:48:08 :::Applicants No.1 to 5 have been further convicted of the offencepunishable under section 323 r/w 149 of the I.P.C and each of them havebeen directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simpleimprisonment for one month.There is no question of suspension of execution of substantivesentence.Learned Counsel for the applicants contends that the fineamount will be deposited in the trial Court within two weeks.Statement isaccepted.[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2020 04:48:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2020 04:48:08 ::: | ['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. |
1,917,181 | J U D G M E N TCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 943 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1377 of 2007)Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 34(1) (4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2000 (in short the 'POTA').There seems to be some confusion about the factual position and therefore the details are not necessary to be noted.Undisputedly, the challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 7.7.2004 passed by the Designated Judge, Special Court (POTA) Ahmedabad.There were two proceedings initiated against the appellant.The first was Pota Case No. 08 of 2003 arising out of complaints, namely, I.C.R. No. 184 of 2002 registered at Kagdapith Police Station, I.C.R. No. 116 of 2002 registered at Vejalpur Police Station and I.C.R. No. 244 of 2002 registered at Satellite Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 307, 337, 286 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') read with Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (in short the 'Explosive Act') and under Sections 3(3), 4,20, 21(2)(b) and 22(3) of the POTA.The confusion arose before the High Court relating to the case numbers.It appears that the High Court permitted the appellant to take a proper proceeding seeking his release on bail so far as POTA Case No.12 of 2003 is concerned.In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter relating to Criminal Appeal No.1288 of 2004 to the High Court to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law.We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. | ['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,720,341 | Case dairy perused and argument heard.As per prosecution case on 17.6.2018 applicant abducted the prosecutrix who was minor at the time of incident and took her to Seoni and molested her.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter.He further submits that earlier Police also recorded the statement of prosecutrix on 18.6.2018 in which the applicant did not state anything against the applicant.Thereafter, on 2.7.2018, for the first time, prosecutrix stated in her supplementary statement that applicant molested her.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant abducted the prosecutrix who was minor at the time of incident and molested her, so he should not be released on bail.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.on payment of usual charges. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 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. |
19,172,809 | Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 1 of 23The couple being of same age, i.e., 35 years after knowing each other and spending good time together decided to marry.From 13.12.2010 to 23.12.2010, the couple went on honeymoon to Sri Lanka and Maldives.Between 23.12.2010 and 23.02.2011, complainant used to spend day time on the week days in her office at Chattarpur and weekends with her mother at Dwarka.She worked with one Mr. Siddharth Shankar as his executive assistant at his office at Chattarpur.On 23.02.2011, the complainant desired to go her parental house for few days, which the petitioner consented.The complainant was pregnant at that point of time and on 27.04.2011 a girl child was born out of the said wedlock.The petitioner used to visit his in-laws residence at Dwarka to meet and provide every possible assistance to his wife / complainant and his new born baby.However, on 18.07.2011, to the utter shock and surprise, the complainant had sent an e-mail for breaking down all relationship with the petitioner.Thereafter on 17.10.2011, she filed a complaint against the petitioner at CAW Cell, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi, whereby the complainant accusing the petitioner of domestic violence and torture among other allegations.The said complaint was counter-blast to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the complaint filed by him against his wife's servant for theft of US$ 4,300/-.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 2 of 23The petitioner continues to be of the belief that in cases of late marriages, minimum of a year of togetherness can bring the long- lasting understanding to withstand and pass through the challenges of life.On 27.05.2013, a baby boy was also born out of the wedlock.On 25.02.2015, complainant visited the petitioner in AIIMS after a gap of 7 months on coming to know of his illness and things again resumed in full stream.It is further alleged that petitioner had unleashed his dogs on her when she was pregnant and subjected her to severe mental and physical torture.The petitioner and his wife/complainant had good two hours long counselling session at ACP Office in the presence of Sh.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 6 of 23Counsel further submitted that in Para 9 of the status report filed by the State, it is stated that the facts of the present case requires custodial interrogation of petitioner for recovery of dowry articles etc. Whereas complainant admittedly conceived in the month of January, 2014, which establishes that everything was going well between the petitioner and the complainant.Thereafter, she made a complaint on 11.06.2015, in which there is no reference of kitchen knife.However, in Para 7 of the status report it is specifically stated that the petitioner slit the left hand wrist of the complainant by kitchen knife and tried to kill her in front of their children.Even there was no allegation of blackmailing against the petitioner and no such issue rose during counselling.Moreover, the alleged incident of 2013 was reconciled.It is alleged in the FIR that on the night of 27.05.2015 and early morning of 28.05.2015, petitioner again abused the complainant verbally and physically at her home in Dwarka in front of their children, whereas in Para 7 of the status report it is mentioned that in Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 7 of 23 the night of 27.05.2014 and early morning of 28.05.2014, petitioner gave brutal beatings to the complainant and thereafter, he slit her left hand wrist by a kitchen knife and tried to kill her.Even at this stage, no such issue of blackmailing has been raised.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 7 of 23Counsel further submitted that as far as the jewellery articles are concerned, she has submitted a list of 5 jewellery articles.As admitted, during the hearing of this case before this Court, total weight of the gold jewellery is 210 Gram.If it is valued in the present rate, the total value would be around Rs.4,00,000/-.However, the petitioner is ready to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- for the same without prejudice to his rights and contentions.On the other hand, Mr.Shailendra Babbar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner used to harass and treat the complainant with cruelty, both physically and mentally and had demanded verbally more dowry articles.He demanded a car and a house from the complainant and when it was refused, he used to beat her.On 23.02.2011, she was beaten by the petitioner upon instigation of his mother and thereafter compelled to leave matrimonial house at about 11.00 PM.Further allegations against the petitioner are that at the time of delivery of first child, the petitioner-used to harass and torture her by repeatedly abusing at her work place knowing fully well that health condition of the complainant was not well as she was diabetic and hypertensive.During the entire term of pregnancy, the petitioner and Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 8 of 23 his mother tried their level best to harm the complainant and the unborn child.The behaviour of the petitioner towards the complainant was very rude and under influence of alcohol, in the presence of public, he used to abuse the complainant.This Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 12 of 23 clearly shows that the petitioner is not only violent and outrageous at home but also similarly violent and outrageous before the general public at large.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 12 of 23The complainant made a complaint against the petitioner on 11.06.2015 and notice was issued accordingly for 19.06.2015, but he did not appear.He attended three or four conciliation proceedings, but that was not part of the investigation.On 16.07.2015, last mediation was proceeded and two months time was granted to the parties to reconcile the matter but they failed to do so.Accordingly, on 09.09.2015, after giving sufficient time to the parties, FIR in question was lodged and thereafter, notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner to join investigation, however, he did not join the same.Not only he abused and slept the complainant, he slit her left hand wrist with kitchen knife and left her unattended to die.Moreover, the jewellery lying with the petitioner and his mother have to be Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 13 of 23 recovered and the electronic recordings through which he has been blackmailing the complainant is to be recovered from the petitioner.The petitioner not only tried to intimidate the complainant but has also tried to pressurize the officers involved in the investigation of this case by making numerous calls, recording the same and displaying the same before Media.Moreover, the petitioner persons walked into the Police Station at 2.00 AM past midnight and threatened the officers present there to record his presence.He misused the indulgence granted by this Court.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 13 of 23Lipika Mitra, wife of petitioner, made on 11.06.2015 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, District South-West, New Delhi, whereby stated in the complaint that the petitioner and the complainant got engaged on 10.10.2010 and married on 08.12.2010 in Court and later on in Temple.The entire cost of the engagement function, marriage and reception on 12.12.2010 was borne by her.From 13.12.2010 to 01.12.2010, honeymoon was also organized by her.Even during honeymoon, the petitioner misbehaved with her several times.It is further alleged that after returning from honeymoon, the Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 14 of 23 petitioner told her to hand over the entire jewellery and gifts to her mother-in-law Smt.Manorama Rani Bharti.Accordingly, she did and never demanded back those jewellery and gifts and the same are still lying with the mother of the petitioner.Despite being pregnant and not being well (diabetic and hypertensive) she was subjected to regular verbal, mental & physical abuse by her mother-in-law and the petitioner as well.The petitioner demanded a car and a house.When she used to express her inability, her mother-in-law and the petitioner used to abuse and slap her.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 14 of 23It is further alleged that on 23.02.2011, she was beaten by the petitioner in front and on instigation of his mother.Accordingly, the complainant decided not to tolerate their abuse anymore and she left the matrimonial house.On 27.04.2011 she gave birth to a premature baby girl by C-section delivery who was kept in the incubator for 9 days with many medical problems.No financial contribution was made by the petitioner from 07.05.2011 onwards towards the upkeep of the child and other needs.He used to visit her and child and spent a night with them on weekends.The petitioner many times became furious and used filthy language by calling her prostitute and also asked her to go and slip with their neighbours.In response to the aforesaid e-mail, the petitioner approached her and apologized for all his deeds in the past and promised her that he will not repeat any such action in future and extend fatherly affection to the Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 15 of 23 child.Thereafter, he made to shift her in matrimonial house, accordingly, she sent her driver Dharmendra and one domestic help to arrange a portion of her matrimonial house liveable as per the needs of the child.However, on reaching there she was surprised to find that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law were abusing the domestic help.They even refused to open the door for her.The petitioner also abused her under influence of liquor in the presence of public.This prompted her to call up 100 No. and she succeeded to rescue the domestic help after three hours with the help of police.Petitioner threatened her with physical violence in front of the public and police personnel accumulated there.Rather the petitioner filed a false complaint against the driver Dharmendra and domestic help at Police Station Vasant Kunj implicating them for stealing US$ 4300 which was later on proved to be fake.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 15 of 23Thereafter, she filed a complaint dated 17.10.2011 at CAW Cell, Dwarka, however, the petitioner assured her to make things viable.Accordingly, she did not press said complaint.In September, 2012, she again conceived from their marriage.Thereafter, petitioner shifted along with her and their daughter in a rented apartment at Dwarka but miserably failed to make payment of security and rent towards the flat.Same was ultimately paid by her.On 19.03.2013, since the rent gets due on 20th of every month, she requested the petitioner to pay for the same on 19th night, upon which he abused her verbally.He slapped her several times and also tried to Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 16 of 23 strangulate her.After that he pushed her knowing very well that she was in the 7th month of her pregnancy.He then made his dog (a big Labrador) attacked her.She was bitten by the dog at multiple places on her stomach and private parts.On hearing her cry, the neighbours came to intervene and only then petitioner controlled his dog.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 16 of 23She delivered a baby boy on 27.05.2013 night.Thereafter, when she took her 8 days old son to the hospital for check up, she was alone with the infant and also unwell as she had a C-section operation just 7 days back.She made a call to petitioner from hospital for help, however, after multiple calls, he agreed to come to the hospital.He left her alone to deal with the situation and showed no concern.She got the child admitted for treatment and all expenses were borne by her.During June, 2013 the petitioner again approached her and asked for her support as he was contesting for the Delhi Assembly elections.She supported him with the view that if he wins the election he might mend himself and might stop his brutality against her.In January 2014, she realised that she has conceived third time.That time petitioner himself advised her to terminate her pregnancy.It is further alleged that on the night of 27.05.2015 (early morning of 28.05.2015), he again abused her verbally and physically at her home in Dwarka in front of their children.He called her a prostitute repeatedly and beaten her black and blue.Admittedly, the dispute between the petitioner and complainant is of matrimonial one.On perusal of FIR, which is reproduction of the complaint, it establishes that their most of the differences are because of poor financial condition of the petitioner and remaining are due to temperamental incompatibility.Thereafter, they continued to meet and the complainant conceived twice.From their wedlock, there are two minor children, i.e., four years old daughter and two years old son.It shows that the complainant never wanted to break the marriage.Now, situation is more serious, as the parties having two minor children between them.1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby directing the IO/SHO concerned that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail in FIR No.0745/2015 registered at PS Dwarka North (South-West District) under Sections 307/313/ 324/498-A/406/417/420/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC').Counsel further submitted that in the month of November, 2011, mediation sessions were conducted between the petitioner and his wife before CAW Cell mentioned above.The petitioner fully cooperated for making the counselling sessions successful.Minor differences were addressed and complaint against the complainant's servants was withdrawn and relationship resumed.Rajesh Dev, Addl.DCP, Sh.H.M. Bakshi, ACP and Smt.Shashi, Investigating Officer of the case and the talks were turned to be icebreaker.Again on 25.06.2015, second session in the same office was held for over two hours long which turned to be a better one.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 3 of 23Thus, the petitioner never absconded from the legal process but availed the legal rights available to him under the law.Counsel further submitted that in the present case, even from the day allegations made, no ingredients of Section 307 IPC have been met and no intention of the petitioner to have committed an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out from the complaint.Further submitted that as per the complainant, she herself got an abortion done, which is enough to prove that offence under Section 313 IPC is not made out against the petitioner.The present case is matrimonial one.In case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 2014 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has issued directions to all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498A Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 4 of 23 IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down in Section 41 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been entrusted with the constitutional duty by virtue of being a member of Legislative Assembly, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, and he is bound to discharge the functions of Delhi Assembly.He is also a member of DDA and Chairman of Privilege Committee, Delhi Legislative Assembly.Hence, there are no chances of his fleeing from law.But, it would a travesty of justice, if the petitioner is forced to undergo ignominy of arrest.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 4 of 23This Court in case of Court on its own Motion v. CBI, 2004 (1) JCC 308 (DL) has held that the arrest should also be avoided if investigation can be completed even otherwise and if the accused has given full cooperation in completing the investigation.The petitioner has joined the enquiry on 3 occasions, which include two sessions, first on 22.06.2015 and second on 25.06.2015 as noted above.Counsel submitted that all possible steps to reunite the family should have been made as the couple have two minor children, i.e., four years daughter and two years old son, before recommending registration of FIR under Sections 498-A/406 IPC in the cases where only in the heat of moment over trifling fight and ego clashes dispute arose between the parties.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 5 of 23Further submitted that it is settled principle of law that the offence under Section 498A IPC is not a continuing offence as the complainant had already filed a complaint against the petitioner on 17.10.2011 before the CAW Cell at Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi, for the offences of domestic violence, however on the same allegations, the present FIR has been registered against the petitioner, which is impermissible under law as held in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police Chennai 2004 Crl.The offence under Section 406 IPC is not a continuing offence, as the moment the entrustment is made and the person to whom the property has been entrusted, convert to his / her own use, the offence under Section 406 is complete.However, in this case, complainant left her matrimonial house on 23.02.2011 and since then she has been living in Dwarka.It is also pertinent to mention here that the earlier complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 IPC makes no mention that any jewellery left entrusted with the petitioner.Moreover, on the same facts, the complainant has filed the present complaint again which is impermissible under law as held in the case of Dinabandhu Banerjee v. Nandini Mukherjee 1994 Crl.Counsel further submitted that the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. prohibits to take cognizance of offence under Section 406/498A IPC, after the expiry of period of limitation, as the complainant allegedly entrusted jewellery with the petitioner's mother through the petitioner before 23.02.2011 and for such offence, 3 years Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 6 of 23 is prescribed period to take cognizance in the matter by the criminal court of law.The supplementary statement cannot be considered for rejecting the bail application as the same are not trustworthy in nature as held in case of Majhar @ Papu and Ors.V. State 96 2002 DLT 566 and Rajesh Kr.Accordingly, she filed a complaint in the month of October, 2011 before CAW Cell, within the first year of her marriage.The allegations in the aforesaid complaint were that she was beaten brutally by the petitioner when she was in the fifth month of pregnancy.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 8 of 23The accused, despite having knowledge that even small physical abuse may lead to threat of life not only to the complainant but also to the unborn child, however, slapped the complainant several time.Thereafter, he held the complainant from her neck and strangulated her.He pushed her on the floor and even seeing the complainant fighting for breath, the petitioner directed his dog to attack her specially when one and a half year old daughter was standing beside her and watching the aforesaid episode and howling.The attack by the dog upon the complainant caused her serious bites upon the Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 9 of 23 protruding stomach and private parts and the petitioner kept on watching the same from a distance.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 9 of 23The complainant further narrated a nightmare that in the night of 27.05.2015 and early morning of 28.05.2015, the petitioner gave brutal beatings to her and thereafter he slit her left hand wrist by the kitchen knife and tried to kill the complainant in front of the children.She fell unconscious and was left unattended to die.During arguments, learned counsel for the State has produced a copy of an email dated 20.03.2013 sent by the complainant to the petitioner, whereby stated as under:-"I could not manage to check the injuries inflicted on me yesterday by you & your dog because I was in too much of pain.However, today morning I have noticed that I have been bitten 6 times by your abnormal & violent Dog besides numerous other wounds/injuries on my neck, arms & right leg inflicted by you.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 10 of 23Your dog has bitten me at 3 places on my abdomen, at 1 place on my lower abdomen, there is a big wound at my Vagina (yes!!!), since now these days I cannot see my vagina because of my 7 month old pregnancy, today I discovered the wound by seeing myself in the mirror & I was wondering since yesterday why so many of my pubic hair has been falling on its own."(6). . .Then, this Hon'ble Court, adverting to the fact of that case, further proceeded to observe:"(6). . . .At page 303 it is stated that children born at or after 210 days or 7 calendar months of uterine life are viable, i.e., are born alive and are capable of being reared.Learned counsel for the State further submitted that as alleged by the complainant that there are various electronic recordings available with the petitioner on the strength of the same, the petitioner had been blackmailing the complainant as such custodial interrogation is required in this case to recover the same.He further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in two more cases both registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, Delhi.One bearing FIR No.76 dated 19.01.2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 153A/323/354/509/506/452/427/147/149 IPC and another FIR No.1266 dated 26.09.2014 under Sections 323/341/153A IPC.Thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed.I have heard in length the learned counsel for the parties.On 24.01.2014, she went for termination on her own.He did not accompany her due to his alleged busy schedule being Law Minister.Later on she came to know that he was busy attending social functions Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 17 of 23 and was flying kites at some event.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 17 of 23Earlier also, complainant made complaint against the petitioner to CAW Cell, Dwarka, which was compromised."I could not manage to check the injuries inflicted on me yesterday by you & your dog because I was in too much of pain.However, today morning I have noticed that I have been bitten 6 times by your abnormal & violent Dog besides numerous other wounds/injuries on my neck, arms & right leg inflicted by you.Your dog has bitten me at 3 places on my abdomen, at 1 place on my lower abdomen, there is a big wound at my Vagina (yes!!!), since now these days I cannot see my vagina because of my 7 month old pregnancy, today I discovered the wound by seeing myself in the mirror & I was wondering since yesterday why so many of my pubic hair has been falling on its own.If you want proof of the same, I will photograph myself today & can forward you the relevant pictures.I don't think even a rouge will treat a 7 month pregnant woman the way you have treated me.I don't see any reason for us to be together anymore! Therefore, I would request you to please move out from my home alongwith your dog at the earliest."Moreover, during arguments, counsel for the State produced the medical papers of her being bitten by the Dog of the petitioner.The allegations against the petitioner are not baled but supported with documentary proof.The complainant time and again compromised with the petitioner for the sake of their marriage and family.She even co-operated during the election of petitioner.Thus, he has misused the protection granted by this Court.In addition to above, the petitioner is involved in two more cases, both registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar.One bearing Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 22 of 23 FIR No.76/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 153A/323/354/ 509/506/452/427/147/149 IPC and another FIR No.1266/2014 under Sections 323/341/153A IPC, which speaks of volume and shows that the petitioner is not only violent and outrageous at home but also before the public at large as noted in above mentioned cases.Bail Appln.1952 of 2015 Page 22 of 23Accordingly, the petition alongwith pending application is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,739,073 | P.No.424/2011 Page 2 of 20Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that learned Trial Judge after filing of the charge-sheet, had directed further investigation.The petitioner continued to remain in custody; subsequently, he was medically examined.He was admitted to Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS).P.No.424/2011 Page 3 of 20PW3 Lt. Colonel J.M.Gurung deposed that the petitioner had informed that he had cheated the Director General, Border Road Organisation.P3 found to be relevant.Similarly, Ex.P3 also bears the logo and seal impression of Chief of the Army Staff and it suggests that petitioner was having No.8003643 an ex-serviceman.Thus, usage of a number which was allotted to another individual claiming oneself to be a PVC awardee (on the letter head of the Army authorities) suggests that petitioner possessed the required intention and had forged the said documents.The affixation of the photograph on Ex.P3 and the seizure of Ex.P1, wherein his case was also recommended by Lt. Ctl.Vijay Kumar clearly pointes that the petitioner intended to impersonate as an Army man and the primary objective was to substantiate his claim of being a PVC awardee which itself presupposes as an army man.Therefore, learned Trial Judge has opined that the offence punishable under Section 468 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is therefore, made out against petitioner who had forged the documents knowing that the same shall be used for the purpose of cheating.Simultaneously, offence punishable under Crl.The facts in brief of the case are that the complainant made complaint against the petitioner as under:-"During routine check one individual claiming to be a ex-Lance Naik of Pioneer Corps was found in Catt.P.No.424/2011 Page 1 of 20On checking up from concerned Unit it is confirmed that no PVC was awarded to above name individual.It is also brought to your notice that the individual had falsely represented his case to Director General, Border Road Organisation, New Delhi and cheated them of `5,000/- by claiming to be a PVC awardee and in financial distress.The documents produced by the individual in support of his claim are false."Accordingly, charges were framed against petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.It is pertinent to mention here that the instant petition has been filed by Mr. D.P. Mathur, Advocate.During arguments, this Court felt that aforesaid Advocate was not able to assist the Court properly, therefore, this Court requested Mr. D.S. Kohli, Advocate present in court to argue the instant petition on behalf of petitioner.Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that vide impugned judgment dated 17.01.2011, learned Trial Court while acquitting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 420/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860;Therefore, the trial proceedings were dis-continued and the case file was consigned to Record Room.As per the medical report , the petitioner was suffering from a chronic psychotic state (delusional disorder) and required long term supervision for at least one year.Subsequently, on 27.02.2006 the proceedings were revived.The director of IHBAS observed in the report that the petitioner had shown gradually improvement in the treatment and was not required to be hospitalised and not to be detained any further.Thereafter, witnesses were examined and the petitioner was represented by legal practitioner of his choice.He stressed on one point that he was a Param Veer Chakra (in short 'PVC') awardee.The trial judge observed that illusion was with reference to this fact alone, otherwise he behaved normally and was responsive.Accordingly, the petitioner was found fit for the further proceedings, therefore the prosecution witnesses were examined.Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Crl.P.No.424/2011 Page 3 of 20 pre-supposes that dishonest inducement/ representation has been made and acting upon the same, the opposite party/victim had parted with valuable consideration.However, there is no evidence to record to suggest that Director General, Border Road Organisation was cheated by the petitioner.No eye witness has been produced by the prosecution with regard to the fact that the petitioner had cheated anyone or on account of dishonest/false representation made by petitioner with respect to his claim that he was a PVC awardee and they had agreed to or parted with some consideration.Rather, whatever communication the petitioner had was with Havaldar Joseph and not Lt. Colonel J.M.Gurung.Evidence qua the aforesaid offence falls short to sustain an order of conviction on the aforesaid counts."PARSHADI LAL LANS NAIK ARMY NO.8003643 PARAMVIR CHAKRA AWARDEE 1971 WAR OF BANGLADESH IN 26TH JANUARY RESIDENCE FOR MAKING SRI V.B. GIRI, PRESIDENT OF INDIA ORDER GIVEN CHIEF MANIK SHAH, CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF."Learned Trial Judge also recorded in the impugned judgment that though contents of both the documents suggest that petitioner made dull attempts to fabricate.P.No.424/2011 Page 6 of 20 Section 419 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was also made out.P.No.424/2011 Page 6 of 20Therefore, even the allegation of making false document is not established against the petitioner.He further submitted that provision of Section 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872, bars personal knowledge and same not be considered; whereas in the present case, learned Trial Court even after observing that petitioner was suffering from chronic disorder, has opinion that the petitioner is illusory for the particular fact and not otherwise.He submitted that the petitioner is not the maker of the documents Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.According to the PW3 and PW4, petitioner did nothing.Neither the handwriting nor specimen signatures of the petitioner were taken; hence there is no occasion for any FSL report thereon.To sum up, learned counsel for petitioner has referred the observation made by Division Bench of this Court in Mohan Lal @ Ranjan Mohan Crl.P.No.424/2011 Page 12 of 20 Bhatnagar v. The State Crl.Learned trial court on the basis of evidence on record rejected the defence of the accused that he was mentally unfit at the time of occurrence as such had not committed any offence in view of Section 84 of IPC.Learned Addl Sessions Judge held that the burden of proving the mental condition of the appellant at the crucial point was upon him and he had failed to prove the same and accordingly rejected the defence of insanity.On the basis of evidence on record, the learned Addl Sessions Judge had held him guilty of committing the murder of his son Aditya aged about 2 years and also having caused grievous injuries to his wife Rajeshwari PW-7 and thereby convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 and 325 IPC and sentenced him vide order dated 03.09.1997 as is stated above."Counsel submitted that the accused in the case of Mohan Lal (Supra) could not establish that he was mentally unfit at the time of occurrence.Whereas in the present case, the report of (IHBAS) and further concerned Doctor examined, established that the petitioner had a illusion to the effect that he was a PVC awardee, therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the present case.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State submitted that as per the gist of the complaint, cheating against the petitioner has been proved as he impersonated as an ex-serviceman and he cheated the Border Road Organisation.Learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court after due deliberations and after going through evidence on record had Crl.P.No.424/2011 Page 13 of 20 rightly convicted the petitioner.Therefore, instant petition deserves to be dismissed.Even the application filed before the Magistrate does not give any particulars as to when the alleged ailment started.When delusions affect his behavior, he is often a source of danger to himself and to others.(Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edn.)P.No.424/2011 Page 17 of 20Further, according to Modi, the cause of schizophrenia is still not known but heredity plays a part.The irritation and excitement are effects of illness.On delusion affecting the behaviour of a patient, he is a source of danger to himself and to others.".......... in view of above discussion, the defence has failed to discharge the burden as required under Section 105 of Evidence Act in order to avail the benefit of Section 84 of IPC.It has not been established by the defence that accused was insane at the time of Crl.P.No.424/2011 Page 18 of 20 occurrence nor is the evidence sufficient to throw a reasonable doubt in our minds that the act might have been committed when the appellant was in a fit of insanity."P.No.424/2011 Page 18 of 20On considering the submissions and law relied upon by ld. Counsel for the parties, it is emerged that the petitioner was arrested on 10.02.2003 and thereafter during the trial he was admitted to Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences IHBAS and proceedings were discontinued.The Director of IHBAS stated that the petitioner was suffering from a chronic psychotic state (delusional disorder) and required long term supervision for at least one year.Additionally, the ld.In my considered opinion, I find force in the submission of ld.Counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner was acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860, he cannot be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 419 and 468 Indian Penal Code, 1860, because neither the petitioner deceived any person fraudulently or dishonestly or induced the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person.Neither the petitioner committed forgery intending for the purpose of cheating.To bring the petitioner within the four-corners of Section 415 as mentioned in its explanation that dishonest concealment of fact is a deception but has to be fraudulently or dishonestly in inducing any person.However, the same has not been established against the petitioner.It is also not established that the petitioner himself prepare the document and seal, as the prosecution neither proved his specimen handwriting nor his signature or any evidence thereto.Therefore, on both the counts, the two courts below have gone wrong while convicted the petitioner in the present case.Consequently, the judgment dated 17.01.2011 passed by ld.MM is also set aside.Consequently, petitioner is acquitted from all the charges.No order as to costs.SURESH KAIT, J APRIL 23, 2012 Mk/jg Crl.P.No.424/2011 Page 20 of 20P.No.424/2011 Page 20 of 20 | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,504,658 | Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamlendra Sikngh Jadaun, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 677 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Mohammadabad, District Fauuukhabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the mother of the girl has lodged the FIR on 17.11.2018 and the incident is said to have taken place on 11.11.2018 against four named persons including the applicant with the allegations that they have enticed away her daughter.In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that she went with the applicant to Ahamadabad and on her own volition the applicant has made physical relationship with her and she has denied the allegation of rape upon her.As per the medical report she is aged about 17 years.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09.01.2019, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant appears to be quite convincing and appealing for the purposes of bail only.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Praveen Kumar @ Rinku Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,505,202 | 594/DC (Allowed) C. R. M. No. 6312 of 2014 In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.05.2014 in connection with Nandakumar Police Station Case No. 116 dated 10.04.2014 under Sections 341/363A/323/379/354B/384/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Sk.Heard the learned Advocate of both the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.) | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,513,068 | 4.Challenging the Judgment of Acquittal passed in S.T.C.No.80/ 2015 dated 17.03.2016 by the trial Court, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant that the trial Court had committed an error in acquitting the Respondent/Accused, by not taking into a very vital fact that the Respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Appellant/Complainant towards his urgent family expenses and to discharge the said amount, the latter issued a cheque on the same day (a post dated cheque dated 02.05.2015).Appellant's Submissions:7.The prime plea taken on behalf of the Appellant is that the Respondent had not denied the execution of Ex.P1 Cheque but stated that he gave the cheque to one Palanisamy and not to the Appellant.In this regard, to substantiate the same, the Respondent/ Accused had neither marked any document nor examined any one of his side.No.17898 of 2016, had granted Leave to the Appellant to prefer an Appeal as against the Judgment dated 17.03.2016 in S.T.C.No.80 of 2015 passed by the trial Court.10.At this stage, this Court, on perusal of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Appellant (as Complainant) before the trial Court, finds that the Appellant had averred at paragraph 3 that the Respondent is the business man and based on acquaintance, he borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from him on 03.04.2015 to meet out his urgent business and family expenses and assured to repay the same within one month.As a matter of fact, to discharge the debt, the Respondent/Accused had issued a post dated Syndicate Bank Siruvachiyur Branch Cheque bearing No.094381 drawn in favour of the Appellant (Complainant) dated 02.05.2015 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and gave an assurance to the Appellant on or after 02.05.2015 to present the cheque before the Bank for collection and to collect the cheque amount from the Bank.11.It comes to be known that when the cheque was deposited by the Appellant (Complainant) in the Indian Overseas Bank Aragalur Branch on 02.05.2015, the cheque was returned on 18.05.2015 for the reason Account Closed/Refer to Drawer.12.The stand of the Appellant is that the Return Memo dated 18.05.2015 was received by him on 18.05.2015 itself from the Indian Overseas Bank, Aragalur Branch and after the Appellant/Complainant intimated the same to the Respondent/Accused and asked him as to why he had issued an account closed chque and further, demanded the Respondent/Accused to pay the cheque amount due to him or otherwise he would take action before the concerned Court, the Respondent/Accused had informed him that due to business dull season, he was not unable to repay the cheque amount and within a week, he would pay the said sum to him, but the cheque amount was not paid as per assurance given by him.Later, the Appellant issued a Lawyer's Notice Ex.P4 dated 06.06.2015 to the Respondent/Accused requiring him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice.After receipt of legal notice, the Respondent/ Accused issued a Reply Notice - Ex.P6 dated 16.06.2015 contending untenable allegations.13.In this connection, a closer scrutiny of the Complaint at para 4 indicates that the Appellant/Complainant had come out with a version that at the time of issuance of Ex.P4 Notice dated 06.06.2015, his name was wrongly typed as K.C.Palanisamy instead of K.C.Periyasamy and the said error was a typographical one and therefore, on 09.07.2015, the Appellant/Complainant issued a Rejoinder Notice - Ex.P7 to the Respondent/Accused Counsel to change the name from K.C.Palanisamy to K.C.Periyasamy.The said Ex.P7 Rejoinder was received by the Respondent/Accused Counsel as per Ex.P8 Acknowledgement dated 13.07.2015 and since there was no reply to Ex.P7 Rejoinder Notice by the Respondent/Accused, a complaint was laid by the Appellant in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.14.Before the trial Court, the Appellant/Complainant had examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked.16.Before the trial Court, the categorical plea of the Respondent/ Accused is that when Palanisamy was a Partner and when he was a Managing Director in a Finance, at the time of himself availing the loan, he received three cheques and a stamp paper of Rs.20/- and when he settled the loan and demanded for the return of documents, he informed that the said cheques were not in force/use and he informed that he would return the same and in the year 2015, when Palanisamy demanded money and created a problem, he informed that the money was already paid and when Palanisamy created a problem by using one of the cheques with the aid of Complaint, the present case was filed.Object of N.I. Act & Onus of Proof:Admittedly, except the Appellant/Complainant, who got himself examined as P.W.1, no one was examined on his side as further witnesses.Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, which float on the surface, this Court, with a view to provide an opportunity to the Appellant/Complainant to establish his case, apart from that, Palanisamy and his wife are necessarily to be examined by the Appellant and therefore, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, for an effective and efficacious adjudication, to prevent an aberration of Justice, simpliciter, remands the entire subject matter in issue to the trial Court [since based on the existing materials available on record, it is not possible for this Court of pronounce a Judgment] for hearing the matter afresh, by setting aside the Judgment of the trial Court.Consequently, the Appeal succeeds. | ['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,514,958 | Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.Heard Shri Raghuraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.Contention raised by the counsel is that the F.I.R. was got registered by one Naresh on 18.07.2020 under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. against unknown persons with the allegation that on 17.07.2020 the deceased has received a call on his mobile number and since then his whereabouts is not known.The dead body of the deceased was recovery on the very next date i.e. on 18.07.2020 near anar ki bagia.As per the post-mortem report the deceased has died on account of ante-mortem injuries.Let the applicant Dhanni, who is involved in aforementioned case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,520,934 | MANMOHAN, J:-The facts of the present case, as noted by the Trial Court, are reproduced hereinbelow:-Succinctly, filtered prosecution case, is that DD No. 64-A dated 27.03.2013 was recorded at Police Station Kalyanpuri to the effect that Rahul S/o Mange Ram has been brought to LBS Hospital through his brother, Bharat, vide MLC No. 4639 on which said Rahul was declared "brought dead".On receipt of the said DD, SI Raj Kumar reached LBS Hospital and dead body was got preserved.Statement of Mange Ram was recorded in which he inter alia alleged that on 27.03.2013, on the day of Holi festival, at about 1 p.m. Satish along with his friends were dancing on the beats of drums on which Rahul @ Harbir @ Chaua objected to the same to which Satish infuriated and hot words were exchanged between them.Matter was intervened and Rahul was bolted inside the house.At about 3 p.m., again Satish along with his friends Babloo and Sonu @ Bhada came to his house.At that time, Satish and Sonu @ Bhanda were having arms i.e. country made pistols (kattas) in their hands while Babloo was having sword at that time.All three abused and threatened that Rahul would be killed today itself.To it Mange Ram tried to settle the matter but Satish left the spot at that time with dire consequences.Around 4.30 p.m. Rahul left the house for park and Mange Ram also followed him.At that time Satish, Sonu @ Bhanda and Babloo with one more associate were present in the park and at that time Satish and Sonu were having kattas in their hands.Babloo was having sword while fourth associate was having knife.On seeing Rahul, Satish exhorted his associates to kill him on which all four chased Rahul."All the four accused persons at 4 p.m. again came to our house.Accused Satish and Sonu @ Bhanda were holding kattas.Accused Sonu @ Bhanda was hold sword in his other hand.Accused Bablu was holding the dagger in his hand.All the accused persons inquired from me about my son Rahul and told me that they have come to kill my son.My son Rahul jumped from the jhuggi to the park behind our house.All the accused persons followed him and accused Satish and Sonu @ Bhanda fired at Rahul.The bullet hit on the back side of the neck of Rahul.The deposition of Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh (PW-5) is corroborated by the recovery of a single bullet (EB1) from the body of the deceased Rahul.The relevant portion of the post mortem report is reproduced hereinbelow:-"GOVT.FIR/DD No.212/13 Dated 23/3/13 P.S. Kalyan Puri Name: Rahul @ Harbir @ Chaua S/o Mange Ram, R/o 21/243, Kalyan Puri, Delhi.Probable Age 22 yrs, Sex: Male Height 158 cm.Weight - Kg.HOSPITAL RECORDS:Date & Time of Receipt of Inquest papers 28/3/13, 2.00 PM Date & Time of Death/Spot Death/Brought Dead 27/3/13, 5.00 PM Casualty/C.R. No. 46469, MLC-4639/13 Arrival of Body at Mortuary and time 27/3/13, 5.10 PM V. BRIEF HISTORY AS PER I/O:Alleged H/o receiving of fire arm injury and brought dead to Emergency L.B.S. Hospital VI.EXTERNAL GENERAL APPEARANCE:Built: Average Condition of eye: closed clear Natural orifices: Free from any discharge.POST-MORTEM CHANGES Hypostasis: Present over back Rigor Mortis: Present all over the body Decomposition Changes: Nil.(DR.N.P. WAGHMARE)"(emphasis supplied) CRL.The appellant-convict had also placed reliance on the testimony of his aunt - Atar Kali (DW-1), who had denied the factum of recovery of a country made pistol/katta from her room.It is relevant to point out that this witness had merely denied the presence of a bed in her room.She had deposed that she was unaware about the fact of the recovery of a pistol.Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant-convict challenging the judgment dated 17th January, 2018 and the order on sentence dated 20th January, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 979/2016 arising out of FIR No. 212/2013 registered with Police Station Kalyanpuri, whereby the appellant-convict has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of CRL.A. No.571/2018 Page 1 of 19 Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 27 of Arms Act.A. No.571/2018 Page 1 of 19BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASEMange Ram also followed all of them and noticed that Satish and Sonu @ Bhanda along with his associates shot at Rahul.Rahul fell down on the ground and all accused persons took their heels.Mange Ram got frightened and with the help of Bharat rushed Rahul to Hospital where he was declared brought dead.On the basis of said CRL.A. No.571/2018 Page 2 of 19 statement, present FIR bearing no. 212/2013 PS Kalyanpuri under Secs.302/34/120-B IPC was registered.Vide order dated 06.08.2013 passed by ld.Predecessor, charge under Section 120-B IPC and 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC was framed against all the accused persons.Vide said order, separate charge under Section 27 Arms Act were also framed against accused persons Satish @ Pintu and Sonu @ Bhenda @ Sohan @ Pola.Vide said order, separate charges under Section 25 Arms Act were also framed against accused persons Babloo @ Rajnish and Shamsher @ Dilshad.To the said charges, all accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURTThe Trial Court convicted the appellant-convict under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act. The conclusion of the Trial Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-All the members of family of deceased in one line stated that all the accused persons came to their house before murder of deceased and threatened - Hum ise maaf nahin karenge aur aaj ise jaan se maar denge.Perusal of the record shows that there is no cross- examination on PW-6 Mange Ram regarding recovery point effected from Babloo @ Rajnish.It is also clear from the record that PW-17 Constable Manoj Kumar was not cross- examined at all and his testimony remains unrebutted.Qua on the recovery point testimony of PW-21 SI Raj Kumar is also corroborated.Except for accused Shamsher @ Dilshad, there is no cross-examination on the recovery point.There is simple suggestion that nothing has been recovered from the accused and proceedings are false.It is also crystal clear from the CRL.A. No.571/2018 Page 3 of 19 record that PW-22 Inspt.C.M. Meena is other witness regarding recovery got effected from accused persons Babloo @ Rajnish; Satish @ Piontu and Shamsher @ Dilshad.Perusal of the record also shows that there is no effective cross- examination regarding recovery issue.A. No.571/2018 Page 3 of 19xxx xxx xxxAs such, besides the above, prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against accused Satish @ Pintu for the offence punishable under Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act and as such, he is held guilty for said offence.Prosecution has also been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against accused Babloo @ Rajnish for the offence punishable under Sec. 25/54/59 Arms Act and as such, he is held guilty for said offence.Same is of the view qua accused Shamsher and as such, he is also held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 25/54/59 Arms Act."ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICTMr. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant-convict contended that the appellant-convict had been falsely implicated in the present case on account of prior enmity between him and the uncle of deceased's wife with regard to an incident of obstruction on the road.He stated that the ballistics report (Ex. PW-24/B) had not mentioned that the bullet recovered from the deceased's body was hard-core steel or it had a bullet case.He contended that in the absence of recovery of the back portion of the cartridge, the ballistics report cannot be regarded as conclusive.Learned counsel for the appellant-convict contended that as per the testimony of Mange Ram (PW-6), the sword and katta had been recovered from the drain/naala in his presence and his signature had been obtained on CRL.A. No.571/2018 Page 4 of 19 the recovery memo.However, learned counsel for the appellant-convict pointed out that the seizure memo produced by the prosecution did not bear the signature of Mange Ram (PW-6) or any other public witness and therefore, the recovery was doubtful.A. No.571/2018 Page 4 of 19Learned counsel for the appellant-convict also contended that there were material contradictions in the statements of Santosh (PW-3), Bharat (PW-4), Mange Ram (PW-6), Santa (PW-7) and Master Hemant (PW-11) as to how the deceased had reached the park (place of incident).He laid emphasis on the fact that no blood stains were found at the crime scene by Constable Manoj (PW-13).Mr. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the aunt of the appellant-convict, Atar Kali (DW-1) had deposed that there was no bed in her room and she had denied that any katta had been recovered from beneath her bed at the instance of appellant- convict.In view of the aforesaid, he stated that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and he prayed that appellant-convict be given benefit of doubt.ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATEPer contra, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State contended that the deceased Rahul had sustained bullet injury and he was rushed to the hospital where he was declared brought dead.She stated that Mange Ram/Complainant (PW-6) and Master Hemant (PW-11) were eye witnesses of the incident and their versions were supported by the testimonies of wife and mother of the deceased i.e. Santosh (PW-3) and Santa (PW-7) respectively.A. No.571/2018 Page 5 of 19She stated that no question regarding the recovery of country made pistol/katta had been put to Mange Ram (PW-6), Constable Manoj Kumar (PW-17), SI Raj Kumar (PW-21) or Inspector C.M. Meena (PW-22).Consequently, according to her, no argument with regard to recovery could be raised at this stage.According to her, the absence of bloodstains at the crime scene was due to large amount of blood collected in the abdominal cavity of the deceased as mentioned in the post mortem report.A. No.571/2018 Page 6 of 19COURTS REASONING THIS COURT IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TESTIMONIES OF EYEWITNESSES - MANGE RAM (PW-6) AND MASTER HEMANT (PW-11) HAVE A RING OF TRUTH, ARE CLEAR, COGENT, CONSISTENT, CREDIBLE, TRUSTWORTHY AND CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE ON RECORDHaving heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that all the family members of deceased Rahul had stated, in unison, that the appellant-convict along with other accused persons had come to their house before the murder of deceased Rahul and threatened him.Thereafter all the accused persons ran way from there."(emphasis supplied)The testimony of Master Hemant (PW-11) corroborates the abovementioned testimony, as he had specifically deposed that after firing at the deceased, appellant-convict had hit the deceased on the head with the butt of the katta.The relevant portion of the testimony of Master Hemant (PW-11) is reproduced hereinbelow:-A. No.571/2018 Page 7 of 19"Last year on the day of Holi, I had gone to play Holi at the house of my sister Santosh at 21 Block, Kalyan Puri, Delhi.I was playing Holi with Jija namely Rahul @ Chauha in the park.Accused Satish, Bablu and Shamsher present in court today correctly identified (accused shown to the witness through video conferencing) came there.Accused Satish was armed with a katta of .315 bore.Accused Bablu was armed with a sword and accused Shamsher was also armed with a katta of .315 bore.Accused Satish fired at my Jija.One bullet hit on his right leg above the knee.Second bullet fired by accused Satish hit on the danda of Jhanda put at Mandir nearby and third bullet hit my jija on his back.Accused Satish also hit on the right side of head of my Jija with the butt of the Katta.Thereafter all three accused ran way from there....."(emphasis supplied)The testimony of Master Hemant (PW-11) finds corroboration in the post mortem report (Ex. PW-5/A) wherein it is mentioned that the deceased had a lacerated wound over the back of his head.No question or suggestion was put to Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh (PW-5) with respect to the lacerated wound.It is settled law that there is bound to be some discrepancies between the versions narrated by different witnesses regarding the specific details.N.P. WAGHMARE (PW-24).Further, the Post Mortem Report (Ex. PW-5/A), proves that the deceased Rahul had two external injuries - one fire arm entry wound and one lacerated wound over the back of his head.Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh (PW-5) who had conducted the post mortem had specifically deposed that only one fire arm injury was found on the body of the deceased and the same was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.OF NCT OF DELHI LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI HOSPITAL, KHICHRIPUR, DELHI-91 DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE Post Mortem Examination Report CRL.A. No.571/2018 Page 11 of 19 POST MORTEM NO. 134/13 CONDUCTED BY DR.VINAY KR.A. No.571/2018 Page 11 of 19SINGH DATED: 28/3/13 TIME: 2.15 PM I. Case Particulars:Investigating Officer: Insp.C.M. Meena P/S Kalyan Puri.Identified by/Identification Marks:Mange Ram.2. Amit.A. No.571/2018 Page 12 of 19TIME SINCE DEATH: 14-22 HRS.EXTERNAL EXAMINATION (Injuries etc.)Fire arm entry wound of 1 x .5 cms present over the left side back, 116 cms above heels and 16 cms away from midline, 4 cms below posterior axillary fold margin inwards, Abrasion collar .3 cms around, no singeing burning and tattooing seen, cavity deep.Lacerated wound 1 x .5 cms over back of head on occipital protuberance.X. INTERNAL EXAMINATION:Perusal of the paper book reveals that a country made pistol/katta (F1) along with a live cartridge (A1) had been recovered at the instance of the appellant-convict vide seizure memo Ex.PW-17/Q in the presence of Constable Manoj Kumar (PW-17) and SI Raj Kumar (PW-21).The recovered country made pistol/katta (F1) and the cartridge (A1) were sent for FSL examination and it was opined in the ballistics report (Ex.PW-24/B) that the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased (EB1) had been shot from the country made pistol/katta (F1) recovered at the instance of the appellant-convict.The relevant portions of the ballistics reports (Ex.PW- 24/A & Ex.A. No.571/2018 Page 13 of 19(DR.N.P. WAGHMARE)"A. No.571/2018 Page 14 of 19Two sealed parcel(s); seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seal as per forwarding letter (FSL FORM)2. DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN THE PARCEL (S) EXHIBIT(S) Parcel No. & Seal Description of Exhibit(s) contained in No. Impression parcel(s) 3 02 FSL One sealed paper envelop contained I.K.M. one 8mm/.315" bullet adhered with DELHI some blood like material marked as exhibit EB1 in the laboratory.(2) The individual striation marks present on crime bullet marked exhibit EB1 were compared with recovered test bullets fired through exhibit country made pistol marked F1 (pertinent to FSL 2013/F-3057, case FIR No. 212/13 dt 27.03.13, U/S 302/34/120B IPC & 25/27 Arms Act PS Kalyanpuri) under a comparison microscope.Hence, it is opined that exhibit bullet marked EB1 had been discharged through exhibit improvised pistol marked F1 (pertinent to FSL 2013/F-3057, case FIR No. 212/13 dt. 27.03.13, U/S 302/34/120B IPC & 25/27 Arms Act PS Kalyanpuri) Examined by Sd/-A. No.571/2018 Page 15 of 19A. No.571/2018 Page 15 of 19The CRL.Consequently, the impugned judgment and order on CRL. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,521,004 | This is the fourth bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Sessions Trial No.765/2016, arising out of Crime No.341/2015 registered at Police Station Bairagarh, District Bhopal against him for the offence punishable under Sections 190, 323, 354-B, 376, 495 and 506 of IPC, pending on the file of Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.Let it be noted that the applicant's third bail application u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed on merits and the remaining two were dismissed either as not pressed or withdrawn.At the outset of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to prosecute this fourth bail application on merits.He simply prays for the directions from this Court to the Trial Court for the expeditious trial of the Sessions case as the applicant has been in custody since 23.7.2015 and the Trial Court has so far recorded only the statements of the prosecutrix, her father and one police constable.The SHO of Police Station Bairagarh is also directed to see personally that the summonses, bailable warrants and the arrest warrants, as the case may be, upon the witnesses are duly served in time and returned to the Trial Court.Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court and the SHO of Police Station Bairagarh, District Bhopal without delay.On the aforestated terms and conditions, this bail application is dismissed as not pressed on merits.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE S/ | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,523,121 | The present appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.03.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No.82/2018, by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 354-A of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI three years with fine of Rs.200/- and Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI one year with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulations.Heard on I.A. No.4524/2019, an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence as well as objections filed on the application.It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that trial Court erred in convicting the appellant and sentenced him as referred above.Out of total sentence, 9 months already suffered by the appellant in confinement.Appellant has strong case on merits.He would not be a source of threaten, embarrassment and harassment to the prosecutrix in any manner.There is no likelihood for hearing of appeal in near future.Therefore, 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.4033/2019 (Bona @ Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs.State of M.P.) suspension of sentence may be allowed.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection.Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case and looking to the undertaking as given above, without commenting on the merits of the case as there is no possibility of early hearing of this criminal appeal before this Court, hence, I.A. 4524/2019 is allowed and it is ordered that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) by appellant with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, appellant's jail sentence shall remain suspended and till disposal of this appeal and he be released on bail.The appellant is further directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court on 11th September, 2019 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry.Appellant is directed to plant 10 fruit bearing saplings or Neem/Peepal trees height of 4-6 feet in his vicinity and he will have to submit photographs of the saplings before the trial Court concerned within thirty days from today else, benefit granted to him shall be recalled.The trial Court concerned shall submit a report on every 6 th month before this Court which shall be placed under the caption "Direction" for next 12 months.This direction is made by this Court as a test case to address the Anatomy of Violence and Evil by process of Creation and a step towards Alignment with Nature.The natural instinct of compassion, service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for human existence as they are innately engrained attributes of human existence.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2019.06.27 17:07:46 +05'30' | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,523,728 | Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs.State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 10.7.2020 S.Chaurasia | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,918,199 | This temple undoubtedly is ancient and the deity en-shrined therein is held in the highest esteem by the Hindus and it attracts pilgrims from far and wide.The worship in the temple is carried on according to strict Shastric precepts and it is the belief of the Hindu community that the image which is enshrined in this temple is a self-revealed image of Lord Shiva.Entry to this temple was confined to Savarna Sanatan Dharmis only, that is to say, the caste Hindus alone had the privilage of entering this temple and worshipping therein.The Avarna Sanatan Dharmis, who are now called Harijans, had under a long established custom, no right to enter this temple, but they could have Darshan of the holy image through an aperture which be approached by an outer passage adjacent to and separate from the main sanctuary.The City Magistrate, who was there, told the petitioners that not allowing the Harijans to have access to the temple through the main gate would be an offence.It appears that this warning of the City Magistrate had no deterrent effect on the petitioners, for, that did not smoothen the way of the Harijans in getting entry into the temple.The City Magistrate, therefore, ordered the petitioners to clear out of the temple and ordered the police to take them in custody, as in the opinion of the City Magistrate they had violated the provisions of the U. P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act" and further that they had committed certain other offences, namely, offences under Sections 143 and 341, Penal Code.JUDGMENT Mukerji, J.This is a petition by 26 persons under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of 'habeas corpus'.The petitioners also founded their application under Sections 491 and 561A, Criminal P. C.On 16th March 1954, we pronounced the operative portion of our judgment directing release of the petitioners for we were of the opinion that the petitioners' detention in jail was illegal.The petitioners before us belong to what is known as the Savarna Sanatan Dharmis of the Hindu fold and they are the residents of Banaras and are believers in the strict and the orthodox tenets of the Sanatan Dharma.There is, as is well known, an ancient and a very holy temple of the deity of Sri Vishwanath at Eanaras.It appears that the Harijans smarted under the discrimination that was made between them and the Savarna Sanatanists in regard to having access to the temple of Sri Vishwanath.About 12th or 13th February, 1954 the Harijans decided to enforce their right of entry into this temple and they expressed their desire to do so by means of leaflets which were broadcast by some leaders of their community as also by sticking posters.These leaflets & the posters declared that the Harijans would march in procession to the temple of Sri Vishwanath on the afternoon of 17th February 1954, and effect an entry into it.It appears further to us that the Harijans took their stand on the provisions of the U. P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, (14 of 1947), for, according to Section 3 (d) of that Act, no person could prevent another from having access to any public temple or enjoying the advantages, facilities and privileges of any such temple to the extent the same were available to other Hindus.When this desire of the Harijans became known to the Savarna Sanatanists of Banaras, they convened a meeting and it was resolved therein that the aperture which existed in the Eastern wall of the temple and through which the Harijans used to have a glimpse of the sacred deity should be substantially enlarged in order that the Harijans could have greater facility in having Darshan.It was further resolved to meet the Harijans at the main door, called the 'Singhadwar', of the temple and to conduct them to the window, now enlarged, and to let them have 'Darshan' of the scared deity from that place in accordance with the old custom.On the afternoon of 17th February 1954, a batch of Harijans arrived at the temple door headed by Sri Bechan Ram, M. L. A. These Harijans were met by the petitioners and they were garlanded and, according to the petitioners, Invited to have Darshan of the deity from the window or aperture now enlarged for them.So far there appears no controversy in regard to the facts or the sequence of events: There is, however, a controversy as to what followed subsequently.According to the petitioners, the Harijans were not stopped from entering through the main gate by the petitioners while on behalf of the State it was stated that Harijans were refused entrance into the temple through the 'Singhadwar' through which caste Hindus alone could have access to the temple.The executive authorities of Banaras, those authorities which had the responsibility of preserving law and order in the town, apprehended breaches of peace on this occasion and consequently there were a large number of police' officials and at least one Magistrate, namely, the City Magistrate, in attendance at the main gate of the temple at the time wnen the Harijans came in procession and wished to make their entry into the temple.It is clear to us from the affidavits that have been filed in this case that the Harijans could not, uninterrupted, have access to the temple through the main gate, the 'Singhadwar'.This was so because the Santainsts, in particular the petitioners, were at the scene to obstruct their entry.The petitioners were thereafter taken into police custody and taken to police station Chowk.The petitioners have contended before us that their detention in jail is illegal, first, because their alleged infringement of Section 3 (d), U. P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act could not amount to an offence, as, that Act itself was 'ultra vires' and unconstitutional.Affidavits have been filed in answer to this assertion made by the petitioners in their affidavit.We have examined the affidavits filed in these proceedings and we are satisfied that although there was a slight and an apparent conflict between the affidavit of Sri Bhagwat Singh, the Station Officer of Police Station Chowk, and Sri Gauri Shankar Singh, City Magistrate, Banaras, yet it is clear on these affidavits that the petitioners were informed of the grounds for their arrest.S. P. City in the presence of the deponent that they were being arrested for having obstructed the entry of the Harijans into the Temple of Sri Viswanathji through the main gate."Sri Bhagwat Singh in his affidavit has also averred that the petitioners were told the grounds of their arrest.We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no substance in the assertion of the petitioners that they were not informed of the grounds for their arrest after they had been arrested.The last contention which was raised on behalf of the petitioners was that they were not produced before a Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of their arrest.This assertion of the petitioners has also been denied on behalf of the opposite party.The affidavit of Sri Bhagwat Singh indicates that the petitioners were produced before the City Magistrate, Sri Gauri Shankar Singh, immediately after they were arrested, as Sri Gauri Shankar Singh was present at the scene of their arrest."That the City Magistrate, Sri Gauri Shankar Singh, was present at the time when the petitioners were arrested by the police and they were immediately produced before him & thereafter taken to P. S. Chowk under his orders."Sri Bhagwat Singh further says this in paragraph 7 of his affidavit:"That as the petitioners had been sent to the District Jail under the orders of the City Magistrate, it was not necessary to produce the accused again before a Magistrate as the accused were no longer in police custody."Sri Gauri Shankar Singh, however, states as follows in paragraph 11 of his affidavit:"That the petitioners were then produced before the deponent by Sri Bhagwat, Singh, Station Officer, P. S. Chowk, in his capacity as City Magistrate in the office of the Dy.S. P. at the Kotwali at about 10 the same night and the deponent thereafter on a request made by the police made an order for their remand to jail custody after having told them that they would be prosecuted for having unlawfully obstructed the entry of the Harijans into the Temple through the 'Singh Dwar' and the petitioners then left the Kotwali for the District Jail at about 11-30 the same night."In paragraph 9 of his affidavit, Sri Gauri Shankar Singh stated that he reached the Kotwali at abeut 8-30 p.m. and asked the Dy.S. P. City to produce the arrested persons before him.To us, there appears to be an inconsistency between the averments made by Sri Bhagwat Singh, and those made by Sri Gauri Shankar Singh in regard to the production of the petitioners before a Magistrate after their arrest.According to Sri Bhagwat Singh, the production of the petitioners was made immediately after they had been arrested and that the production was at the scene of occurrence while on the affidavit of Sri Gauri Shankar Singh the petitioners were, "called for", by him for production and they were produced before him at the Kotwali at 10 p.m. On the two aforequoted versions, it becomes difficult for us to hold with certainty as to where and when the petitioners were produced before a Magistrate.According to Sri Gauri Shankar Singh, the production of the petitioners before him was made by Sri Bhagwat Singh at police station Kotwali, but according to Bhagwat Singh himself the production had been made by him at the scene of occurrence.On an examination of this order we discovered that "it was dated "17/18, 2".We have been unable to discover how and why Sri Chitrangad Singh dated his order "17/18".No affidavit by Sri Chitrangad Singh was produced before us explaining this matter.It was, however, admitted on behalf of the State that the petitioners were not produced before Sri Chitrangad Singh when he passed the aforementioned order. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,821,546 | Brief facts of the case are that the prosecutrix made a written complaint at Police-station-Mahila Thana, Indore alleging that in the year 2009, she was conducting the course of fashion designing and residing at Akanksha Apartment, Baktawar Ramnagar, Indore.The applicant used to come to her building to meet with his friend.All of a sudden, one day the applicant came to her flat and introduced himself as Rishikant Aharwal resident of F-34, Kachnar Club Road, Kachnar City, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur and developed friendship with her.One day applicant came to his flat and told her that he is earning Rs. 2.50 Lacs to Rs.3.0 Lacs per month during his study time.( 18/09/2019) The applicant/accused has preferred this petition under Section 482 of CR.P.C. for quashment of FIR bearing crime No. 54/2018 registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, Indore, District Indore for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. and consequential proceedings relating thereto.On 16/04/2010, applicant made physical 2 relationship with her on the pretext of marriage at her flat.After that when the prosecutrix/respondent No.2 told the applicant to marry with her then he started to avoid her by making false excuses and ultimately, the applicant assured the prosecutrix that he will solemnize the marriage with her very soon, however, on 02/07/2017, he left the Indore with his luggage and shifted to Jabalpur.Now he has declined to marry with her.On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 54/2018 has been registered at Police- Station-Mahila Thana, Indore against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.Thereafter, they both started dating and had fallen in love with each other eventually.Thereafter, the applicant confronted the respondent No.2 not to indulge with any other person as they both decided to marry together.Then the prosecutrix promised the applicant that she will never look for other options as they both decided to live together.However, the prosecutrix was never serious about the relationship and was suffering from various psychological 3 disorders and being a Doctor himself got her treated for her psychological disorder with the best professions at Indore.She is an alcoholic and habitual drinker and she is very influenced towards Urban life style, therefore, she never wanted to marry with the applicant and she again got herself involved with one boy namely Vishal Agrawal.The said fact is established from the telephonic conversation of the applicant and the prosecutrix.It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix had a problem with the applicant's caste, since he belongs to Scheduled Caste.The prosecutrix actually harassing the applicant to get unlawful demand fulfilled and used to abuse the applicant in the name of his caste.Thereafter, the prosecutrix lodged the false complaint against the applicant after registration of the said FIR.The statement of the applicant and the prosecutrix have been recorded before Police-Station-Mahila Thana, Indore, in which the prosecutrix fairly accepted that she was in love with the applicant for more than 7 years.She alleged that during this period the applicant made physical relationship with her on the pretext of getting her married.But when in the conciliation proceedings, the applicant told the prosecutrix that he is ready to marry her, then the prosecutrix clearly stated that she does not want to marry with him.Under these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.Hence, learned Senior counsel for the applicant prays for quashment of FIR bearing crime No. 54/2018 registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, Indore, District Indore for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. against the applicant and consequential proceedings relating thereto.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State opposed the application by contending that the applicant made physical relations with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and thereafter, he declined to marry with her, therefore, she has lodged the FIR against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.The grounds raised by the applicant in the present petition for quashment of the FIR are disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided at this stage, hence no case is made out for quashment of the FIR.Under these circumstances, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers.In the present case, the prosecutrix is a major lady and she came to the contact of the applicant in the year 2009 and after that they started spending time together and had fallen in love.After that both of them made physical relations, which shows that the prosecutrix was the consenting party.She had an inclination towards the accused.The accused had been giving her assurances of the fact that he would get married to her. | ['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,832,494 | R. SUBBIAH, J The accused 1 to 5 in S.C. No. 113 of 2013 on the file of theAdditional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Paramakudi are the appellantsin this appeal.The first accused stood charged for the offence punishableunder Section 148 and 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').The secondaccused was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 324, 302read with 34 of IPC.The case of the prosecution, as could be unfolded from thecomplaint, Ex.P1 dated 18.05.2011 given by PW1, is that on 17.05.2011 atabout 09.00 pm, PW1 along with his wife PW2, sons Arumugam (deceased), Erulamani (PW4), Muneeswaran (PW5) and daughter Thenmuniya Jothi (PW6) were watching television in their house.At that time, the accused 1 to 5unlawfully assembled in front of his house and shouted at the inmates of thehouse to come out.When PW1 along with others came out of the house, they saw the accused 1 to 5 standing in front of their house with deadly weapons.According to PW1, the first accused was in possession of a crow bar, thethird and fifth accused were armed with a sickle (Aruval), the second accusedwas armed with a iron rod and the fourth accused was in possession of astick.When PW1 asked the accused as to what is the matter, the firstaccused instigated the other accused to kill him for having prevented himfrom cutting the Kattu Karuvela trees.Thereafter, at9.00 pm, PW14 rushed to the scene of occurrence namely Kaanikur Village where he drew an observation mahazar.P12 in the presence of witnesses Bose (PW8) and Murugan (PW10).PW14 also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P13 in the presence of the same witnesses.Thereafter, PW14 proceeded to record the statement of Pws 1, 2, 4 and 3 separately.Peritoneal cavity ? empty; pleural cavities ? empty; pericardium ?contains 15 ml of straw colour fluid; Heart - Right side fluid blood, leftside empty; Coronaries ? patent; Lungs ? cut section congested; Larynx &trachea ? normal; Hyoid bone ? intact; Stomach ? contains 250 grams ofpartially digested cooked food materials, nil specific smell, mucosa ?normal; Liver, Spleen & Kidneys ? cut section congested; Small intestine ?contains 20 ml of bile stained fluid, nil specific smell, mucosa ? normal;Bladder empty; Brain ? described in the injury column.The deceased would appear to have died of head injury.In the meantime, during the course of his examination, PW15 onceagain examined PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW3 and recorded their statement at Government Rajaji Government Hospital.Thereafter, on 20.05.2011, onreceipt of information, PW15 rushed to Kamudhi to Sayalkudi Road at 7.00a.m.where he arrested A-2 and A-5 in the presence of witnesses Mr. Ramasamy (PW9) and Mr. Murugan (PW10) at Thiruvarai Bus Stop.P16 is the voluntary confession given by A-2, admitted portion of theconfession statement is Ex.Similarly, A-5 gave a voluntary confessionstatement and it was also recorded in the presence of same witnesses.The third accused stood charged for the offence underSection 147, 342, 302 read with 34 of IPC.The fourth accused was charged forthe offence under Section 147, 342, 302 read with 34 of IPC.The fifthaccused was charged for the offence under Section 147 and 302 read with 34 ofIPC.After conclusion of trial, all the accused were convicted by the trialCourt for the offence punishable under Section 149 read with Section 302 ofIPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, with fine of Rs.5000/-each failing which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.Obliging to such command of the firstaccused, A-4 and A-3 held the deceased Arumugam, who is the son of PW1 and 2, which facilitated A-1 to hit the deceased on his head with the crowbar and hefell down bleeding.When PW1 attempted to prevent the attack, A-5 held PW1 which facilitated A-2 to attack PW1 with the iron rod on his left cheek.Onseeing the accused attacking the deceased and PW1, PW2 and her children have raised an alarm.On hearing such alarm, Malaisamy (PW3), Brother-in-law ofPW1 came to the occurrence spot and on seeing him, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.On 19.05.2011, PW14 was informed that the deceased died in the hospital.Therefore, he altered the FirstInformation Report for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC.Ex.P14 is the altered report.On receipt of the altered report, Ex.P14,PW15, Inspector of Police, has taken over the investigation in this case.During the course of investigation, PW15 proceeded to RajajiGovernment Hospital, Madurai where he conducted inquest in the presence of Panchayatars namely Kalimuthu, Nagaraj, Murugavel, Karuppaiya, Sendhur Pandian between 9.30 am to 12.00 Noon.P15 is the Inquest Report.Accordingly, PW13, Dr. Pususthaman attached to Madurai Medical College conducted postmortem and issued Ex.P10, Mostmortem Certificate, wherein it was stated as follows:-?Appearance found at the Postmortem Moderately nourished body of a Male aged about 20 years.Finger andtoe nails are blue.The following Ante Mortem injuries are noted on the bodyCurvi linear suture surgical wound measuring 30 cm x 1 cm x braindeep noted over left temporo occipito and mid parietal region.On Dissection of Scalp, Skull & Dura;Contusion scalp measuring 12 x 10 cm noted on left fronto temporalregion and 07 cm x 5 cm on right frontal region.Six burr holes eachmeasuring 1.5 cm X 1.5 cm noted over left temporo parietal region.The bondpiece measuring 13 cm x 11 cm found removed and placed in the left temporo parietal region.Fracture skull bone measuring 7 cm in length noted on rightfrontal region.Diffused subdural haemorrhage & subarachoid haemorhage notedover the both cerebral hemispheres.Laceration of brain measuring 6 cm x 2cm x 1 cm noted on left temporar region.Carebro spinal fluid is increasedin volume and blood stained.On such arrest, A-2 gave a voluntary confession which was recorded in the presence of PW9 and 10.Ex.On the basis of suchconfession statements, PW-15 accompanied A-2 and A-5 to their house situate at Kanikur Village on 20.05.2011 at 9.30 pm from where A-5 handed over thewooden log used in the commission of offence and it was recovered under aMahazar, Ex.Thereafter, PW15 sent A-2 and A-5 for remand through the jurisdictional Court on 21.05.2011 at 10.30am.PW15 also prepared Form No.95 and sent the Wooden log recovered from A-2 to the Court.P20 is the voluntary confessionstatement given by A-1, admitted portion of the confession statement of A-1was marked as Ex.On the basis of such confession statement, PW-15 accompanied all the three accused namely A-1, A-3 and A-4 to the house ofA-1 at Kanikur Village where, from where A-1 handed over the crow bar used byhim in the commission of offence and it was recovered under a Mahazar,Ex.Thereafter, on the next day namely 22.05.2011, PW15 sent all thethree accused namely A-1, A-3 and A-4 to remand through the jurisdictionalCourt.PW15 also prepared Form No.95 and sent the Crowbar recovered from A-1 to the Court.In continuation of the investigation in the case, PW15recorded the statement of Adhistaraj, Head Constable (PW14) and Guru Muralidharan (PW12).Thereafter, PW15 was transferred and therefore, PW16 his successor has taken up the investigation and recorded the statement ofthe Doctor who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased.Similarly,PW16 has recorded the statement of PW1, PW5 and PW6 and recorded their additional statement.After completing all the formalities, PW16 obtained alegal opinion from the Public Prosecutor concerned and as per the opiniongiven, PW16 recorded the statement of Kannan, PW7 and Dr. Esther, who has given first aid to the deceased when he was admitted in the Government HeadQuarters Hospital at Ramanathapuram and who has referred the deceased to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for better treatment.PW16 also recordedthe statement of Muthusamy, Special Sub Inspector of Police, PW11 and Mr. Veeraraj, Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate Court.After completing all theformalities, PW16 laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offencespunishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 506 (ii) and 302 of IPC.Before the trial Court, in order to prove the guilt of theaccused, prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses as Pws 1 to 16 and marked Exs.When the accused were questioned with respect to the incriminating materials made available againstthem, they pleaded not guilty.Therafter, the trial Court, on appreciationof oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced to the accused asindicated in the preceding paragraph of this Judgment.The learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellantssubmitted that the prosecution did not prove the case against the appellantsbeyond reasonable doubt and there are several material inconsistencies in thecase of the prosecution, which goes to the root of the case.According tothe learned counsel for the appellants, Pws 1 to 6 are interested witnessesand based on such testimony the trial court ought not to have convicted theappellants.It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants thatPws 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased and PW4 to 6 are brothers and sisterof the deceased.Further, PW3 is the brother-in-law of PW1 and he is only ahear-say witness who did not witness the occurrence.Similarly, PW7 is alsorelated to the deceased and prosecution witnesses 1 to 6 and he did notwitness the occurrence.The learned counsel for the accused/appellant would furthercontend that the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 17.05.2011 at 9.00pm, but PW1, father of the deceased, has given the complaint only on the nextday i.e., 18.05.2011 at about 8.00 p.m. The said complaint was received fromPW1 by PW14, Sub-Inspector of Police at Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai and the case in Crime No. 9 of 2011 was registered on the file ofKovilangulam Police Station on 18.05.2011 at 8.00 p.m. While so, PW1 in hiscross-examination has stated that after the death of his son on the night of18.05.2011, he went to Kovilangulam Police Station and gave the complaint.To contradict this version of PW1, PW16, Inspector of Police has stated thatit is not correct to state that PW1 has come to the police station and gavethe complaint, rather, the complaint was obtained from PW1 from Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.This inconsistency in the deposition of PW1 willgo to the root of the case projected by the prosecution which was notconsidered by the trial Court.The learned counsel for the appellants would further contend thatthe occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 17.05.2011 at 9.00 pm, butthe complaint was given only on the next day i.e., 18.05.2011 at about 8.00p.m.Thus, there is a delay of about 24 hours in registering the complaint.PW16, Inspector of Police, in his deposition also admitted that in the FirstInformation Report, Ex.P11, there was no reference made with regard to thedelay in registering the complaint.Therefore, the delay in registering thecomplaint was not properly explained by the prosecution and it is fatal tothe case of the prosecution.The next fallacy in the case of the prosecution is that PW1, inhis complaint has stated that at the time of occurrence, A-5 held him whichfacilitated A-2 to attack him with the iron rod on his left cheek.However,PW1 in the cross-examination has admitted that he has not taken any treatment in any hospital for any injuries.This would indicate that during the courseof occurrence, PW1 did not sustain any injury, as alleged in the complaint.As regards the recovery of weapon used in the commission ofoffence, PW1 in the complaint has stated that the deceased was attacked by A-1 with a crowbar.PW16, Inspector of Police has recovered the so-calledcrowbar pursuant to the confession statement of A-1, in the presence of PW10,witness.However, PW10 turned hostile.Further, soon after the occurrence,the deceased was said to have been taken to Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, but the Accident Register issued by the said Hospital forhaving treated the deceased was not marked by the prosecution.Similarly,the Doctor, who treated the deceased at Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram was not examined on behalf of the prosecution.On the contrary, PW16,Inspector of Police in his deposition has stated that he obtained thestatement of Dr. Esther, who treated the deceased at Government Hospital,Ramanathapuram.In her statement, Dr. Esther has stated that when she treated the deceased, she was informed by the deceased that he was hit by astick on his head.Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has not comeforward with a clear version as to the alleged weapon used in the commissionof the offence.The trial court, failed to take note of the above materialinconsistencies while passing the impugned jUdgment.The learned counsel forthe appellants therefore prayed for setting aside of the Judgment of thecourt below.PW1, 2,4, 5 and 6 have witnessed the occurrence and merely because they happened to be the parents, brothers and sister of the deceased, their testimony cannotbe brushed aside on the ground that they are interested witness.Further,the testimony of PW1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, who have witnessed the occurrence, iscorroborated by each other, besides they were natural and cogent.On the very next day, thecomplaint given by PW1 was registered and therefore, much significance cannotbe given for the delay in registering the complaint.Furthermore, in thecomplaint, Ex.P1 dated 18.05.2011, PW1 has categorically given the name of the accused, the specific overt act attributable against each of the accusedand the motive for the attack.When the name of the accused was indicated inthe complaint, which has come into existence at the earliest point of time,it will only add strength to the case of the prosecution.Furthermore, it isnot disputed that the deceased died due to a homicidal act, as could beevident from the Postmortem report of the Doctor and therefore, it iscontended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the prosecutionhas proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, which was rightly taken note of by the trial court and therefore, he prayed fordismissal of the appeal.We have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record.The learned counsel for theappellants also pointed out the inconsistency in the deposition of PW1, whohas deposed that the complaint was given by him in person in the policestation, whereas, PW14, Sub-Inspector of Police has deposed that he hadobtained the complaint from PW1 at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, whichwas also affirmed by PW15, Inspector of Police.Furthermore, the prosecutionfailed to examine Dr. Esther, who has given first aid to the deceased, forthe reasons best known to them.In fact, in the statement given by Dr.Esther to PW16, she has clearly stated that at the time when she treated thedeceased, the deceased informed her that he was beaten on his head with astick.While so, the theory of the prosecution that the first accused hadused the crow bar to deliver a blow on the head of the deceased cannot beaccepted.It is well settled that the testimony of interested witnessescannot be simply brushed aside and if their testimony inspires the confidenceof the Court, it can always be reliable and in all the cases, the requirementto examine independent witness cannot be insisted.In this backdrop, it hasto be seen as to whether the testimony of the prosecution witnesses 1 to 6 inthis case can be relied on or not.According to PW1, on the date ofoccurrence, when he along with Pws 2, 4, 5 and 6 were watching television,the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in front ofhis house and shouted at the inmates of the house to come out.When PW1 and others came out of the house, the accused were armed with deadly weapons and A-1 attacked the deceased with a crow bar and that second accused had attacked PW1 with a wooden log on his cheek.At the outset, it is to be noted that if really PW1 was attackedby second accused, as portrayed by him, he would have taken treatment forsuch injuries sustained by him.However, PW1 has categorically deposed thathe has not taken treatment in any of the hospital, thereby it could beinferred that he did not sustain any injury at the instance of the accused.This piece of deposition of PW1, in our opinion, has weakened the caseprojected by the prosecution.We have also noticed from the material records that evenaccording to PW1, A-1 has given a single blow on the head of the deceasedwith a crow bar.Further, soon after such attack, the deceased was taken toGovernment Hospital, Ramanathapuram where the deceased was treated by Dr. Esther.At the time of such treatment, the deceased himself has informed theDoctor that he was assaulted on his head with a stick.This could beinferred from the deposition of PW16, who has obtained the statement of Dr.Esther during the course of his investigation.As rightly pointed out by thecounsel for the accused/appellants, the prosecution, for the reasons bestknown, did not examine Dr. Esther as one of the witnesses, who has giventreatment to the deceased at Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram.Further, the investigation officer is said to have recovered the crowbar in thepresence of PW10, but, however, PW10 has turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to recovery of the alleged crowbarused by the firstr accused in the commission of offence.Therefore, we findconsiderable force in the submission of the counsel for the appellants thatthe prosecution has not made it clear as to whether the deceased was hit by acrowbar or a stick.As we have held above, at the time of occurrence, there was noinjury sustained by PW1, as alleged.Moreover, from the cumulative readingof evidence narrated above, it is clear that though the prosecution hasestablished that A-1 has given a single blow on the head of the deceased andit is the said blow which caused the death of the deceased, it has failed toestablish that the deceased was hit by a crow bar or a stick, which led tothe death of the deceased.Therefore, the conviction of the first accusedfor the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC cannot be sustained.Similarly, the prosecution has failed to bringforth the specific overt actattributable against A-2 to A-5 in the commission of offence and therefore,we are constrained to hold that the prosecution failed to bring home theguilt of the accused 2 to 5 and they are only entitled to be acquitted fromthe charges.Consequently, we are of the view that the judgment ofconviction passed by the trial court in respect of A-2 to A-5 cannot besustained and it is liable to be set aside.As far as A-1 is concerned, it is clear that he had given asingle blow on the head of the deceased, which led to his death.Thus, theact of the first accused would clearly fall within the third limb of Section300 IPC.The same would also fall under the first exception to Section 300IPC.Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished only under Section304(i)IPC.Therefore, we are only inclined to modify the period of sentenceimposed against the first accused from life imprisonment into one of rigorousimprisonment for a period of seven years.In the result, the Judgment dated 05.07.2017 passed in S.C. No.113 of 2013 on the file of Additional District Court (Fast Track Court)Paramakudi is set aside only in so far as the accused 2 to 5/appellants 2 to5 are concerned.Insofar as the first accused/first appellant is concerned,we confirm the conviction imposed on the first accused/first appellant onlyfor the offence punishable under Section 304 (i) of IPC and modify thesentence imposed on him from life imprisonment into one of rigorousimprisonment for a period of seven years.ToThe Additional District Court(Fast Track Court) Paramakudi . | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,835,584 | O.P.(MD) No.13959 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos. 8513 and 8514 of 2019 01.10.2019http://www.judis.nic.inThis petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 244 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai , as against this petitioner alone.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.Heard Mr.Side) appearing for the first respondent.13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 244 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.Further, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application.The petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment.01.10.2019 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order aavhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 To1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai2.The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station Kanyakumari DistrictThe Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Courthttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.aav Crl. | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,183,648 | of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of Manju (since deceased) was solemnized with the respondent and in the wedlock, they were blessed with three children.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned Government Advocate argued that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.After appreciating the evidence on record, trial Court found that the marriage was solemnized more than 7 years prior to the date of incident.P/3-A) that on the date of incident, at about 5 a.m., when she was cleaning the house, a chimney fell on her due to which she caught fire.That apart, the trial Court found that C.L.Idpache (PW10), Investigating Officer, had not recorded the statements of neighbours.Moreover, Radhabai (DW3), mother-in- law of the deceased, had also sustained burn injuries to the extent of 30%, in her attempt to save the deceased.Besides this, Saroj Bai (DW2), Sunita (DW4), Basant Kumar (DW5), Sohanlal (DW6) and Dilip Kumar(DW7) deposed that behaviour of her in-laws was very cordial towards the deceased and the incident took place as disclosed in the dying declaration.In view of aforesaid including material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations, trial Court disbelieved the evidence of Sanjay Patel (PW6), Pannalal Thekre (PW4), Parvati bai (PW7) respectively brother, father and mother of the deceased.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,836,815 | Petitioner is TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 1 of 11 residing in her matrimonial home i.e. property bearing No. 138, FF, Gupta Colony, New Kalyan Vihar, Delhi, since her marriage with the respondents purchased by the joint funds/income after selling another ancestral property.The elder daughter of the petitioner is in 4th class and younger daughter is hardly about months old.TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 1 of 11MM on her complaint under the domestic Violence Act has appointed Protection Officer and also issued notice to the respondents.The Protection Officer has filed his report dated 17.03.2017 wherein it is reported that petitioner is residing in the suit property.TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 2 of 11It is further alleged that on 01.09.2018 around 1:50 p.m. when cousin brother of petitioner namely Mr. Ajay Chopra had gone to attend the matter of the petitioner, pending in the court of Ms. Riya TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 3 of 11 Gua, MM Rohini Court, Mr. Rohit Khera Advocate, Rajesh Kaushik, Deepak Bhudhiraja and other 2-3 lawyers started beating him outside the washroom.Mr. Rohit Khera in the meanwhile had taken out some sharp/pointed weapon and hit Ajay Chopra as a result of which, he received abrasions below elbow.They further threatened Ajay Chopra to impress petitioner to withdraw the case failing which they would kill Ajay Chopra and his entire family.Due to continuous punches and slaps, Ajay Chopra suffered grievous injury.All the accused persons on the instruction of Rohit Khera also snatched mobile phone of Ajay Chopra and there after they went away with the same.TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 3 of 11Ajay Chopra called the police on 100 number from the mobile phone of Mr. Kunal Kalra Advocate.Due to severe beating Ajay Chopra was not able to hear from the left ear.TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 4 of 11TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 4 of 11It is further submitted that petitioner has concocted a false and frivolous story only to mislead and misguide the court.In her reply, respondent no. 2 has stated that she is an old lady aged about 70 years, suffering from various old age ailments.BRIJESH SETHI, JThis is a petition for transfer of case titled Kapila Bhudhiraja v. Deepak Budhiraja & Anr.bearing no. 2311/2017 pending before the court of Ms. Riya Gua, Ld. M.M.-Rohini Courts, Delhi to any other District Court.Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 12 read with Section 17 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act against the respondents.Vide order dated 21.03.2017, Ld.MM has refrained the respondents from committing any physical violence against the petitioner and her minor children and the respondents were restrained from dispossessing the complainant/petitioner and her two children from the suit property till the disposal of the case.It is further submitted that respondent No.1, in connivance with Respondent No. 2, has filed a suit for mandatory injunction and for recovery of mesne profit against the petitioner wherein the TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 2 of 11 respondent No.1 has sought a decree of mandatory injunction directing the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to remove themselves and their belongings from the suit property.It is submitted that under the garb of mandatory injunction, the respondent No. 1 has sought possession of the suit property.The order dated 21.03.2017, passed by the learned MM has attained finality as the respondents have not challenged the said order within the stipulated period of limitation.It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 stealthily challenged the said order dated 12.07.2017 before learned Addl.Session Judge presenting misleading facts that the learned trial court has passed an order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner and her children on 12.07.2017 instead of 21.3.2017 in order to make her appeal within the stipulated period of limitation.The learned ASJ has allowed the appeal and has set aside the order dated 12.7.2017 and has vacated the restrain order dated 21.3.2017, which was never challenged by the respondent.Police arrived at Court Room number 104 and took Ajay Chopra to Dr. Baba Sahib Ambedkar Hospital.MLC of Ajay Chopra was prepared and after check-up, he was informed by the Doctor that his left Ear Drum has got damaged due to blows.Ajay Chopra filed a written complaint before Chowki Incharge, Rohini Court, Delhi and when he along with his son Ankit and Rahul were sitting outside the chowki, Rohini Court, the above named accused persons with 15-20 lawyers had come near chowki and started beating Ajay, Ankit and Rahul brutally with belts, danda and pipes in order to kill them.They were beaten in the court premises and also near the gate of Chowki and in front of police officers who stood as mute spectator.Another complaint was also filed narrating the aforesaid facts.The police assured the petitioner that strict action would be taken against the accused persons.However, an FIR was registered only under 323/341/506/34 IPC i.e. Sections of IPC which are bailable in nature.It is further alleged that main accused persons are Rohini based lawyers and all of them have threatened that they would not allow the petitioner and his family members to enter Rohini Court.It is next submitted that since relatives of the petitioner were beaten blue black in front of the police chowki, therefore, there is no question that petitioner can visit Rohini Court for her matters.Deepak Bhudiraja may be transfered to any other District Court from Rohini Courts so that petitioner can pursue her case.TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 5 of 11Assailing the allegations of petitioner, respondent no. 1 and 2 have filed their respective reply.In his reply, respondent no. 1 stated that on the alleged date of incident, petitioner, her counsel as well as respondent no. 1 were absent, thus, there is no question of any kind of fight or altercation as alleged by the petitioner.It is further submitted that Rohini Courts is just one kilometre from her residence and hence it would be very difficult for her to attend hearing in any other court as she is unable to walk property without stick and also suffers from low vision.I have considered the rival submissions.Admittedly with regard to the incident dated, 01.09.2018, alleged to have happened in the precincts of Rohini Courts Complex, an FIR bearing no. TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 6 of 11 419/2018 was registered in PS Prashant Vihar under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC.The said FIR runs as under:-TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 6 of 11"Complainant on behalf of Mr.Ajay Chopra against Mr. Rohit Khera advocate, Rajesh Kaushik advocate and Deepak Budhi Raja for badly beating me and causing me grievous hurt and also snatching my mobile phone make MI.Today, around 1:50 pm when I have reached to attend a matter of my cousin sister Kapila Budhi Raja which is pending in the court of Ms. Riya Gua, MM, Rohini Court titled Kapila Buhdhiraja V/S Deebak Budhiraja.Complai9nant went to the washrom and he came out from the washroom, Mr. Rohit Khera, Advocate, Rajesh Kaushik, Deepak Budhiraja and other 2-3 lawyers has started beating me by slapping me outside the washroom which is opposite to room no. 104 and continuously beating me by slapping and punching me.Rohini Khera, in the mean time took some sharp/pointed weapon and hit me and the result where of I received abrasions below my elbow.Mr. Rohini Khera and Deepak Budhiraja have threatened me to ask Kapila to withdraw the case, failing which he will kill me and my entire family.That Rohit Khera and Deepak Budhiraja caught hold my collar and continued to punch and slap me on my face and the result where of complainant has received grievous hurt.All the accused persons on the instruction of Rohit Khera continued with illegal act and they snatched my mobile phone and there after they went away with my mobile.At around 2 O clock when TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 7 of 11 Kapilas advocate Kunal Kalra came to attend the hearing and he was informed about the aforesaid incident and complainant has been made 100 number call from mobile phone of Mr. Kunal Kalra advocate.Due to severe beating, complainant is not able to hear from left ear and when police man arrived at court room number 104 on my call he took me to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar hospital and MLC was prepared and further after cheek-up, it was informed by the doctor that the left ear drum of complainant got damaged due to blows and the result where of complainant is not able to hear from the said ear.The copy of the emergency registration card is attached here with.You are requested to immediately register an FIR against the aforesaid accused person in accordance with law and in interest of justice."TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 7 of 11The main grievance of the petitioner is that due to the incident which has occurred within the premises of the Rohini Court Complex on 01.09.2018, wherein cousin of the petitioner namely Ajay Chopra was mercilessly assaulted by some persons including some practicing advocates, it is not possible for her to attend the hearing of the matter pending in the court of Ms. Riya Gua, Ld. M.M.-Rohini Courts, Delhi as there is an apprehension of threat to her life.Counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record copy of order dated 16.10.2019 passed in W.P. Crl.3493/2018 filed by Ajay Chopra for invoking of appropriate provisions against the TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 8 of 11 accused persons in accordance with law.As per the above order, Section 325 IPC has been invoked in the FIR bearing no. 419/2018, registered at PS Prashant Vihar on the basis of medical opinion and accused Deepak Budhiraja, Rohit Khera and Rajesh Kaushik, Advocates have joined investigations and are being examined.In the said order, it is also submitted by Bar Council of Delhi that proceedings have been initiated against the delinquent advocates and necessary action would be taken in accordance with law.Though Ld. Counsel for the respondents stated that petitioner has concocted a false and frivolous story only to mislead and misguide the court but this court is of the view whether the incident dated 01.09.2018 is true or false cannot be decided at this stage.Moreover this fact also cannot be ignored that qua the incident dated 01.09.2018, an FIR bearing no. 419/2018 has been registered with PS Prashant Vihar wherein some practicing advocates are also named.Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds substance in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that she has apprehension of threat to her life and limb as well as to the persons/relatives accompanying her in case she appears in the TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 9 of 11 hearing of the case titled Kapila Bhudhiraja v. Deepak Budhiraja & Anr.bearing no. 2311/2017 pending before the court of Ms. Riya Gua, Ld. M.M.-Rohini Courts, Delhi and she will not be able to pursue her case in a fair and proper manner and will not be able to get justice.TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 8 of 11TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 9 of 11So far as contention of respondent no. 2 that she is an old lady of about 70 years, suffering from various old age ailments and ,therefore, it would be very difficult for her to attend hearing in any other court is concerned, this court is of the view that respondent no. 2 may request the court for her exemption on medical grounds, if so required, through her counsel and the court will no doubt consider the same in accordance with law if there is truth in her submission after examining the medical documents.In view of above discussion, the petition is allowed.District & Sessions Judge, North District is directed to transfer the case titled Kapila` Bhudhiraja v. Deepak Budhiraja & Anr.bearing no. 2311/2017 pending before the court of Ms. Riya Gua, Ld.M.M.- Rohini Courts, Delhi to the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts for assigning the same to a court of TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 10 of 11 competent jurisdiction.TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 10 of 11Since the case stands transferred to Central District at Tis Hazari Courts, DCP Central District is directed to carry out threat assessment and if required adequate security be provided to the petitioner while appearing in the court.A copy of the order be also sent to DCP Central District for information and necessary action.Transfer petition stands disposed of accordingly.BRIJESH SETHI, J FEBRUARY 5, 2020 AK TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 11 of 11TR.P.(CRL) 8/2019 Page 11 of 11 | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,838,222 | In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06.5.2010 in connection with Kumargram P.S. Case No. 07/2003 dated 20.02.2003 under Sections 120B/121A/122/123/124A/333/186/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1)(a)/27 of the Arms Act and Section 4 of E.S. Act and Section 9 of the M.P.O. Act.In re : Sanjoy Basumata & Anr. ... Petitioners.Mr. Subir Debnath .. for the petitioners.He be, accordingly, granted bail of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5000/- each, of whom one must be local with landed property.Such bail bonds are to be furnished to the satisfaction of the learned Additiona Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri, to whom a copy of this order be sent at once.If on bail, the petitioner no.1 must not leave the Sub-Division of Alipurduar without express permission of the learned court.So far the prayer for bail of the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the same stands rejected at this stage. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,918,413 | In the said complaint it was alleged that complainant respondent No. 2, Ajay Fotedar, had invested sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- from his own sources and also took a loan of Rs. 1,67,000/- from the Bank of Maharashtra for investment in the said partnership business.The books of accounts were kept by Sh.It is alleged in the said complaint that petitioner No. 1 has started a sole proprietorship concern under the name and style of M/s Samsaur Impex and opened a account in the Karnataka Bank Limited, Connaught Place and in that account there has been a turn over of more than Rs. 50 lakhs.According to the complainant, this amount reflects the price of the goods sold which were actually manufactured by the partnership concern M/s Samsaur Impex and were exported.The complainant alleged that this amounts to breach of trust and misappropriation of the partnership money.P.C petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 308/2001 under section 406, 420, 120B, IPC, P.S. Ashok Vihar, Delhi.Briefly stated facts leading to this petition are that on 26.2.97 a partnership agreement was entered into between the petitioner Smt. Ira Juneja and respondent No. 2, Ajay Fotedar to carry on the business of manufacturing and sale/ export/ import of leather goods or garments under the name & style of M/s Samsaur Impex.The petitioner already had some export orders worth Rs.6 lac for export of leather goods to USA.Her initial contribution to the partnership was in the form of some machinery valuing about Rs. 48,000/-.Financial contribution mainly came from the side of respondent No. 2, Ajay Fotedar, the other partner of the firm.The two partners were to share profit and losses equally.It appears that partnership business could not run smoothly.In October 1999, respondent No. 2, Ajay Fotedar, one of the partners made a complaint to the Crime Branch but no action was taken thereon.Then in May 2001 he made another complaint to the Commissioner of Police.It was further alleged that a Bank account No. 9137 in Punjab National Bank was opened at I.G Airport in the name of partnership M/s Samsaur Impex and the duty draw back permissible under the rules was to be remitted to the said account but the petitioners induced/ misguided the complainant in signing a letter addressed to the Bank intimating that the firm has stopped business and requesting the Bank to close the account.As a matter of fact the firm was not closed.According to the complainant the remittance obtained from the import of goods manufactured by the partnership firm should have been credited in the partnership account. | ['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,851,891 | Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Akshay in Crime No.235/2018 registered by P.S. Waraseoni, District Balaghat under Sections 354, 456 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a 32 years old unmarried woman.On 28.05.2018, the prosecutrix had refused to give vegetables to the petitioner.Enraged by aforesaid conduct of the prosecutrix, the petitioner entered her house at 2:00 a.m. on 29.05.2018 after kicking the door of the house open.When the mother of the prosecutrix intercepted him, he kicked her twice.Thereafter, the petitioner went inside the house of the prosecutrix and mounted her.He tried to clamp her mouth shut and tried to throttle her.When the prosecutrix resisted, he ran away.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Akshay, is allowed. | ['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,852,113 | Record of the Court below has been received.Heard on I.A.No.6854/2019, an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of custodial sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Dinkar Mane.The appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Seven years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and under Section 450 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Three years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations respectively.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix at the time of incident was 25 years old.Her husband has been removed from the service by the appellant.On the basis of that she has filed false report against the appellant.As per the statement of the prosecutrix, she was staying along with her sister-in-law with her son in hut.She stated that when accused got entered into the hut and dragged her in another room and committed rape she shouted loudly.Her Sister-in-law Jyoti woke up then the appellant fled away from the spot.In the morning, she narrated the incident to the her husband.The main witness Jyoti was not examined by the prosecution.Doctor who examined the prosecutrix has not found any sign of struggle.Learned Government Advocate submits that statement of the prosecutrix is reliable and corroborated by the FSL report.Therefore, prays for dismissal of the application.After hearing the contentions of both the parties and perused the statement of the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix in cross-examination has Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 16/04/2019 18:52:28 2 CRA-9069-2018 categorically stated that so many labours were residing nearby her hut where the incident took place.She also stated that for 10 minutes appellant dragged her and she shouted.Prosecution has not examined the Sister-in-law, Jyoti who was sleeping in the hut.Appellant was enlarged on bail during trial.Considering all these facts of the case, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, inclined to suspend the further custodial jail sentence of the appellant till disposal of this appeal.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE vinay Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 16/04/2019 18:52:28 | ['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,185,797 | Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved with the order dated 24.04.2020, rendered by Special Judge SC/ST (PA), Indore whereby the prayer for regular bail has been declined.As per prosecution story, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the appellant alleging that on the pretext of marriage, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix.On that basis, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant.It is also submitted that although the prosecutrix is minor aged about 16 years, however, according to her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, she was having love affair with the appellant and she had gone with him on her own accord and she remained in the company of the appellant for a considerable period.In the aforesaid statement she has not made any allegation against the appellant regarding abduction or commission of rape.Investigation is over, charge-sheet has been filed.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient time.Under these circumstance, learned counsel for the appellant prays for bail to the appellant.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as counsel for the complainant submit that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the appellant on bail, hence the application filed by the appellant be dismissed.Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the appeal filed by the appellant may be accepted.Consequently, setting aside the impugned order, the appeal is hereby allowed.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) Judge praveen PRAVEEN Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, KUMAR st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c454 715d6eccc5a350c9111fb019b34dace NAYAK 6d05b8fd5, cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2020.10.22 11:25:12 +05'30' | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,861,474 | pk CRM No. 2448 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18.3.15 in connection with Nakashipara P.S. Case No. 679/14 dated 25.8.14 under Sections 376/511/120B/379 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Chimar Ali Sk.376/511/120B/379 of the Indian Penal Code has come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,867,325 | According to him, in theincident dated 28.9.2020 which took place at about 5.00 p.m. he andthe members of his family were assaulted.In his family, at therelevant time, there were three issues and his wife.According to him, he haddriven them out of the house and then he had returned to the shop.It is his contention that after some time when he was present at theshop the aforesaid accused persons and other accused like RajuShaikh, Jamil Hakim came to his shop with weapons like stick andaxe and they picked up quarrel with him.It is contended that therewas some previous dispute with these persons and in the quarrel,Shaikh Alim gave blow of axe from the blunt side on his head andcaused him injury.In the frst matter, relief of direction is claimed thatsection 307 of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) be added in C.R.No.478/2020 registered with Bhokardan Police Station.Direction isalso claimed to transfer the investigation of the matter to C.I.D. Inthe second proceeding, similar relief is claimed.It appears that both ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 02:50:19 ::: Cri.W.P.No.1229/20 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 02:50:19 :::the proceedings were fled through the same counsel.Both the sidesare heard.One Nasreen ishis elder daughter.According to him, initially he and his two sonswere present in his chicken shop and the other two members, hiswife and daughter were at home.According to him, his son Abujar was assaulted byShaikh Jamil by giving blow of iron bar on his leg and fracture injury ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 02:50:19 ::: Cri.W.P.No.1229/20 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 02:50:19 :::was caused.According to him, in the incident Shaikh Gani gave blowof wooden log on the head of his son and caused bleeding injury tohis son.According to him, his son Abdul Azim was assaulted byShaikh Salim by using iron pipe and bleeding injury was caused tothe head of Abdul Azim.It is his contention that all of them hadbecome unconscious and these persons left the spot.According tohim, they had then gone to police station and police had referredthem to hospital.The petitioner has produced the record of M.L.C. andcase papers.The record shows that his one son sustained fractureinjury of fbula right and history of assault was given.He alsosustained some injuries.Abujar was admitted in hospital fortreatment for few days.The second proceeding is fled by Shaikh Nazreen and itis her contention that on that day there was incident of rape also andsection 376 of I.P.C. ought to have been used.It was submitted thatseparate crime ought to have been registered.Copy of writtencomplaint given on 29.9.2020 by Nasreen is produced and in thatcomplaint she had made allegations that all the four accused like ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 02:50:19 ::: Cri.W.P.No.1229/20 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 02:50:19 :::Alim Shaikh, Azim Shaikh, Kalim Shaikh and Jalim Hakim had enteredtheir house when she and her mother were present, they hadassaulted them and they had misbehaved with her and they hadintention to commit rape on her.Thus, in the written complaint also,no allegation was made that she was raped.The M.L.C. shows thatsome injuries were found on her person like contusion, blunt traumaand history of assault was given.ThisCourt holds that the direction as claimed cannot be given in view ofthe material available.In the result, both the petitions standdismissed.::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 02:50:19 ::: | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,868,321 | A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 34 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. |
191,870,943 | Mankandey Basor came to the house of accused Munna Basore and held the prosecutrix (PW1), took her to a room and committed rape upon her.The accused Munna and his wife closed the door of that room from outside.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has challenged the order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Singrauli in ST.No.72 of 2011 whereby, the applicant was made an accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C of offence under Sections 212, 213 and 120-B of I.P.C. The facts of the case in short, are that, the prosecutrix (PW1) has lodged an FIR at Police Station, Chitrangi on 10.12.2010 that she went to the house of accused Munna.At that time the accused Munna and his wife were present.The accused Munna kept a lock on the door and wife of the accused Munna did not help the prosecutrix.On the next day morning, wife of Munna gave some clothes to the prosecutrix to wear and threw the clothes of the prosecutrix on roof of the house.The prosecutrix has given similar statement under section 161 of the Cr.P.C., thereafter.At the time of deposition in the Court she has stated that on the next day morning the applicant Manoj came to the house of Munna and directed to open the door and thereafter, the prosecutrix could be recovered then applicant told the prosecutrix to go and lodge the FIR at the Police Station, Chitrangi and till that time the accused Markandey shall be held by him.However, thereafter on taking some money from the accused Markandey the applicant allowed him to go.The trial Court after considering the evidence given by the prosecutrix (PW1) accepted the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C and implicated the applicant as an accused of offence under Sections 212, 213 and 120-B of I.P.C.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the prosecutrix did not mention either in the FIR or in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C about the overt act of the applicant.The prosecutrix has stated that the applicant was the person by whom she could be recovered from the house of Munna.She did not say anything to show that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy done by the co-accused Munna and Markandey.In the cross examination it was asked by the defence counsel that what happened to the accused Markandey and thereafter, the prosecutrix gave an answer that the applicant took some money from Markandey and released him.However, Sukariya (PW2) has accepted that she had no knowledge that the applicant took any money from Markandey.It appears that the prosecutrix who, went to the Police Station could not see as to how the accused Markandey was released and therefore, she alleged against the applicant on the basis of suspicion.When the accused Markandey had committed rape upon the prosecutrix then it was in the interest of the prosecutrix to get her released and let her be permitted to go to the Police Station to lodge an FIR and therefore, the applicant has helped the prosecutrix in going to the Police Station and when a named FIR was lodged against the accused Markandey then Police was in a position to arrest the accused Markandey.If Markandey left the house of Munna then it cannot be said that it was due to instigation of the applicant.After considering the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW1) and witness Sukariya (PW2) and looking to the FIR as well as previous statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C no offence under Sections 212 or 213 of I.P.C is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 120-B of I.P.C. If a person tries to help the accused and accused leaves from the custody of a particular person then it cannot be said that the person has given harbour to the accused or after taking gift he screened the offender.If the applicant was interested to screen the accused Markandey then he could not permit the prosecutrix to go and lodge an FIR against the accused Markandey.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the impugned order passed by the trial Court apepars to be perverse and it cannot be sustained.Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant Manoj Singh is hereby allowed.The order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Singrauli in ST.The application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. filed against the applicant is also dismissed.C.C as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,876,245 | Heard on the bail application.Perused the case diary This is fourth bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The third bail application has been dismissed vide order dated 8.7.2014 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.247/2013 registered at Police Station, AJK, Datia, District Datia, under Sections 364(A), 506-B of IPC, under Section 3(ii)(v) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act.As per the prosecution case, the son of the complainant went from office alongwith Satyendra Singh Parihar.He did not return.Report was lodged.She talked with her son Neeraj, who told that these persons are demanding money.One person on mobile told that he is Satyendra Parihar and asked to come alongwith cash of Rs.Twenty lacs, otherwise her son would be killed.The complainant has narrated the incident to her son-in-law and then lodged the report.2 M.Cr.It is submitted that after rejection of third bail appli98cation the statements of abductee alongwith his mother (PW-5) and other six witnesses have been recorded.PW-2 to PW-7 have not supported the prosecution case.Trial will take some time.Therefore, the applicant be released on bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.Shivam Dubey has also turned hostile.Manoj Kushwah (PW-1) is the witness of memorandum and seizure.Considering the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and the fact that the applicant is under custody for more than a year, but without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge Patil | ['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,918,818 | The deceased in this case was Ram Chandra.He, Shyam Lal informant and Ram Das were real brothers inter se.Kishan Lal accused-appellant and the co-accused Ved Ram and Daya Shanker were real brothers inter se being sons of Ganga Ram.All of them were Jatav by caste.One Sita Ram is maternal uncle of Daya Shanker and other accused-appellant i.e. to say Sita Ram was the brother of the mother of Daya Shanker and others.The prosecution story was that Daya Shanker accused-appellant has developed illicit relations with the wife of Sita Ram which relation continued for 3-4- years prior to the date of occurrence and as far back as one month from the date of occurrence, Daya Shanker had started keeping with himself the said wife of Sita Ram as his mistress and she lived at his house for 10-12 days, whereafter, the mother of Daya Shanker accused-appellant sent that woman to her parents place Pundri as she had disliked the coming of that woman, that the said woman sent mass-age to Shyam Lal informant calling upon him to meet her in Mainpuri, whereupon, he went to Mainpuri and met her and she told him that her husband was not keeping him and that he (informant) should persuade the mother of Daya Shanker accused-appellant to keep her, whereupon, he met the mother of Daya Shanker accused-appellant but she did not agree, that thereupon, Ram Chandra accused-appellant persuaded his younger brother Ram Das to keep this woman as his own wife and consequently, this woman started living with Ram Das as his wife at the house of the informant Shyam Lal.The prosecution story further is that 2 days prior to the present occurrence, all the three accused-appellant had threatened Ram Chandra deceased to see him.The present occurrence took place on 16-10-1979 at 7.00 p.m. The prosecution claim that at that time, Ram Chandra deceased was repairing the sides of a water channel (Barha) near the Usar of Narendra Singh Pradhan in order to carry water to the paddy field of the family while Shyam Lal informant was present in the eastern paddy field of the family waiting arrival of water for irrigation, that at that time, Ramesh Chandra deceased cried, "CHALIYO BHAYEE MUJHEY KISHAN LAL NE PAKAR LIYA HAI", whereupon the informant Deen Dayal and Akhter ran towards the deceased and Deen Dayal witness flashed his torch and Mathura Prasad Mishra who was returning from Mainpuri to his own village also flashed his torch and rushed to the spot and saw that Kishan Lal accused -appellant was holding Ram Chandra deceased and exhorted, "IS SALEY KO JAN SEY MAR DO," and that Ved Ram accused-appellant inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased with knife while Daya Shanker accused-appellant assaulted him and inflicted injuries with Gandasa, that due to the injury, Ram Chandra deceased fell down to the ground and the assailants ran away and when the informant and the witnesses reached near the deceased he died instantaneously at the spot itself.The first information report of this case was lodged by Shyam Lal informant at the police station Bhogaon at 10.30 p.m., the distance of the police station being 7 miles.The usual check report was prepared and a case of murder was registered against all the three accused-appellants.The inquest proceedings were taken and the deceased was dispatched for post mortem and the usual investigation followed concluding in the submission of charge-sheet.In the result, there remains only the Crl.Appeal No. 759 of 1980 to the extent of Kishan Lal accused-appellant.We have heard parties counsel.The post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Ram Chandra was performed by doctor J. P. Gupta, P. W. 6 on 17-10-1979 at 4.30 p.m. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased;ANTE MORTEM INJURIESLacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. bone deep starting from midline of forehead reaching to the upper end of Rt.2 c.m. above the Rt.Eyebrow, underneath bone fractured.Lacerated wound 6 cm.x 1 c.m. x bone deep over the Rt. side of face along the mandible, underneath bone fractured.Lacerated wound 6 cm.x 0.5 cm.muscle deep over the Rt.Side of chin, 0.5 cm.below the in.Incised wound 4 cm.x 0.5 cm.x muscle deep over the lower chin Rt.side 2.5 cm.Incised wound 3 cm.x 1 cm.x muscle deep over the Rt. side of neck 2 cm.below the Rt.Lacerated wound 4 c.m.x 0.2 cm.x skin deep over the outer surface of Rt.leg 12 cm.below the Rt. knee.7. 2 Lacerated wounds in an area of 12 cm.x 3 c.m.over the outer surface of Rt. leg, 2.5 c.m.x 0.5 c.m. skin deep 1.5 cm.x 0.5 cm., 8 cm.apart, 10 cm.below the Lt. knee.Incised wound 3 cm.x 1.5 cm.x bone deep over the posterior surface of neck starting, from midline to the lower end of Rt.Ear, 5 cm.Two abrasions in one area of 1 cm.x 8 c.m.over the back of Rt. shoulder.7 cm.x 5 c.m.x 1.5 c.m.x 0.5 cm.Two abrasions in an area of 7 cm.x 5 c.m.over the Rt. side of back 5 c.m.below the Inf.angle of the Rt. scapula, 3 cm.x 1.5 c.m., 2.5 c.m. x 1 cm.One abrasion 5 cm.x 0.5 cm.over the post surface of Rt.One abrasion 3 cm.x 1.5 cm.over the post surface of Lt. thigh.15 cm.above the Lt. knee.Internal examination revealed fracture on right frontal and parietal bones besides the fractures noted in the ante mortem injuries.The doctor has given his considered opinion that ante mortem injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 could be caused by knife.He also stated that though Gandasa is heavy sharp cutting weapon if the blade of a Gandasa had become blunt and rusted then the wounds caused by it would be lacerated.He further stated that the injuries Nos. 9 to 12 could be caused by fall.Deen Dayal P. W. 4 was hostile in as much as he claimed that he could not identify the assailants and that neither he nor Akhter had any torch with them.However, he admitted his presence at the spot and also testified, to the alarm of the deceased and the reaching of the witnesses including himself to the spot and the running away of the assailants after committing the offence.On the point of motive, he testfied to the living of the wife of Sita Ram with Ram Das in the days of offence and also claimed that the accused persons felt enmity towards deceased.Shyam Lal informant P. W. 2 and Mathura Prasad P. W. 5 both supported the prosecution case in full and nominated all the accused-appellants as the culprits and the learned Sessions Judge has believed the prosecution evidence and so awarded the conviction and sentence as aforesaid.The main argument of the learned counsel for the present accused-appellant Kishan Lal is that the roles of assault with weapons have been imputed only to Day a Shankar and Ved Ram accused-appellants and that the injuries on the body of the deceased correspond only to the weapon of Daya Shanker and Ved Ram co-accused and that the present accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity simply because he also happened to be the brother of Daya Shanker and Ved Ram co-accused.It has been argued that false implication of an innocent person along with the real culprit is common in our country and that consequently prosecution evidence should be discarded as regards Kishan Lai accused-appellant and he should be given the benefit of doubt.The learned A. G. A. has on the other hand supported the prosecution case as against this accused-appellant.It has been mentioned that he had played an active role in the occurrence by not only exhorting but also grasping the victim to facilitate his murder.He also pointed out that there was motive established on record for all the 3 accused-appellant to commit the murder of the deceased.We have considered the submissions of the parties counsel.There are some prominent circumstances in this case which tends to go in favour of the accused-appellant.We have already noted the evidence of Deen Dayal P. W. 4 who was hostile, regarding the identity of the assailants.Regarding Mathura Prasad, P. W. 5 it has been pointed out firstly that he was only a chance witness who claimed to be returning from Mainpuri to his own village after shopping and on his own showing, his statement was recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161, Cr. P. C. 15 to 20 days after the occurrence and argued that so there essentially remained the testimony of only, the informant.However, as regards Kishan Lal present accused-appellant, the position is that though he is said to be participating in the occurrence in furtherance of the common intention of all the 3 of them, he is not alleged to be carrying any weapon whatsoever.He is also not alleged to have assaulted the deceased in any manner.In the first information report, the allegation was no doubt made that while Ved Ram was assaulting the deceased with knife, by mistake Kishan Lal accused-appellant had also received injuries on his body by knife.This claim was made by the informant in his testimony also at the trial of the case.He has stated therein that the knife has struck on the back of Kishan Lal accused-appellant and he had seen blood coming out from the back of Kishan Lal accused-appellant at the time of occurrence.In the ordinary course, injuries, if any present on the body of accused are recorded in jail records at the time of his admission to jail.The prosecution is completely silent on this aspect.The investigating officer has been asked about it in his cross-examination.He stated that he had interrogated all the 3 accused by going to jail but he did not try to see whether Kishan Lal accused-appellant had any injury on his body.He admitted that in the first information report, it has been recorded that Kishan Lal accused-appellant has received injuries but he forgot to check the injuries on the body of Kishan Lal.Considering all the circumstances, the possibility of false implication of this accused-appellant along with the real culprits namely Ved Ram and Daya Shanker cannot be ruled out.So by way of abundant precaution, benefit of doubt may properly be given to the present accused-appellant Kishan Lal.For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal of Kishan Lal accused-appellant is allowed.His conviction for the offence under Section.Compliance report be submitted to this Court within one month from today.The appeal has already been abated to the extend of Ved Ram accused-appellant on 10-2-1998 consequent upon his death.The appeal of Daya Shanker accused-appellant has also abated. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,778,792 | The brief facts of the case are as under :-::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::The deceased Vipin was working with Tirupati Daily Collection.The complainant Ramaji Patil was residing along with his family in new house at Shankar Ice Factory road, Wardha.His old house is situated on Vikramsheela Nagar.On 26/5/2005, accused no.1 Rahul approached him and requested for giving the said old house on rent basis.The complainant therefore agreed to let out the old house on monthly rent of Rs.650/- and accordingly, the accused started residing there.According to the prosecution, on 20/1/2006 at about 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. the sister of deceased Vipin by name Renuka had seen the accused persons taking Vipin from her house::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 3 on the motorcycle.At that time, one Vikky Ghumad was also along with accused and deceased Vipin.However, the accused persons have dropped Vipin near Saraswati Learning Point and thereafter both accused along with deceased Vipin went to the rented room.The prosecution case is that one Swati Landge and Swati Brahmne the neighbours of the tenanted room have seen three boys entering in the rented room and after some time they have heard loud voice from the said premises.Both these ladies have witnessed both accused leaving the tenanted premises.Thereafter, these ladies have informed the incident on telephone to the landlord Ramaji and Chhayabai.The complainant along with wife had been to the spot and they have seen the dead body from window.Thereafter, Ramaji Patil filed the report vide Exh.40 in the police station.During the course of investigation, the police broke the lock of the house and found dead body below the cot.Police prepared spot panchanama vide Exh.44, inquest panchanama of the dead body was also prepared.The evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly shows that the dead body of Vipin was found in the house of P.W.1 - Ramaji Patil and at the relevant time, the house was in possession of accused no.1 - Rahul.P.W.2 - Rajendra is panch witness on inquest panchanama (Eh.45).As per the said panchanama, the dead body of Vipin was lying below the iron cot and after examining the same, it was found that there were so many injuries on his persons and blood stains were found on the clothes of the deceased.Several injuries of grievous nature were on the dead body.The dead body was referred for post mortem.The prosecution has examined P.W.15 - Dr. Mohan Bhaimare to prove the post mortem report (Exh.85).On 21/1/2006 he was serving as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Wardha and he received dead body of Vipin for post mortem brought by P.C. Dinesh Kamble.Their evidence will have to be considered.P.W. 6 - Renuka Ramgirkar is sister of the deceased Vipin.According to her version, on 20/1/2006 at about 10:00 to 10:15 a.m. Vikky came to her house and talked to her brother Vipin.Thereafter, they went out of the house.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25/2/2008 passed by the Ad hoc Sessions Judge - 2, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.166/2006, the appellants/accused have preferred this appeal.By the impugned judgment and order, the accused nos.1::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 2 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.They are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-, in default, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for six months.Both the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.The police registered F.I.R. No.25/2006 against the unknown persons for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::There were 36 stab injuries on the::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 4 body of the deceased.The police referred the dead body for post mortem examination.Police seized blood stained clothes and articles, blood stained cement concrete from floor, one gunny bag stained with blood, handle of Gupti, plastic chappal stained with blood and three condom packets.The police also seized from another room one yellow colour shirt stained with blood, blood stained Gupti and one white colour shirt.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::During the course of investigation police recorded the statements of the witnesses.Both accused were arrested.Their blood samples were collected.The police referred the seized Gupti to the Doctor for query.In the investigation, it is transpired that according to the prosecution case, deceased was acquainted with accused.On 20/1/2006 both the accused took the deceased Vipin in the rented room and there was quarrel with deceased on account of Tirupati Daily Collection and they have assaulted to him by means of Gupti and caused multiple stab injuries and committed murder.The accused persons kept the dead body inside the cot in the said room and thereafter by locking the same left the place.After completion of necessary investigation and receipt of Chemical Analyzer's reports and medical reports the police::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 5 submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha.Therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha committed the case to the Court of Session.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::Both accused appeared before the Court of Session and charge came to be framed vide Exh.5 for the aforesaid offence.After recording the evidence in the matter and after hearing both the sides, the learned Ad hoc Sessions Judge - 2, Wardha convicted both the accused for the aforesaid offence and sentenced them accordingly by impugned judgment.Shri Shriniwas Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R., however, the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the said fact.He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond doubt and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have given benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused.The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 6 based on erroneous assumption of facts and law and liable to be quashed and set aside.The appeal therefore be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::Shri Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and rightly convicted the accused persons.The criminal appeal therefore be dismissed.Considering the submissions of respective sides, we have perused the evidence on record with the help of learned Counsel for the parties.The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.2- Rajendra Salve on spot panchanama, inquest panchanama and seizure panchanama (Exhs.44 to 46) and evidence of P.W.15 - Dr.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 7 Mohan Bhaimare on post mortem report (Exh.85).::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::Dr. Mohan Bhaimare in his evidence has deposed that on 21/1/2006 at about 11:15 a.m. he started the post mortem of dead body and completed it at 12:20 p.m. He found following injuries :-"i. About 25 stab injuries over chest wall of size about 3 x 1 x 4 cm.About 25 stab injury over abdomen of size 3 x 1 x 1 cm.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::apeal186.08.odt 8 iii.3 stab injuries of size 2 x 1 x 2 cm.over left arm.3 stab wound noted over forearm of size 3 x 2 x 3 cm.One stab injury of size 3 x 1 x 2 cm.over right hand.v. Incised wound of size 6 x 2 x 2 cm over right forearm."Doctor opined that all injuries were ante-mortem injuries.However, he has not found any fracture.During internal examination, he found following internal injuries :-abdomen wall about 16 stab injury piercing the pericardium.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::Doctor opined that the internal injuries were corresponding to external injuries and the cause of death was due to multiple stab injuries to vital organ with shock.He also deposed that on 15/7/2006 he received the query requisition from Police Station, Wardha.He examined Gupti and reported that the said injuries mentioned in post mortem may be caused by the said weapon.The Doctor was cross-examined at length.In the cross-examination, he stated that before post mortem he examined the requisition as well as inquest panchanama.In the cross-examination he stated that he has personally counted the number of injuries.He also stated that he has not mentioned in the post mortem report by which weapon the injuries might have caused.It was suggested to him that he has noted the number of injuries in the post mortem report without::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 10 counting it.In the cross-examination, he stated that the weapon was brought by the Police Inspector in sealed condition.However, he has not mentioned the same in the report that it was sealed.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::We have also perused the post mortem report on record as well as query report.From perusal of the post mortem report the cause of death is shown multiple stab injuries and stab injuries to vital organs and shock.In the query report he has clearly stated that injury nos.1 to 6 found on the deceased Vipin may be caused by the above said weapon.Besides the medical evidence on record there is also evidence on record to show that the dead body of Vipin was found below the cot.P.W.1 - Ramaji and P.W.7 - Chhayatai Patil who were the owners of the house have seen the dead body in injured condition.Considering the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has established the fact that the death of deceased was homicidal one.The learned Sessions Judge has rightly considered the evidence on record to that effect and given finding that the death of Vipin was::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 11 homicidal one.The said finding will have to be confirmed.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::The next question to be considered is, who is the author of the death of Vipin.To prove this, the prosecution came with a case that the accused no.1 had obtained the tenanted house of the complainant P.W.1 - Ramaji on monthly rent of Rs.650/- on 26/12/2005 and at the time of incident he was in a possession of said premises.In the evidence P.W.1 - Ramaji deposed that on 26/12/2005 accused no.1 Rahul came to him and requested for giving his old house situated at Vikramsheela Nagar on rent basis.The accused told him that he is L.I.C. agent and would perform marriage in the month of January, 2006 and therefore, he let out the premises on monthly rent of Rs.650/-.In the evidence he also deposed that on 20/1/2006 he was present in the office and he received telephonic message from his wife at 1:30 p.m. that in the old house there is some quarrel and therefore he went there along with his wife.When he reached there, some persons were gathered::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 12 and the said house was closed and he saw from the window that the dead body of one man was below the cot and therefore, he went to the police station and filed report.He was cross-examined at length.In the cross-examination, he stated that when accused Rahul came to him and requested for accommodation on rent he did not enquire his L.I.C. agent number.It was suggested to him that he had kept his old house vacant for the purpose of study of children but he denied.It was suggested to him that accused no.1 never came to him and requested for the house on rent and obtained the same on rent basis.It was suggested to him that on the day of incident there was his own lock to the old house, but he denied.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::If the evidence of this witness is considered in proper perspective, there is no reason to disbelieve him that he had given his old house on rent basis to accused no.1 - Rahul.Mere suggestion that the accused has not obtained the premises on rent basis is not enough.This witness has also lodged the report in the police station in the name of unknown persons.At that time he was not knowing who has caused the death of the deceased Vipin.18. P.W.7 - Chhayatai is wife of complainant Ramaji Patil.In her evidence she deposed that in the year 2005 accused no.1 -::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::apeal186.08.odt 13 Rahul had been to her new house and requested to let out the old house on rent.She also deposed that at that time the accused told them that he is L.I.C. agent and he is going to marry in the month of January and therefore her old house was given on rent basis of Rs.650/-.She further deposed that on 20/1/2006 at 11:30 a.m. she received telephonic message from Swati who resides near her old house and informed her that something is going on in their old house and she called her.She also deposed that she went there and saw persons were gathered.Accused no.1 - Rahul was about to leave her house on motorcycle and she informed him that she has to show the house to customer and at that time he told that room is locked and the key is taken by his friend and he will bring it and left the premises.She also deposed that her neighbour Brahimnabai informed her that in the room of accused no.1, three persons had entered but only two persons came out from the said room.She heard noise from the said room and thereafter two persons had come out from the room and went away.She also deposed that thereafter she saw inside the room through window and one dead body was below the cot and thereafter she informed to her husband on telephone and then her husband came and lodged report.She::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 14 was cross-examined at length.In the cross-examination, it was suggested to her that they were not letting out the old premises on rent as same was kept vacant for studying their sons but she denied.In the cross-examination she admitted that no rent receipt was issued to the accused.No name plate was installed in front of the said house.It was suggested to her that she is deposing falsely that they have let out the old house to the accused no.1 on rent but she denied.If the evidence of this witness is considered in proper perspective, one thing is clear that her old house was given on rent to accused no.1 - Rahul and on information received she had been to her old house and saw the dead body from the window and thereafter she informed the said fact to his husband Ramaji Patil.In the F.I.R. no names are mentioned by P.W.1- Ramaji.The F.I.R. was lodged on 20/1/2006 at about 3:00 p.m. The alleged offence took place on 20/1/2006 between 11:00 p.m. to 12 'O' clock.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::Considering the fact that after the incident the F.I.R. is registered on the same day after three hours, there is no delay in lodging the report.Submission put forth on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellants that there is delay in lodging the report and the learned Sessions Jude has not appreciated the said fact::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 15 therefore cannot be considered.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::The evidence of this witness indicates that on 20/1/2006 he received information from his brother Chandrashekhar that his son Vipin is admitted in the hospital, Wardha.He therefore went in the hospital and saw Vipin in dead condition.His daughter Renuka was present in the hospital and told him that at about 11:00 to 11.30 a.m. their neighbour Vikky Ghumad came to house and took Vipin on motorcycle.She also told him that at that time another two boys were present outside the house on motorcycle.In the cross- examination it was suggested to him that his daughter Renuka had not told anything to him but he denied.The prosecution has examined Renuka and Vikky in this case.She further deposed that at that time she saw two persons on motorcycle and they took her brother Vipin on their motorcycle.This witness has identified the accused persons in the Court as she knew them because they were visiting to her brother in connection with Tirupati Daily Collection.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::She was cross-examined at length by the defence.In her cross-examination, she stated that she was knowing both the accused by their names prior to the incident.She stated that she disclosed their names to the police in the statement but she cannot assign any reason why same is not mentioned in her statement.In her cross-examination, it is brought on record that she has not stated to the police that the accused persons were visiting to her brother in connection with Tirupati Daily Collection.It was suggested to her that she has not seen the accused persons while taking her brother on motorcycle and deposing falsely, but she denied.P.W.8 - Jayant @ Vikky Ghumad has deposed that deceased Vipin was his friend and residing near his house.On 20/1/2006 at about 10:30 a.m. he went to the house of Vipin.Both accused were present near the house of Vipin.He was knowing the accused persons because he had seen them with Vipin.He further deposed that accused and Vipin were talking about amount of lucky::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 17 draw scheme and there were altercations between them in that respect.Thereafter, both accused and Vipin proceeded towards Vikramsheela Nagar where room of the accused was situated.He also deposed that when they were proceeded towards Vikramsheela Nagar, he was dropped on the way near Saraswati Learning Point and thereafter the accused and Vipin proceeded towards Vikramsheela Nagar.He was cross-examined at length.In the cross- examination he stated that the accused persons have a big house at Sai Nagar.The parents and brothers of Rahul are residing there.It was suggested to him that the accused Rahul has not taken any house on rent, but he denied.It was suggested to him that he is deposing falsely that quarrel took place between accused and Vipin but he denied.It was suggested to him that he had quarrelled with accused on that day and therefore deposing falsely but he denied.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::After considering the evidence of these two witnesses P.W.6 and P.W.8 the prosecution has successfully proved that on 20/1/2006 the accused persons had come to the house of deceased Vipin and took him on motorcycle towards the room situated at Vikramsheela Nagar.The fact that Renuka had not disclosed the name of accused persons to the police in the statement does not::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 18 affect her version.The evidence of Renuka is corroborated by P.W. 8::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::- Vikky in this aspect.There is no reason to discard the evidence of these two witnesses.It is to be noted that the house of Vikky is situated near the house of deceased Vipin.He has clearly deposed that he had seen the accused while taking Vipin towards their room at Vikramsheela Nagar when he was dropped near the learning point.This circumstance is established by the prosecution pointing out that the accused persons had taken deceased Vipin to their room at Vikramsheela Nagar.25. P.W.9 - Swati Brahmane in her evidence has deposed that she is residing in rented room of one Khairkar at Vikramsheela Nagar.She further deposed that in front of her house there is house owned by Shri Patil.The accused Rahul was coming frequently.On 20/1/2006 at about 11:30 a.m. when she was waiting for her daughter outside her house, she saw three persons entered in the house of Shri Patil.After five minutes she heard shouts from the room where Rahul Zade was residing.Thereafter ladies from locality gathered there and went there.She noticed that something is going on there, therefore, she asked Swati Landge to inform the said fact to Mrs. Patil.She also deposed that one person came out from the::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 19 room who is accused no.2 present in the Court.At that time, Mrs. Patil also came there and accused no.1 Rahul came out from the room and started going outside.Mrs. Patil talked with him but he left the place.Thereafter, they saw from the window as door was locked.Mr. Patil then came there and thereafter lodged the report.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::She was cross-examined at length.However, defence was not able to elicit something in the cross-examination to disbelieve her version.There is no reason for her to depose falsely against these accused persons.She had seen three persons entered in the house of Shri Patil.She also saw accused persons came out from the house.It was suggested to her that she is first time seeing the accused persons in the Court but she denied.P.W.10 - Swati Landge has corroborated the version of P.W.9 - Swati Brahmane on material count.This witness is also residing near the house of Shri Patil.She has informed Mrs. Patil about the incident.In the cross-examination it was suggested to her that the house of Shri Patil was not given on rent, but she denied.Considering the evidence of these two witnesses, the presence of accused persons is established by the prosecution at the relevant time.The accused persons were also seen while coming out::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 20 from the room.This circumstance is established by the prosecution by cogent evidence.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::Both these witnesses are turned hostile and they have not supported to the prosecution.P.W.16 - Ramprasad Ghule - Investigating Officer has deposed that he investigated the case and on 7/6/2006 the accused Sunil made a statement in presence of panchas that he will produce the clothes kept in his house and his Scooty Pep which is sold at Yavatmal.Accordingly, memorandum (Exh.92) was prepared.Then they went to the house of accused Sunil and he produced the clothes kept in the bathroom in a plastic bag.He further deposed that on 11/6/2006 accused Rahul made a statement that he has kept clothes and Gupti in rented house and accordingly memorandum (Exh.94) was prepared.Thereafter, they went in the rented house.Already clothes and Gupti were seized under panchanama (Exh.46) and thereafter seizure panchanama vide Exh.95 was prepared.This witness is cross-examined at length.So far as disclosure statement of::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 21 Rahul Zade is concerned, the police have already seized the clothes and weapon under panchanama (Exh.46) and there is no question of recovery and the disclosure statement made by accused.There is no compliance of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, therefore, this cannot be used against the accused Rahul.So far as seizure at the instance of the accused Sunil Zade is concerned, this witness has proved the memorandum and seizure panchanama.There is no reason to disbelieve him, so far as seizure of clothes of accused Sunil at his instance is concerned.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::The seized property was sent to the Chemical Analyzer for analysis.As per the Chemical Analyzer's report, blood was found on Articles - 1 and 3 to 14 and the blood detected on Article - 1 and 3 to 12 is of human.The blood found on Article - 9 to 11 is of 'O' group.The blood detected on Exh.1, 3 to 5, 7, 8 and 12 cannot be determined as results are inconclusive.Article - 1 is cement concrete mixture and Article - 3 is gunny bag.The blood found on the clothes of the deceased was of human and of 'O' group.The blood group of the accused was not detected because it was unsuitable for grouping.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::apeal186.08.odt 22 The blood found on the clothes of the accused was of human.However, blood group was not detected as results are inconclusive.The blood found on Gupti was of human.However, blood group was not detected as results are inconclusive.No explanation is given by the accused why they were absconding for substantial period of more than five months.The Medical Officers have given medical reports below the requisitions.As per the medical report of accused Rahul one bruise of 5x3 cm was found on his left forearm, duration of injury is 12 hours to 24 hours, the injury is caused by hard and blunt object and will heal in four to five days.The blood sample was also taken.So far as accused no.2 - Sunil is concerned, no injury was found on his person.However, his blood sample was taken.The injury found on the person of the accused has no nexus to the incident as he was arrested after five months.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::In the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W.16 - Ramprasad) it has come on record that during the investigation he searched the house of the accused and found four bullets of AK-47 and registered separate offence against them.In the cross- examination only suggestion was given that he is deposing falsely about registration of offence of crime in respect of the seizure of bullets, however, he denied.There is no reason to disbelieve his version.This circumstance clearly shows that the accused persons have criminal background and this also goes against them.In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, questions about having blood stains found on Gupti and clothes were put to them but they replied that they do not know about that.The accused persons have failed to explain the fact about the blood stains on their clothes and this circumstance goes against the accused.Gupti and clothes of the deceased were seized from the spot having blood on it which is of human.The body of the deceased was found in the room which is taken on rent by accused Rahul Zade.He has not explained how the dead body was in the house which is taken by him on rent.The prosecution has established the fact that the said house was given::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 24 on rent to him prior to the incident.The fact that the accused has his own house in the same city does not mean that he has not obtained the room on rent basis for him.The witnesses have stated that the accused Rahul was frequently coming to the room though he was not actually residing there.This circumstance goes against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused by circumstantial evidence.The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are pointing out the guilt of the accused and the same are established by adducing the cogent evidence.The prosecution has also established the chain of the circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the doubt for the offence charged.The accused have caused multiple stab injuries to deceased and have committed the murder.They have also disappeared the evidence in order to screen themselves from the punishment of the offence charged.The learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and held them guilty for the offence charged.No interference of this Court is called for in the impugned judgment.The appeal filed by::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: apeal186.08.odt 25 the appellants is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 :::During the pendency of the appeal, the accused were released on parole and thereafter they are absconding and not returned to the jail.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken time to file affidavit about what steps are taken by the police to arrest them.Thereafter, the matter was heard on merit.It is therefore necessary to direct the prosecution to arrest the accused persons to serve the sentence passed against them.Hence, we pass the following order.O R D E R(i) Criminal Appeal No.186/2008 is dismissed.(ii) Both the accused are absconding.They be arrested and sent to jail to serve the sentence awarded against them.(iii) Fees payable to the appointed learned Counsel Shri Shriniwas Deshpande for the appellants is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).(iv) Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court immediately.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: | ['Section 201 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. |
191,800,763 | Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already undergone substantive part of his jail sentence as well as the sentence imposed upon him in default of payment of fine.He has no instructions from the appellant to the effect that the appeal is to be prosecuted any further; therefore, he does not want to prosecute this criminal appeal further; as such, this criminal appeal has become infructuous.A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2017 passed in S.T. No.89/2016 by the Court of Session Judge, Mandla reveals that appellant Shivraj Maravi has been convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years and a fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/-.In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo R.I. for a further period of two months.As per the report, as on 21.02.2018, the appellant had already undergone 1 year, 11 months and 2 days including the sentence undergone by him during the trial, as also the period of remission.About 5 months and 3 weeks have elapsed since 21.02.2018; therefore, it may safely be assumed that by now, the appellant must have 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No.2211/2017 ( Shivraj Maravi Vs.State of M.P.) undergone entire substantive jail sentence imposed upon him as well as rigorous imprisonment for the period of two months imposed upon him in default of payment of fine; as such, by now, he must have undergone the entire sentence imposed upon him.State of Rajasthan, 2008 Cr.L.J. 702 that:So far as the appellant is concerned, at the time of hearing of appeal, it was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that maximum sentence awarded to the appellant was of seven years and all sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The appellant had already remained in jail for seven years and thus he had already undergone the sentence of imprisonment.He, therefore, did not press the appeal.The High Court disposed of the appeal and observed :"At the very outset, the learned counsel Mr. G. S. Fauzdar for the accused-appellant Daya Singh contended that maximum sentence in the present case was seven years and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and appellant has already completed his sentence of imprisonment of seven years, therefore, in these circumstances, he does not press the appeal filed on behalf of Daya Singh, challenging his order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as mentioned above.In view of the above statement of the learned counsel for the appellant-Daya Singh @ Vinay Kumar, the S.B. Cr.Appeal No. 332/05 filed by Daya Singh is hereby dismissed as not pressed."Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, appearing for the appellant, challenged the order of conviction and sentence.When her attention was invited by the Court to the above paragraph, she submitted that she did not dispute that such a statement was made on behalf of the accused in the High Court, but submitted that, she be permitted to argue the appeal, particularly when in other Special Leave Petitions, leave was granted and appeals were heard on merits.The other accused 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No.2211/2017 ( Shivraj Maravi Vs.State of M.P.) (Suman Sood) was acquitted on the same evidence and leave to appeal against an order of acquittal was refused by the High Court.The conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant on the same evidence is also vitiated and deserves to be set aside.We would have considered the prayer of the learned counsel particularly when the case relates to administration of criminal justice and other matters were pending.The counsel appearing for the appellant in the High Court appears to have kept in view the above position and did not press the appeal.In the light of the finding recorded by us in the cognate matter, this appeal is, more or less, academic and has become infructuous in view of the following circumstances;(i) the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 364A, IPC and has been ordered to undergo sentence of imprisonment for life and we have upheld the said order; and6.Since the appellant has already served the entire sentence under the judgment and order dated 31st March,1992 passed in Sessions Case No. 225 of 1986, nothing survives in this appeal and hence it is dismissed as become infructuous, because of the reason that nobody also wanted to pursue the appeal for getting the order of conviction set aside.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.In aforesaid view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter alive or entering into the merits of the case; therefore, this criminal appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed (C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge sh Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 2018.08.17 11:28:53 +05'30' | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,808 | In pursuance of above criminal conspiracy, accused No.1 through accused no.2 to 4, with the intention to cheat the complainant, approached the complainant to find out a buyer in the foreign country for the sale of iron ore fines.They offered lucrative commission to the complainant.Believing the above representation, assurance and undertaking to be true, the complainant and their group made various efforts and spent huge amount and man power to find out a buyer namely Fremery Resources Ltd., which was interested in buying iron ore fines from India.The complaint reads as under:-Accused no.2 Sh.Accused no.3 Sh.That all the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy, object of which was to cheat the complainant.Various negotiations had taken place between the accused persons and the buyer and ultimately a deal was struck and a contract was executed between accused no.1 through accused no.2 and the buyer.It was agreed that the complainant is entitled to have a commission @ US$1 per MT of the shipped quantity from the seller i.e. accused no.1 for the services rendered by them in identifying the buyer and for the execution of the contract.That the accused no.1 successfully exported and sold the goods to the buyer and received a substantial payment for the same.At the instance of accused no.2, the complainant raised an invoice of US$ 17695/- against the accused no.1 for the agreed commission.That in order to avoid the agreed payment of the commission to the complainant, all the accused persons started raising flimsy disputes and malafidely started denying the role of the complainant.All the accused persons were very much aware that the complainant is entitled for the commission of US$ 17695 for the services rendered by them.CRL.M.C.No.3749/2008 & 2751/2008 Page 3 of 7That all the accused persons, in pursuance of their conspiracy, induced the complainant to invest money and man power to identify the buyer and also to get a deal for which both accused have no intention to pay and therefore they have committed an offence punishable U/s 420/120-B of I.P.C.PRAYER In the above circumstances, it is therefore prayed that all the above accused persons may please be summoned, tried and punished for the offence committed U/s 420/120-B of I.P.C."From a perusal of the complaint which consists of 6 paragraphs, it is to be found that in para 1 the complainant has stated its juristic entity and the business it is engaged in i.e. acting as a Commission Agent pertaining to, amongst other products, iron ore.In para No.2 of the complaint the juristic entity of the accused has been disclosed and in para 3 the contract between the parties, on basis whereof the complaint, has been filed have been stated.The order summoning the accused is also quashed. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,808,876 | (Order of the Court was made by B.PUGALENDHI, J.) The mother of the detenu is the petitioner herein and challenging the impugned order of detention dated 08.07.2019 passed by the second respondent, branding her son as “Goonda” under the provisions of Section 3[1] of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), she has filed the present habeas corpus petition.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 08.07.2019, passed by the second respondent would show that the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:-It is further stated in the grounds of detention that when the defacto complainant, namely, M.Sendrayal and one Sivakumar were standing in Suthanthirapuram Piviru, Kodairoad, the detenu and his associates approached them and demanded money to consume liquor.When they refused and raised an alarm, the detenu and his associates caught them and snatched a sum of Rs.1,300/- from the complainant.When the persons nearby came to rescue, they were threatened by the assailants with dire consequences and taking advantage of the situation, the detenu and his associates fled away from the scene of occurrence.Ammaiyanaickenur Police Station, based on the complaint received from the defacto complainant, registered a case in Crime No.120 of 2019 for the commission of offence under Sections 392, 397 & 506(ii) IPC (ground case).3/9http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P(MD)No.773 of 2019The detenu was arrested on 07.06.2019, produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai and was ordered to be remanded to judicial custody.In respect of the first adverse case, the bail application filed by the detenu in Cr.It is seen that the detenu, besides the ground case, is having two adverse cases and the bail applications filed by him in respect of these three cases were dismissed by the concerned Courts.However, the detaining authority has taken into consideration the bail granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, in a case in Cr.M.P.No.3237 of 2015 similar to that of the 6/9http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P(MD)No.773 of 2019 ground case and has derived the subjective satisfaction that the detenu would come out on bail and indulge in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public law and order.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.8/9http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P(MD)No.773 of 2019 P.N.PRAKASH, J.and B.PUGALENDHI, J. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,808,949 | By the aforementioned impugned judgement, the appellant Dhiren Barik was found guilty of the charge under section 302 IPC for causing the murder of Bhupati since deceased and also of further charge under section 325 IPC for causing voluntarily grievous hurt to the deceased's minor son Santanu.He was convicted thereunder accordingly.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Factual matrix of the prosecution case leading to filing of the present appeal may be summarized as under :-i) On the auspicious day of car festival i.e on 18th day of Ashar 1407 BS corresponding to 03.07.2000 at about 10-45 PM one Bhupati Barik of Talda village within PS Datan was stabbed to death by the present appellant Dhiren Barik and his dead body was found lying by the side of moram road of Krishnanagar mouza within PS Belda.Both the assailant and deceased used to sell channa at Sayrapara Bazar for last 15-16 years.In the evening hours of the fateful day both of them were seen talking over the money matter in the chariot festival fair at Sayrapara Bazar by co-villagers.At the material point of time the deceased was returning from Sayrapara Bazar along with his minor son Santanu (PW5) on his bicycle being followed by the appellant and some of the co-villagers.Some people of Bablapur village also saw the deceased to argue with the assailant on the paving by the side of the road at about 10.30 PM at that fateful night.ii) Immediately, after the incident of stabbing the appellant made good his escape from the P.O. and on his way to Sayrapara Bazar Fair he dashed one of the co-villagers namely Aswini Das (PW2) causing fall of both of them on the ground from their respective bicycle.Bidyut Barik focussed torch on the person 3 and the assailant was recognised by PW1 and other co-villagers.Bidyut Barik, PWI and other co-villagers, proceeded a short distance and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood by the side of the road and his minor son Santanu was found weeping.It was reported by Santanu (PW5) to the FIR maker and other co- villagers that the appellant had an altercation with the deceased and he slashed the neck of Bhupati with a knife.When the son raised a hue and cry, he was also assaulted on his left hand and arm pit with the same knife.The injured son of the deceased was shifted to Nekursini Christian Hospital for medical treatment.iii) An FIR unfolding narration of events as above was lodged by Bidyut Barik, the nephew of the deceased on the following day giving rise to Belda PS Case No. 89/2000 dt. 04.07.2000 under sub-sections 302/324/307 IPC.Prior to its initiation one U/D case No. 25/2000 dt. 04.07.2000 was also started and the same was tagged with the said Belda PS Case which was endorsed to S.I. Amiya Kumar Kar for investigation.iv) In course of investigation the I.O. prepared the Inquest Report (Exhibit 2/3) of Bhupati Barik aged 35 years in the presence of four witnesses and also a Seizure List (Exhibit 6/I) in respect of blood stained wearing apparels of the appellant and the old bicycle used by the appellant at the relevant point of time.He also collected PM Examination Report of the deceased (Exhibit 5).A rough sketch map of the P.O together with its index (Exhibit 8) was prepared by him.Barik is the brother -in-law of the deceased and is a resident of neighbouring Charda village adjacent to Talda, the native place of the deceased and most of the witnesses.He is the Post Occurrence witness as well as a witness to the Seizure and Inquest.PW7 :- Kenaram Barik, an elder brother of the victim is the resident of Talda village and is also a Post Occurrence witness.ii) Independent Co-villagers :-PW2 :- Chaityanna Das, who witnessed the appellant to altercate with the deceased in the evening hours of the tragic night in the presence of his son 7 Santanu at Sayrapara Market Fair also visited the P.O. immediately after the occurrence.PW3 :- Harekrishna Das, another co-villager being a Post Occurrence witness also had the occasion to see the appellant to altercate with the deceased at about 7 PM in the presence of his son Santanu at Sayrapara Market Fair.PWs 4 & 11 :- Iswar Giri and Srikanta Pariya respectively, being the co-villagers reached the P.O. immediately after the incident.PW10:- Jagannath Das, another co-villager who is a computer school teacher also found both the deceased and appellant to altercate each other in the presence of his son Santanu (PW5) at Sayrapara Market Fair for the last time before the incident.He is also a Post Occurrence.witness who along with others shifted Santanu, the injured to the Nakursini Christian Hospital.PW12 :- Kanailal Dey, is the owner of a sweet-meat shop in the Sayrabazar Fair and the appellant used to supply channa in his shop regularly for a considerable period.The Injury Report of Santanu Barik ('X' for identification) was also collected by the I.O. from Nekursini Christian Hospital.He also examined all available witnesses during investigation.On completion of investigation he submitted the 4 charge-sheet under sections 302/307/34 IPC in G.R. Case No. 1085/2000 against the appellant.The appellant was asked on 18.05.2002 to answer the following charge:-"That you, on or about the 3rd day of July, 2000, corresponding to the 18th day of Ashar, 1407 B.S. at Krishna Nagar P.S. Belda, Dist.Midnapore, committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Bhupati Barik, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of this court.Secondly, That you, on or about the same day, and at the same place, did not act, to wit, caused hurt to Shantanu Barik, with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if by that act, you had caused his death, you would have been guilty of murder, and that you caused hurt to the said Shantanu Barik by the said act, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and within cognizance of this court.Thirdly, That you, on or about the same day and at the same place, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Shantanu Barik by means of knife, which is an instrument of cutting, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of this Court."The appellant, however, pleaded not guilty to the afore-quoted charge and claimed to be tried.Accordingly he was put to trial.vi) On consideration of the entire evidence on record adduced during trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants under sections 302/325 IPC and also passed necessary sentence as already indicated earlier.Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred the instant Jail Appeal through the Superintendent, Midnapur Central Correctional Home on 16.08.2003 on the ground that the order of conviction and sentence impugned is manifestly unjust, incorrect and illegal inasmuch as it is against the weight of evidence on record and further that the charge of murder against the appellant is biased and motivated and the learned Court failed to unearth the truth.The defence has, however, examined none in order to substantiate such plea of innocence, denial and false implication.It would be profitable to trace the brief outline of different witnesses examined by the prosecution in support of its case to have a comfortable grasp of 6 the prosecution case projected hereinbefore.The witnesses are, therefore, broadly categorized under the following heads :-PW1 :- Bidyut Barik, the nephew of deceased Bhupati, since deceased is the FIR maker.He also witnessed the preparation of Inquest Report and Seizure List and also put his signature on both the documents.Prior to the ghastly incident of murder, he saw the deceased to altercate with the appellant in the presence of Santanu in Sayrapara Market fair for the last time.He is also the Post Occurrence witness who saw the dashing episode and also reached the P.O. immediately after the main incident.PW5:- Santanu Barik, the son of the deceased is an injured child witness.He is the sole eye witness to the incident of gruesome murder.PW 6 :- Kedar Ch.PWs 8 &13 :- Panchanan Patra and Tapan Das respectively were tendered for cross-examination and their cross-examination was declined.B. Medical Evidence :-PW9 :- Dr. Sudhanshu Sekhar Maity, attached to Khargapur Hospital conducted the PM Examination on the dead body of the deceased and offered his medical opinion.C. Police Witness :-PW 15 :- Amiya Kar, S.I. is the I.O. of this case.He seized the blood stained earth and control earth from the P.O. under proper seizure list (Exhibit 3/3)after the incident.He sent the dead body of the victim for PM Examination through constable No. 2939 Bholanath Mahapatra to Kharagpur Hospital.He also examined the injured witness Santanu along with others in course of investigation.Bidyut Barik (PW1), although not an eye witness to the ghastly murder, testifies that he found accused Dhiren & Bhupati to make an altercation in Sayrapara Market Fair in the presence of Santanu (PW5).He has also narrated the incident of dashing of appellant's bicycle against the bicycle of Aswini, as a result of which both of them fell down on the ground and when he focused his torch light he and other co-villagers found Dhiren to proceed hurriedly towards Sayrapara Market Fair without responding to their queries.As a Post Occurrence witness he further deposes that, after having arrived at Krishnanager, they found the dead body of Bhupati with bleeding injuries on his throat and also weeping Santanu who disclosed to them that accused Dhiren assaulted his father with a knife and when he raised a hue and cry, the appellant also assaulted him with the same knife on his left chest and arm pit.The uncle of the deponent succumbed to such stab injuries on the spot.The injured son of the deceased was admitted to Nekursini Christian Hospital by the deponent.He also put his signature on the FIR which was scribed by one Panchanan Das under his instruction.He also signed the Seizure List and Inquest Report as one of the 9 witnesses.It is also available from his testimony that both his uncle Bhupati and the appellant Dhiren used to deal in Channa and one week prior to the said occurrence the appellant Dhiren also threatened his uncle with dire consequences.During his cross-examination he reiterated that accused Dhiren made altercation with his uncle Bhupati at village fair.He has thus corroborated the contents of FIR.Nothing has been elicited from his cross examination to cast a shadow on trustworthiness of this deponent.His testimony inspires confidence in the mind of the court and as such, his evidence is creditworthy.Aswini Das (PW2) corroborates PW1 by deposing that on their way back from the village fair at about 11 PM on the day of chariot festival along with Bidyut Barik PW1 and 2/3 other co-villagers, they found the appellant to dash his bicycle against the bicycle of Aswini Das (PW2), and, thereafter, as a result, both of them fell down on the ground when Bidyut focused his torch light on the person, they found that it was Dhiren of Raipur who, however, left the place in hot haste in his bicycle without replying to their queries.After covering a short distance they found the co-villager Bhupati Barik with slited throat and his son with injuries on the left side of his chest.Shantanu (PW5) disclosed to them that accused Dhiren caused the death of his father and also assaulted him.Santanu was shifted to Nakursini hospital by PW 1 and 3/4 others.His testimony remains unshaken during cross-examination.There is nothing on record to indicate that this deponent is inimical to the appellant.We, therefore, do not find any reason rather convincing to discard the corroborative testimony of this witness on the sequence of events preceding the incident of a gruesome murder.The testimony of PWs 1 & 2 also stands corroborated by PW3 (Baidyanath Das) & PW4 (Iswar Giri) who testify in similar vein.While they had been to Sayrapara Fair they found accused Dhiren Barik to exchange hot words with Bhupati Barik over their business affair.Both of them also supported the corroborative version of both PWs 1 & 2 on the episode of dashing whereupon the appellant and PW2 fell down from their respective bicycle.They also found the deceased lying on the side of the village road and his throat was slit while the injured son of the deceased was weeping.However, Santanu, PW5 the injured disclosed that there was an altercation between his father and the appellant and, thereafter, the assailant stabbed his father with a knife causing his instantaneous death.He also assaulted Santanu with the same knife.At the very outset of cross-examination it is reiterated by PW3 that they along with accused Dhiren, and Bhupati since deceased had been to the said village fair at Sayrapara.It is, however, admitted by him that they did not give any importance to the altercation between Dhiren and Bhupati.Nothing has been extracted from his cross-examination to indicate that he resorted to falsehood in any manner.So, we do not find any earthly reason to disbelieve this independent co-villager.It is, however, suggested to PW4 that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Bidyut Barik (PW1)and Aswini (PW2) as they belonged to the same group.In our considered opinion, both PWs 3 & 4 have successfully 11 stood the test of cross - examination.Therefore, we feel inclined to place reliance upon their corroborative testimony.9. Santanu Barik :- PW5, the deceased's son had the misfortune of witnessing a dastardly attack upon his father who was stabbed on his neck with a knife by the assailant in full view of his son.In such a perplexed situation, he somehow raised his voice but in turn he was also assaulted with the same knife by the assailant.A heart rendering narration of a ruthless onslaught in minute detail was given to the post occurrence witnesses who reached the P.O. immediately after the incident.It is available from his testimony that he had been to the car festival at sayrapara in the afternoon.In his evidence before the Court this minor child aged 12 years stoically narrated the terrible incident in its entirety with commendable firmness without allowing his emotion to come to the fore.He testifies that while he alongwith his father was sitting in a sweet meat shop, the appellant brought channa in the said shop and extended threat to his father preceded by a demand of money.He further deposes that while he was returning with his father in the same bicycle the appellant also followed them.While they reached between village Bablapur and Eaktal, Dhiren renewed his demand for money but his father could not concede to such demand.The appellant stabbed his father with a knife and when he raised his voice after seeing such critical condition of his father, the appellant assaulted him also with the same knife.It is further available from his testimony that accused, thereafter, fled away riding on his bicycle towards Sayrapara.According to the deponent, PW1, PW2 and others came to the P.O. and he narrated the entire incident to them.During his cross-examination the defence could not demolish the cogent, consistent and convincing testimony of this injured child witness.At the outset of his cross-examination he forcefully reiterates that he went to the local car festival at Sayrapara with his father and other persons at about 5 PM.Even though, several villagers were also returning to their respective houses no other villagers remained present while the said occurrence took place.The injured child witness is candid in his approach and out of such simplicity as a child, his narration of the incident is absolutely free from any embellishment.His straightforwardness prompted him to admit that he became frightened when his father was assaulted by accused Dhiren and he subsequently raised his voice at the relevant point of time.It is importantly important to note that no suggestion was offered to this child witness that he was tutored or coached to depose in this fashion before the court.Against the backdrop, of such ocular evidence being consistent with medical evidence Mr. Mahato appearing on behalf of the appellant as a state defence argues that none of the witnesses except the FIR maker Bidyut Barik(PW1), Aswini Das (PW2) and Santanu (PW4) has been named in the FIR and as such the credibility of other witnesses is at stake.In the second limb of his argument it is submitted by him that evidence adduced by the minor son of the deceased alleged to have sustained injury should be disbelieved since his testimony is full of contradictions.According to 14 him, the presence of PW5 at the scene of occurrence is doubtful.Therefore, consistent ocular evidence indicating use of knife by the assailant does not find any support from the injury report in question.This conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence is sufficient to cast a shadow on the genuineness of the prosecution story.It is next argued by him that none of the witnesses including the minor son of the deceased has stated in their evidence that wearing apparels of the assailant became blood stained.The evidence of FIR maker, PW 1 and other co- 16 villagers (PWs 2,3 & 4) cannot be disbelieved since their testimony stands corroborated by PW 5, the injured witness and the informant. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,918,117 | (18 .05.2010) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.This appeal is directed on behalf of the appellant/ State under Section 378 of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.3.1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Balaghat in Criminal Case No.790/87 acquitting the respondents from the charge punishable under Section 452, 327, 506-B, 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC.The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 17.3.1987 at about 4.00 pm one Baldeo Kumar accompanied with Shiv Charan and Yogendra was taking tea in his office at the same time the respondents including the deceased respondent No.2 Deva under the influence of intoxicated substance entered in his office and demanded the donation of Holi Festival.On asking by Baldeo Kumar that such festival is over and he has already given the donation earlier in that regard, on which the respondents and deceased respondent Deva after abusing with filthy language to Baldeo Kumar and other persons named above beaten them and also gave threat to kill them.In such incident Baldeo has sustained some grievous injuries.The matter was reported to the police on which an offence was registered against the respondents under Section 452, 294, 323, 506-B and 34 of IPC.The injured persons were taken to hospital where their MLC reports were prepared and under the advice of doctor x-ray of injured Baldeo and Yogendra was carried out in which the crack (fracture) on base of distilphalonx of left thumb of Baldeo was revealed.On completion of the investigation the respondents and deceased accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 452, 327 and 506-B of IPC.After committing the case to the Sessions Court initially the charge of Section 452, 327 and 506-B of IPC were framed against the respondents.They abjured the guilt, on which the trial was held, in which as many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case while one Bhola Singh was examined as court witness.Subsequent to it on 19.3.1989 one witness was examined by the respondents in their defence.After closing the defence vide order dated 19.6.1989, the case was posted for 23.6.1989 for final argument.The same was adjourned for 26.6.1989 and on 26.6.1989 final arguments were heard and case was fixed for 4.7.1989 to deliver the judgment.On such date instead to deliver the judgment by mentioning the reasons additional charges for the offence under Section 325/34 and 323/34 were also framed against the respondents.They again abjured the guilt with respect of such charges, on which at the request of the defence all the examined prosecution witnesses were directed to be recalled for further cross-examination.Subsequently on 12.7.1990 with respect of additional charge the defence counsel prayed to recall only three witnesses namely Yogendra Agrawal (P.W.1), Baldeo (P.W.6) and Shivcharan ((P.W.6) for their further cross-examination.In compliance of such order on the same day the present witness Baldeo was further cross-examined by the defence and the case was adjourned for cross- examination of said Yogendra and Shivcharan.For one reason or another inspite extending various opportunities between 31.7.90 to 22.1.1994 the prosecution could not produce such witnesses for further cross-examination and case was posted for defence evidence and ultimately on 1.3.1994 the final arguments were heard and considering the circumstance that respondents could not get the opportunity of complete cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses namely Yogendra and Shiv Charan with respect of the additional/ amended charges held that there statement being incomplete could not be taken into consideration to draw any inference against the respondents and in the lack of any independent evidence in support of the victim the respondents were acquitted from all alleged charges, on which the State has come forward with this appeal challenging such acquittal of the respondents.Shri B. P. Pandey, learned Dy.Only on account of non- production of some witnesses for further cross-examination by ignoring the evidence adduced by the prosecution with respect of earlier charges the respondents could not be acquitted by the trial court and prayed for setting aside the judgment of the trial court with a prayer to convict the respondents by allowing this appeal.After examining the record of the trial court and perusing the impugned judgment, I am of the considered view that trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents from the alleged charges.True, it is that at the initial stage the charges of section 452, 327 and 506-B of IPC were framed against the respondents and after holding the trial the case was fixed for delivery of judgment on 4.7.1989 and on on such date instead to deliver the judgment the trial Court has framed additional charge of Section 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC against the respondents. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,817,602 | The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:The first informant PW2 Shiva was working as a watchman at Hamilton Court building, Tagore Road, Santacruz, Mumbai.PW2 Shiva was 1/7 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:15 ::: apeal.301.2010.doc working as a night watchman.The appellant and the deceased Durgayya were both working in Hamilton building as servants.The appellant was working as a servant in flat of one Jayantibai located on the 7th floor.The deceased was working as a servant with PW3 Ramesh whose flat was situated on the 3rd floor.After the appellant and the deceased finished their work, they used to sleep on the ground floor of the building near the pump room.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:15 :::At about 3 to 3.30pm, on 2.9.2008, PW2 Shiva, who was working as the night watchman was sitting infront of the building.He heard noise from the backside.Hence, he went towards the backside.He noticed that the appellant was holding a piece of tile and he found that Durgayya was lying near the pump room in a pool of blood.PW2 Shiva asked the appellant what he had done whereupon the appellant said that he had killed Durgayya.The appellant then said that he is going to the police.Then PW2 Shiva took the appellant to the police station.PW2 Shiva lodged his FIR (exhibit 14).Thereafter, investigation commenced.The appellant was arrested.Shiva was working as a watchman in Hamilton building at Santacruz (West), Mumbai.The defence raised by the appellant is that PW2 Shiva received injuries due to fall.However, PW1 Dr.Gajare has clearly stated that injuries as found on the body of Durgayya are not possible if a person falls down under the influence of liquor.Thus, there is no merit in the defence raised by the appellant that Durgayya died on account injuries received due to fall.The prosecution case that the appellant assaulted Durgayya with a tile and caused his death is further corroborated by the evidence of PW1 Dr.Gajare, who conducted the postmortem.DATE: AUGUST 20, 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MRS.TAHILRAMANI, J.):By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `500/-, i/d R.I. for one year.The blood stained clothes on his person were seized under panchanama.After completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed.Charge came to be framed against the appellant under section 302 2/7 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:15 ::: apeal.301.2010.doc of IPC.The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication.After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above.Hence, this appeal.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:15 :::We have heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and the learned APP for the State.After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant assaulted Durgayya with a tile on the head and other parts of the body and caused his death.The conviction is mainly based on the evidence of PW2 Shiva.On the day of the incident, he was the night watchman.Shiva knew the appellant and the deceased as both were working as servants in Hamilton building.The appellant was working as a servant in flat of one Jayantibai located on the 7th floor.The deceased was working as a servant with PW3 Ramesh whose flat was situated on the 3 rd floor.After the appellant and the deceased finished their work, they used to sleep on the ground floor of the building near the pump room.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:15 :::At about 3 to 3.30pm, on 2.9.2008, PW2 Shiva, who was working as the night watchman was sitting infront of the building.He heard noise from the backside.Hence, he went towards the backside.He noticed that the appellant was holding a piece of tile and he found that Durgayya was lying near the pump room in a pool of blood.PW2 Shiva asked the appellant what he had done whereupon the appellant said that he had killed Durgayya.The appellant then said that he is going to the police.Then PW2 Shiva took the appellant to the police station.PW2 Shiva lodged his FIR (exhibit 14).Ayubi tried to submit that as far as the extra judicial confession made by the appellant to PW2 Shiva is concerned, it has come by way of improvement.But we find that no such omission has been got proved by the defence by putting it to the police officer, who recorded the statement of PW2 Shiva.Thus, the evidence of PW2 Shiva shows that at 3.30 pm, he heard a noise and he saw the appellant standing with a tile in his hand near the deceased and deceased Durgayya was lying in the pool of blood and thereafter the appellant confessed to him that he had committed the murder of Durgayya.Thus, the evidence of PW2 shows that it was the appellant, who was the only person who could have assaulted the deceased.It is pertinent to note here that in his statement u/s 313, the appellant has admitted that he was sleeping next to the deceased.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:15 :::During the postmortem, Dr.Gajare found the following external injuries:Laceration 7X12 cm Wedge shaped, on left fore head 3 cm.about left eyebrow bone deep, red within -24 hrs.Abrasion - 2 X ½ cm., oblique, in between both eyebrows, red, 0-24 hrs.Fracture of nasal bone - grievous.Laceration of chin, anterior, 5X1/2 cm., red, 0-24 hrs.Fracture at chin at center - grievous with right front three teeth and lower second front teeth broken.Abrasion on right lower ramus of Mandible, 2 x ½ cm.2 cm from right angle of Mandible red, 0-24 hrs.Abrasion 3 x/ ½ cm., oblique, 3 cm below left eye brow on left cheek, red 0-24 hrs.Abrasion 1 ½ x ½ cm.horizontal on left cheek 2 cm.from left angle of mouth, red, 0-24 hrs.Abrasion 2 ½ x ½ cm.horizontal on right shoulder joint, 4cm 5/7 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:15 ::: apeal.301.2010.doc below the joint, red, 0-24 hrs.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:15 :::Contusion - (1) 2x ½ cm., (2) 2 ½ X 1cm, one above other 3 cm apart from each other, round, on right shoulder, red, 0-24 hrs.All these injuries are antemortem.Gajare found internal injuries as mentioned below:1. Contusion, 7 ½ x 3cm.On left frontal region under the scalp region.Fracture of left frontal bone with fracture of left orbital plate crossing through Cribriform plate and through pituary fossa inside skull.The injuries on brain-meninges congested, oedamatous, extradural, subdural and intracerebral, haemorrhages seen.According to Dr.Gajare, the cause of death was due to head injury unnatural are internal injuries mentioned by him are sufficient to cause death.In Dr.Gajare's opinion, all injuries are possible by pieces of granite and pieces of floor stones (tiles).As stated earlier, Dr.Gajare has categorically denied the defence put forward by the appellant that Durgayya died on account of injuries received due to fall.At the time of arrest, the clothes on the person of the appellant were found blood stained.These were seized under panchanama (exh. 24).PW5 panch witness Mukesh has deposed on this aspect.These clothes were sent to the C.A. As per the C.A. report (exh. 34), the pant and shirt of the appellant were found to be stained with human blood.The Serologist & Chemical Examiner has found that the chadar seized in consequence of the disclosure statement made by the appellant was stained with human blood.As with lapse of time the classification of the blood could not be determined, no bonus is conferred upon the accused to claim any benefit on the strength of such a belated and stale argument.The trial Court as well as the High Court were, therefore, justified in holding the circumstance as proved beyond doubt against the appellant."::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:15 :::On going through the evidence on record, we find that there is sufficient evidence to connect the appellant to the crime.Thus, we find no merit in the appeal.Ayubi, who has very ably conducted the matter.We quantify total legal fees to be paid to her in this appeal by the High Court Legal Services Committee at `2,500/-.(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (MRS.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) 7/7 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:15 ::: | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,207,096 | Sections-Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment In lieu of Fine 373(2) of the 14 years R.I. Rs.2,000/- 2 months R.I. IPC As per prosecution case, on 01/4/2017, the prosecutrix lodged a written report at Police Station Nishatpura, Bhopal alleging that she is a resident of Devki Nagar, Karond, Bhopal.In her childhood, once she had fallen fell ill.At that time co-accused/Rita @ Reshma (Aunt of the prosecutrix) got her treated and she started residing with co-accused Reshma since then.Co-accused Reshma arranged for her studying up to class 7th.The parents of the prosecutrix also resided at Nishatpura.She used to meet them occasionally.Accused/Appellant R.K. Mahale maternal uncle of co- accused Reshma often used to come to her house to meet co-accused Reshma, therefore prosecutrix also started calling him, Mama.About 6-7 days prior to 29/3/2017 at about 2 to 2.30 pm accused/appellant came to meet co-accused Reshma.At that time Reshma was not at home.The Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.01.22 15:50:33 +05'30' 2 appellant brought with him a bottle of Fanta cold drink.The accused offered the cold drink to the prosecutrix and also drank the same.After drinking the juice, she felt sleepy and slept on the mattress.Thereafter appellant R.K. Mahale committed rape with her.After some time when she regained consciousness, she found that her salwar was removed.When she was wearing her shalwar, co-accused/Reshma came over there.She narrated the incident to her but she did not say anything.The accused/appellant had previously also committed rape with her about 6-7 times.Heard on I.A. No.19934/2019, which is an application U/S.389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellant R.K. Mahale.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28/3/2019 passed by 23rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, District-Bhopal (M.P.) in S.T.No.153/2017 whereby learned Session Judge found appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced as under:-Whenever the accused came to the house of the prosecutrix, her aunt co-accused Reshma used to go out of the house leaving her all alone at the house and at such time the appellant/accused used to do intercourse with her.Co-accused Reshma was also involved in the crime.On that Police registered Crime No.243/2017 against the appellant at Police Station, Nishatpura Bhopal, for the offence punishable under Sections 372, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and investigated the matter.After investigation police filed charged against the appellant and co-accused Reshma.On that charge- sheet, S.T.No.153/2017 was registered.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court without appreciating the evidence properly, wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences.There are many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecutrix regarding incident.It is further submitted that prosecutrix had earlier made the complaint on 04/08/2016 (Ex-D/3 & D/4) against three persons Nilesh (Mukesh Tiwari) and Dr Krishna and their associate Guddu alleging that on 25/07/2016 they took her to Hotel Shri Palace, located at Malviya Nagar, Bhopal where Nilesh and Guddu committed rape with her.Dr Krishna pressed her breasts and kissed her lips.It is further submitted that the prosecutrix had come to the appellant to help her in that regard and he made further complaints to the higher authorities on her behalf, due to which police on the behest of Nilesh (Mukesh Tiwari), Dr Krishna, Guddu, registered a false case against the appellant.Even prosecutrix in her cross-examination clearly admitted that she did not sign FIR (Ex-P/1).The Learned Trial Court without appreciating all these facts Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.01.22 15:50:51 +05'30' 3 wrongly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence.Hence prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellant on bail since the hearing of this appeal is likely to take a long time.He further submitted that prosecutrix in her cross-examination clearly denied from the suggestions given by the appellant that she lodged the report (Ex- D/3 & D/4) against Nilesh (Mukesh Tiwari), Dr Krishna, Guddu.So the defence of the appellant has no value.The learned trial court in para 25 to 31 of its judgement discussed the defence of the appellant and found it false.This appeal is already admitted, so list it for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,209,766 | ad th (Passed on the 28 day of November, 2017) M The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition of against the order dated 21/07/2017 passed by the Commissioner, rt Sagar Division, Sagar through which the order of externment ou under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, C 1990 (for short Adhiniyam, 1990) dated 27/4/2017 passed h by the District Magistrate/Collector, Sagar has been confirmed ig H whereby the petitioner is restrained for one year from entering into the revenue limits of District Sagar and the adjoining districts.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued only on one ground that the petitioner was found to be involved in the criminal activities till 2008 and i.e. the year in which the last criminal case was registered against him and since then the petitioner was living peacefully with his family, despite this fact the order of externment has been passed against him.If offences ou have been committed by the petitioner in the year 2007-08, which C are not heinous in nature, in that case to come to a conclusion in h the year 2017 that the petitioners activities are unlawful and ig his presence has given a rise to fear in the mind of public is rather H preposterous.In the case of Ashok Kumar Patel (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in para 9 has held as under:We will therefore have to examine the impugned order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, under Section 5 (b) of the Act of 1990 to find out whether the petitioner was engaged in the commission of an offence or was about to be engaged in the commission of an offence mentioned in Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990, or in the abetment of such offence, which was very close in proximity to 18.11.2008 when the impugned order of externment was passed.The impugned order dated 27.4.2017 passed by the District Magistrate as also the order dated 21.7.2017 passed by the Commissioner arehereby quashed.No cost.(SubobhAbhyankar) Judge 28/11/2017 Ansari MANZOOR AHMED 2017.11.29 21:27:08 -08'00' e sh ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,209,823 | (2) The prosecution case essentially is that on 29 August, 2012 at about 9 A.M., when the victim girl, stated to be 8years of age at that time, was returning from private tuition, on the way she was intercepted by the accused/appellant who told her that he would buy biscuit for her.He took her to a stationary shop and purchased one packet of tiger biscuit.He then took her to the bank of a "jhil" (lake) near the Press Quarter.There the accused disrobed the victim and committed rape on her.Thereafter, he warned the victim not to disclose the incident to anybody otherwise he would kill her.(3) The written complaint was filed by the girl's mother on 1September, 2012 on the basis whereof the First Information Report was lodged on the same date.The accused was charged for committing offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC.He pleaded not guilty and accordingly stood for trial.(4) The victim girl's statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The prosecution examined 11 witnesses.On the way two persons saw the V.G. crying and asked the accused to let the girl go.The accused did not listen to them.Instead, he dragged the V.G. along with him and told those two persons that she is his grand- daughter; she was crying because she had been driven out of the house.Then those two persons went away.Then in the jungle the accused took off the V.G.'s frock and then forcibly also took off her pant.When the V.G. was crying loudly, the accused told her to shut up.The accused also slapped the girl on the cheek.Then the accused inserted his penis into her vagina.The V.G.suffered pain.The accused also squeezed the V.G.'sbreast.The accused also kissed the V.G.. When the V.G.was in tremendous pain and was crying loudly then the accused let her go.Then the V.G.dressed up herself and went home.The accused also left but before leaving he told the V.G.that if she narrated the incident to her parents then he would bury her on the banks of the jhil.Then the V.G.returned home and told her mother that her urinal passage was hurting because of what the accused had done to her.Her mother then called her father on telephone.Her father rushed back from work and after hearing everything called the police on telephone.Then the police arrested the accused from his house.(7) PW1 is the mother of the girl.She deposed that the incident took place on 29 August, 2012 at about 9 A.M. On the next date i.e. 30 August, 2012 when she returned from work, she found her daughter crying.She complained of pain in her lower stomach.On enquiry, her daughter told her that 'dadu' had allured her promising to buy biscuit for her and took her to the bank of the lake (Press Quarter,JhilDhar).There Daduundressed her and committed sexual intercourse which has caused pain in her lower stomach.Later on she came to know that the name of the said "dadu" is Bhola Das, the accused.She informed her husband of the incident and they together went to the police station and submitted a written complaint.Thereafter, Police took the V.G. to the hospital where she was medically examined.Police also visited the place of occurrence along with her and recovered one empty packet of biscuit.The Police also seized ''frock' and ''panti'' of the V.G. which she had worn at the time of the incident.On 30 August, 2012 when she came to learn that her daughter was suffering pain in her private parts, she did not take her to the local doctor or district hospital.(8) PW2 is the V.G.. In her evidence she said that on 29 August, 2012 at about 9 A.M. she was returning from her private tuition.On the way 6 the accused told her that he will give her biscuit.He took her to a stationary shop and purchased one packet of Tiger biscuit and then took her to the Press Quarter field by the side of the big pond (jhil).There the accused tried to penetrate hispenis into her vagina.At that time she was crying out of pain.The accused slapped her and told her that if she disclosed the incident to anybody else, he would kill her and bury her by the side of the 'jhil'.Thereafter, in the night when she was sleeping she again felt pain on her lower abdomen.Then in response to her mother's query she disclosed the facts to her mother.On the next morning her mother informed the matter to her father by telephone.Her father returned to their house in the night then her father went to the house of the accused and brought him.Her father also informed the Police over telephone and the Police came to their house and took all of them to the Police Station.The Police took her and her parents to the hospital where she was medically examined.In cross-examination, she said that she goes to the school at about 10.30 A.M. accompanied by her elder sister.She goes to the private tutor after school hours from Monday to Friday.She goes to private tuition everyday at 5.30 P.M. and returns to her house at 7.30 P.M.. Police came to their house on the day after the alleged incident.She told the I.O. that her father informed the matter to the Police over telephone 7 and Police came to their house and took them to the Police Station.She also told the I.O. that her father went to the house of the accused and brought him.When the accused took her to the Press Quarter ground and committed the offence, she shouted loudly and two persons came there.1 In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side CRA 226 of 2016 CRAN 1505 of 2019 Bhola DasThe State of West Bengal Before : The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Thottathil B.(1) By his judgment and order dated 28 January, 2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - II, Howrah, convicted the appellant for committing offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and sentenced the appellant with rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and also imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default simple 2 imprisonment for six months.The amount of fine if deposited was directed to be given to the victim as compensation.3 The defence examined none.The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was recorded.(5) The learned Trial Judge analysed the evidence of all the witnesses.Primarily relying on the evidence of the victim girl (PW2), the learned Trial Judge found the accused to be guilty of the offence.He observed that there was no reason to disbelieve the victim girl.The facts of the case and evidence on record did not disclose any animosity between the victim or her family or the other witnesses and the accused so as to provide a motive for falsely implicating the accused.This fact also she told the I.O.. The said two persons took her to her house after the incident.She told the Investigating Officer (I.O.) that the accused had penetrated his penis into her vagina.(9) PW4 is the father of the V.G.. Almost all his statements in his evidence were based on her daughter's and wife's statements.He further said that his daughter and son used to take private tuition at about 8 A.M./9 A.M. and returned at about 9/9.15 A.M. (10) PW6 is the doctor who conducted potency test on the accused and opined that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse.(11) PW9 is the I.O. He deposed that on 01/09/12 he seized one 'Tiger Pineapple Britannia Mark Biscuit Packet' from the spot.He did not collect any certificate of age of the V.G. from the headmaster of the school where she studied.He did not seize any admission register from that school.He did not collect any certificate of birth from the office of Howrah Municipal Corporation.He could not collect any document showing that the V.G. went to her private tutor.The V.G. did not tell him that her father informed the matter to the Police over telephone and Police came to their house and took them to the Police Station.The V.G. did not state to him that her father went to the house of the accused and brought him.The V.G. did not tell him that her mother informed the incident over telephone to her father and her father came back in the night.The V.G. did not tell him that when she shouted loudly two persons came to the place of occurrence and the said two persons took her to her house after the incident.He did not collect the name of the said two persons from the V.G..(12) PW10 is the learned Magistrate before whom the statement of the V.G. under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded.He proved the statement and the same was marked as an exhibit.(13) PW11 is the doctor who was attached to the Howrah District Hospital on the date of the incident and who examined the V.G.. He proved the medical report and tendered the same in evidence.He did not give any biscuit to the victim.He did not know the victim.He had never been to the victim's house.He denied all the allegations made against him.(15) The charge against the accused is under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC.The said Section, as it stood on the date of the incident prior to its amendment by Act of 2013 with effect from 3 February, 2013, was to the effect that whoever commits rape on a woman who is under 12 years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may be for life and 10 shall also be liable to fine; provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years.(16) Section 375 of the IPC, which explains as to what amounts to committing rape, as it stood on the date of the incident read as follows:First - Against her will.Secondly - Without her consent.Thirdly - With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.Fourthly -With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.Fifthly - With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature 11 and consequences of that to which she gives consent.Sixthly - With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.Explanation - Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.Exception - Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape."(17) The charge brought against the accused would only lie if the V.G.was less than 12 years of age.However, we will proceed on the basis that such statement is correct and the same also seems to be consistent with the V.G.'s answer to the third question put to her by the learned Trial Judge to assess her capability of giving evidence.In her evidence which was 12 recorded on 25 March, 2014 and she stated that she was then studying in class VI.(18) There are no eye-witnesses to the incident.The entire case rests on the V.G.'s version of the incident.While there is no rule of law that the evidence of a child witness cannot be the basis for conviction of the accused or that the victim's evidence cannot be the basis of conviction, in such cases, where there are no eye-witnesses, the Court has to be cautious in accepting the version of the child witness who is also the victim.(19) We have carefully scanned the statements of the V.G.as record under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has also in course of her deposition in Court.We have also analysed the evidence of the other witnesses.We find the following inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence:(i) In her Section 164 statement the V.G. said that when the accused was taking her to the place of occurrence, on the way, two persons saw her crying and asked the accused to let her go.The accused did not listen.Then the two persons left.examination, the V.G. said that after the accused took her 13 to the place of occurrence and committed the offence, she shouted loudly and two persons came there who took her to her house after the incident.(ii) In her examination-in-chief in Court, she said that the incident occurred on 29 August, 2012 at about 9 A.M. in the morning when she was returning from her private tuition.However, in cross-examination, she said that she goes to private tuition everyday at 5.30 P.M. from Monday to Friday.(iii) In her Section 164 Statement she said that the accused inserted his penis into her vagina.However, in her examination-in-chief in Court she said that at the place of occurrence the accused 'tried to penetrate his penis into my vagina'.Then again, in her cross-examination which took place on a later date,she said that she told the I.O.that the accused had penetrated his penis into her vagina.However, this was not put to the I.O. during his examination and there is no corroboration of this statement by the I.O.(iv) In her evidence, she said that she told the I.O. that her father went to the house of the accused and brought him.This was denied by the I.O. during his examination.(v) She said in her evidence that she told the I.O. that her father informed the matter to the police over telephone and police went to their house and took them to the hospital where she was medically examined.denied that any such statement was made to him by her.(vi) She said in her evidence that she told the I.O. that on the next morning her mother informed the incident to her father over telephone who returned back to their house in the night.The I.O. denied any such statement having been made to him by her.(vii) She said in her evidence that she told the I.O. that when she shouted loudly, two persons came to the Press Quarter who took her back to the house after the incident.Hence, one has to be specially careful before returning a verdict of conviction based primarily on the evidence of a victim child."Neither semen (no spermatozoon) nor blood could be detected on the contents of the items marked A (vaginal swab and vaginal smears said to be of Priya Chakraborty), B (urethral Swab and urethral smears said to be of Bhola Das) and C (frock and panty)."(30) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.(31) Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.I agree. | ['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,221,264 | Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State with SI Arvind Kumar, Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Delhi.806/2017 and 1459/2017 Page 1 of 7 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, New Delhi.Bail Appln.806/2017 and 1459/2017 Page 1 of 7The complainant alleged that both accused persons made her consume beer and while she was under the influence of beer, they made her sit in the car and took her to Rajpura Gur Mandi; that they made her drink whisky fraudulently and while she was intoxicated, the accused persons committed rape on her; that when she regained consciousness, a scuffle took place between her and the accused persons during which her bangles fell in their car; that thereafter accused persons fled away as she raised alarm; that then she went to the house of accused Maonj@Tinky and enquired about the accused persons but did not find them there; that thereafter she returned to her house and slept; that in the evening of 30.05.2015, she went to the dhaba of accused Vipin and made a PCR call whereafter both the accused persons were subsequently arrested.806/2017 and 1459/2017 Page 2 of 7 her complaint wherein the allegation are identical to those made in the subject FIR; that to disprove the version of the prosecutrix, a CD containing the conversations between prosecutrix and the mother of the accused, wherein the prosecutrix was demanding money, has been placed on record; that the said CD was found genuine upon FSL examination; that, anticipatory bail was granted to both the accused persons by the Trial Court vide order dated.23.11.2016; that the conduct of the prosecutrix of not approaching the police soon after the incident does not inspire confidence and moreover her visiting to Tihar Jail to meet petitioner/Vipin on three occasions i.e. 28.05.2015, 10.09.2015 and 17.09.2015 for settling the case subject to fulfillment of her demands, casts serious doubt on genuineness of her allegations; that there are several contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix at different places and before different authorities with respect to the fact that whether she was conscious or not, how much alcohol she consumed, her address, how she raised the alarm, how she managed to escape etc.; that neither blood stains nor semen stains could be detected on any of the articles from the vehicle; that there is no injury on the person of the prosecutrix and incase this incident did take place she was a consenting party; that the petitioner/Vipin lost his father due to societal ostracization and presently his mother is suffering from various old age ailments without anyone to look after her; that the prosecution has no private witnesses which negates the possibility of tampering with the evidence; that the petitioner/Vipin is ready to give surety for Bail Appln.806/2017 and 1459/2017 Page 3 of 7 securing his presence before the Trial Court and thus, should be granted bail.Bail Appln.806/2017 and 1459/2017 Page 2 of 7806/2017 and 1459/2017 Page 5 of 7 and shouted for help but petitioner/Vipin pulled her hand inside the car and did not allow her to raise alarm; that when she regained consciousness, she found that petitioner/Vipin was on driver seat and petitioner/Manoj@Tinky was with her on rear seat of the car; that petitioner/Manoj@Tinky was trying to commit rape on her to which she resisted and she again became unconscious; that on regaining the consciousness, she had a quarrel with the petitioners and they requested not to make any complaint and when she insisted, they locked her in the car and fled away; that she came out of the car as the door was not properly locked; that she did not go to the police station and went to the house of Chacha of petitioner/Vipin and came to know that he was not at home; that she went to her house and woke up in the late evening; that at about 7:00-7:30 p.m. she made a PCR call and police took her to the police station.Bail Appln.806/2017 and 1459/2017 Page 5 of 7Dr. Sonal Goyal, Medical Officer, NRC Department, District Hospital, Sheopur, MP proved the MLC Ex.By this common order, I shall dispose of the petitions filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), whereby the petitioners seek grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 167/2015 under Section 376D of the Bail Appln.Bail Appln.806/2017 and 1459/2017 Page 3 of 7Adopting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner/Vipin, Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/Manoj @ Tinky further contended that the entire case of the prosecution is concocted as there is an unexplained delay of approximately 17 hours in lodging the complaint; that during her examination before the Metropolitan Magistrate the prosecutrix has totally diverted from her previous statements recorded with police official; that another FIR No. 77/2013 under Section 509 IPC at Police Station-Kingsway North-West Distt.Delhi and FIR No. 316/2014 under Section 354 IPC at Police Station-Kingsway North-West Distt.Delhi have been registered at the instance of the prosecutrix; that through CDR, it can be proved that the prosecutrix had telephonic conversations with her nearest relative immediately before and after she was subjected to alleged rape but she never disclosed it to the person she spoke to on the phone; that the petitioner/Manoj@Tinky has an aged mother who is in constant need of care and that he is the sole wage earner for the family; that there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence as out of 15 witnesses the prosecution has examined 9 witness including the prosecutrix and thus, should be granted bail.Per Contra, Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that the petitioners are not liable to be granted regular bail as they have been actively involved in the commission of a heinous offence where the Bail Appln.806/2017 and 1459/2017 Page 4 of 7 punishment is more than 20 years; that there is scientific evidence/material on record in the form of DNA against the petitioner/Vipin who in the company of the petitioner/Manoj @ Tinky have committed gang-rape on the prosecutrix; that in such cases, there is presumption which has to be drawn once sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the prosecutrix states before the Court that she did not consent for the said intercourse; that in the said case, sexual evidence has been established by way of DNA evidence and the prosecutrix has stated that it was done against her will; that the petitioners may threaten/influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence and might also violate the conditions of the bail and hence the present petitions are liable to be dismissed.Bail Appln.806/2017 and 1459/2017 Page 4 of 7I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record.At the outset, it is observed that the prosecutrix (PW-3) deposed that petitioner/Vipin called her and asked to come near dhaba; that she reached there by her scooty and petitioner/Manoj @ Tinky was also there in their car; that petitioner/Manoj@Tinky parked her scooty and asked her to accompany them in their car; that both petitioners were consuming liqour and drove towards Ghanta Ghar; that both the accused persons kept on consuming liquor (beer) and also made her drink the same; that they insisted her to consume liquor on which she became intoxicated and petitioner/Vipin raped on her and after a short while petitioner/Manoj @ Tinky raped on her; that the car started moving and she opened the window pane Bail Appln.With above directions, the present petitions are disposed of.Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J OCTOBER 12, 2017 gr// Bail Appln.806/2017 and 1459/2017 Page 7 of 7Bail Appln.806/2017 and 1459/2017 Page 7 of 7 | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,221,881 | Shri Vidya Prasad Kushwaha, counsel for the objector.This is first application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicants who are in custody in connection with Crime No. 180/2020 registered at Police Station Manpur, District Umariya for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.A s per the prosecution case, the applicants and complainant are neighbours and there is some land dispute between them.It is alleged that the applicants attacked the complainant due to which the complainant received injury.Learned counsel for the applicants submits the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case.A counter case vide Crime No. 182/2020 has been registered against the persons of the complainant party under Section 294, 323, 324, 325 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code.Due to Covid-19 pandemic, trial would take considerable time, therefore, it is prayed that the applicants be granted bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for bail application.Learned counsel for the objector has also raised objection to the bail application.Accordingly, the application is allowed and disposed of.(SMT.ANJULI PALO) JUDGE vidya Digitally signed by SREEVIDYA Date: 2020.10.05 14:24:29 +05'30' | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,922,331 | M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.:Special leave granted.The appellant No. 2 is his wife.On thefollowing day i.e. on June 23, 1991 Noor Mohammad, father ofthe deceased, lodged a First Information Report allegingthat her husband, grand mother-in-law and the two appellantswere responsible for her death.The appeal is,therefore, dismissed. | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,242,103 | The Council of Ministers held that there was not an iota of material available against both the Ministers from which it could be inferred that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy with anyone.Leave granted.Briefly stated the facts are as follows:Respondents No. 4 (in both these Appeals), i.e. Rajender Kumar Singh and Bisahu Ram Yadav, were Ministers in the Government of M. P. A Complaint was made to the Lokayukta against them for having released 7.5 acres of land illegally to its earlier owners even though the same had been acquired by the Indore Development Authority.Sanction was applied for from the Council of Ministers for prosecuting the two Ministers.Both the Ministers filed separate Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order of the Governor.The Appellants filed two Letters Patent Appeals which have been disposed off by the impugned Judgment.The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals upholding the reasoning and Judgment of the Single Judge.However, here arises another question.There are two competing orders; one of the Council of Ministers, another by the Governor, one refusing to grant sanction another granting the same.The Council of Ministers had refused to grant sanction on the premise that there existed no material to show that the Respondent No. 4 in each appeal has committed an offence of conspiracy, whereas the Governor in his order dated 24th September, 1998 was clearly of the view that the materials did disclose their complicity.The Lokayukta for the State of Madhya Pradesh admittedly made a detailed inquiry in the matter on a complaint received by him.The inquiry covered a large area, namely, the statutory provisions, the history of the case, Orders dated 11th August, 1995, 24th February 1997 and 5th March, 1997 which were said to have been passed on the teeth of the statutory provisions, the clandestine manner in which the matter was pursued, the notings in the files as also how the accused persons deliberately and knowingly closed their minds and eyes from the realities of the case. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,244,756 | The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order of externment dated 05.04.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Neemuch and order dated 26.06.2018, passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain by which the appeal has been dismissed.According to the Superintendent of Police, Ujjain seven cases have been registered against the petitioner under various sections of IPC.There is a general fear in the mind of public and the witness and they are not attending the Court proceedings.Being dissatisfied with the reply and the material available on record, the District Magistrate vide order dated 05.04.2018 has passed the order of externment for the period of 6 months restraining the petitioner to enter into the territory of Neemuch, Mandsaur, Ratlam, Shajapur, Ujjain and Dewas.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and that has been dismissed and order of District Magistrate has been upheld, hence the present petition.By order dated 13.07.2018 this Court has directed respondent No.1 to make available record of Case No.289/17-Today, record is not available.Out of 6 months, 4 months have already expired, therefore, the petition is heard and decided on the basis of documents filed alongwith the petition.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.The second condition which must be satisfied for passing an order against the person is that in opinion of District Magistrate witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence and to furnish evidence against such person by reasons of apprehension on their part as regard safety, but the District Magistrate in the impugned order has only 3 reproduced the list of offence registered against the petitioner and formed an opinion against petitioner. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,134,767 | Dated :17.11.2014 safiThe present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.11.2010 passed in complaint case no. 4199 of 2010 under Sections 447, 504, 506 Ipc, Police Station Mandi, District - Saharanpur passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IV, Saharanpur and further to quash the order dated 22.6.2012 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2012 (Smt. Roopa Gupta vs. State and another).Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the aforesaid complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IV, Saharanpur with the averments that he was the owner of house no. 6/1744, Gyan Vihar Colony, near Tota Chowk, Saharanpur.Since his father was ill, therefore he had to live with his father in his parental house.The petitioner was well-known to him therefore, on her request, she was permitted to live in the house in question for a period of three months.She had stated that she will be purchasing a house at Bhuteshwar Road and after the expiry of three months, she will shift in that house.Believing on her version, she was permitted to live in the house in question.When after the expiry of the aforesaid period of three months, she did not vacate the house in question, the respondent no.2 told her to vacate the same but she did not vacate on one or the other pretext.When the respondent no.2 felt that petitioner was trying to occupy the house in question, he sent a notice to the petitioner to vacate the same terminating the permission given to her but she did not vacate the house.On 17.7.2010 the respondent no.2 went to his house and asked the petitioner to vacate the house in question but she abused him and also gave threats to kill him.On the basis of the above complaint, the Magistrate concerned recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the complainant, by the order dated 16.11.2010 summoned the petitioner to face the trial for the offences under Sections 447, 504 and 506 IPC.Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Sessions Judge.The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court no.1, Saharanpur after hearing the parties dismissed the revision affirming the order passed by the Magistrate concerned.Hence the present writ petition.These facts find support with the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C..The provisions enumerated in second part of Section 441 I.P.C. clearly attract in the present matter because initially the petitioner entered in the house in question in lawful manner but subsequently, she insisted to remain in possession unlawfully. | ['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,214,011 | SANJIV KHANNA J.(ORAL)Appellant Nafees @ Bhura impugns the impugned judgment dated 22.04.1999 convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short IPC) read with Section 34 IPC for murder of Jai Nand and under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for attempt to murder Radha.Appellant has also been convicted under Section 392/34 and Section 397 of IPC.By an order of sentence dated 24.04.1999, appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC; 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and seven years Crl.A. 439/1999 Page 1 of 15 rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 392/34 read with Section 397 IPC.In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each in respect of the three defaults.PW9 has deposed that in the intervening night of 23/24.01.1995, she had a meal with her husband Jain Nand, the appellant Nafees and Tahir at about 11:00 pm and thereafter they watched television.At about 12:30, appellant and Crl. A. 439/1999 Page 2 of 15 Tahir went to sleep in the tea shop adjacent to their room.She went to sleep with her husband and child in their room.She has testified that Tahir used to work in the tea shop of her husband.Tahir used to stay and sleep in the tea shop itself which was situated in the premises.Appellant Nafees was a friend of Tahir and used to reside at night with him in the tea shop and also have food with them at night.Appellant Nafees used to work as raj mistri.She identified appellant Nafees in the court as the person who used to stay at night in the tea shop.PW9 has further deposed that about 1/1:30 am, appellant Nafees and accused Tahir kicked open the door and entered in their room.Their room was not bolted from inside.Appellant caught hold of her neck while holding a knife in his hand.Tahir hit her husband on his head with a basola.The appellant while holding a knife asked PW9 to hand over the entire money.PW9 tried to catch hold the knife from the appellants hand and in the process injured her left hand finger.When she protested and stated that she did not have money, Tahir hit her on her head with the basola.Nearly Rs.2000/- to 2,500/- which was kept in a steel dabba was taken away by the Appellant Nafees and his associate.She fell down due to giddiness because of the injury on her head.Police came to the house and she was taken to the hospital.Name of the deceased was Jai Nand, husband of Radha (PW9).Incriminating material including one pillow, one quilt, bed sheets, etc. were lifted from the spot.One basola was found.The sketch of the basola has been marked Ex.It is used for cutting or shaping wood, breaking bricks, stones etc. As per the sketch, the total length of the basola was 33 cms.PW11 was khadim at the Majaar located at Subhash Park, Daryaganj, Delhi.He has deposed that he knew Nafees and Tahir.Appellant Nafees used to work as a raj mistri.However, he had deposed that Nafees had started working in the tea shop of Jai Nand at Shastri Park where Tahir also used to work.On 24.01.1995, police had come to Majaar and had enquired about accused Nafees and Tahir.A. 439/1999 Page 14 of 15 eight years and six months.In view of his conduct, he has earned remission for more than one year and four months.A. 439/1999 Page 14 of 15A. 439/1999 Page 1 of 15The aforesaid conviction arises out of FIR No.55/1995, P.S. Seelampur.At the outset, we record and notice that the other co-accused, namely, Tahir @ Shahid @ Shahil was not arrested and did not face the trial.We have heard Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned amicus curiae who has appeared for the appellant and Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned amicus curiae has confined his arguments to appropriateness of conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.It is submitted that the appellant did not share common intention to commit murder under Section 302 IPC or attempt to murder and accordingly his convictions be altered and modified.On the question of involvement of the appellant, we have to rely upon the statement of injured eye witness Radha (PW9).She had made a statement Ex.PW9/A on the basis of which FIR in question was registered.A. 439/1999 Page 2 of 15Police officers Head Constable Ram Singh, Constable Ram Snehi and ASI Jiya Ram have appeared as PWs 6, 8 and 12 respectively.They have in seriatim deposed that in the night of 23/24.01.1995, they were posted at Police Post Shastri Park, Seelampur and were on patrol duty.A. 439/1999 Page 3 of 15At about 2:15 am, when they reached near Theka of Shastri Park, they had heard a lady groaning and also sound of a crying baby/child.Threrafter, they went near the house and found that the entrance gate was open and the light was on.After entering the house, they found a dead person lying on the Thakhat with injuries on his forehead, head and face.A cot was lying near that Thakhat and a lady was found sitting on the cot with injuries on her head and her left hand.Articles inside the room were lying scattered and a small baby just 5-6 months old was also on that cot and was crying.The lady, namely, Radha (PW9) was taken to GTB Hospital by Constable Ram Snehi.The names of the appellant Nafees and accused Tahir find mention and were recorded in the complaint made by PW9, Ex.PW9/A which was converted into a rukka at about 3:50 am and thereafter FIR in question was registered.MLC of Radha has been proved and marked Ex.PW13/A. The same MLC was proved by Dr. Deepa Gupta (PW13) who identified the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Kartikaya.It is recorded therein that the patient, i.e., PW9 Radha was conscious oriented.She had contused lacerated wound on the scalp measuring 4 cm x 0.5cm x Crl.A. 439/1999 Page 4 of 15 0.5 cm on the right parietal and occipital region and CLW of 0.5 cms on the left little finger.She had an incised wound on her left ring finger and she was declared fit for statement.A. 439/1999 Page 4 of 15It has come on record that both Appellant Nafees and his associate Tahir were absconding and hence not available.The appellant Nafees was arrested on 30.01.1995 as deposed to by Wali Hassain Khan (PW11).On 30.01.1995, when he went to perform namaz at the majaar, he saw Nafees who was present.Thereafter, he informed the police and took them near the majaar and got the appellant Nafees arrested.Arrest memo Ex.PW6/C was signed by him.Appellant Nafees had made the disclosure statement Ex.PW6/D which he signed.In the present case, the disclosure statement has no relevance as no recovery was made and no physical article was taken into possession by the police pursuant to the disclosure statement.There is nothing in the deposition of PW11 which creates doubt about his court statement.PW11 no doubt had stated that appellant Nafees was working at the tea shop, but he has also deposed that Nafees was working as a raj mistri.The court statement was recorded on 09.09.1997 nearly more than two years after the occurrence and this small discrepancy in PW11s statement does not mean that we should ignore the main or the principal assertion.A. 439/1999 Page 5 of 15Statement of PW11 is corroborated by the statement of Radha (PW9), injured wife of the deceased.Radha was also extensively cross- examined, but we do not find any reason to doubt or disregard her version and thus, accept her deposition.PW9 in her court deposition had stated that she had gone to the police post which is not correct as per statements of the police officers, PWs 6, 8 and 12, but it does not mean and follow that she had not seen the actual occurrence and had not known or named the perpetrators.Her presence at the spot of occurrence was natural and normal as she was residing with her husband.Her husband had a tea shop in the same premises where she was residing.She had made her complaint marked Ex.PW9/A. Her statement gets corroborated from the court deposition of PW6 Head Constable Ram Singh, PW8 Constable Ram Snehi and PW12 ASI Jiya Ram.The MLC of Radha Ex.PW13/A fully supports and affirms her version as to the occurrence.Post mortem report of Jai Nand has been proved and marked Ex.PW3/A. The said report was proved by Dr. Anil Kohli (PW3) who has opined that the deceased had suffered several incised wounds on the head and forehead/face.The cause of death was due to shock due to ante mortem injuries to the head by a heavy cutting weapon.Injuries No.1 and 8 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, both collectively and independently with the other injuries.However, the weapon of offence was not shown to him.The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has asserted that he did not know anything and in response to the last question had stated that he was brought by Crl.A. 439/1999 Page 6 of 15 the police from his house in Bijnor where he was working as a raj mistri.He did not know the deceased Jai Nand and injured Radha was also unknown to him and he had never worked in that tea shop.He asserted that one boy Aslam had accompanied the police to Bijnor and from where he was lifted at the boys instance.However, as noticed, the name of the appellant is duly mentioned in the complaint Ex.PW9/A and the appellant was identified by Radha(PW9) in the court.A. 439/1999 Page 12 of 15This was the motive and intention.The appellant, Nafees to this extent no doubt, had the common and shared intention.On the evidence of Gopi Nath himself the result aforesaid follows.Shashi Mohan had reached near him and when he tried to obstruct the accused and prevent them from committing the assault on Shashi Mohan, Harendra said "we have met enemy today, need not be freed".He can be held guilty only under Section 304 Part II as he had intentionally joined in the commission of an act with the knowledge that the assault on Shashi was likely to result in his death.The facts of this case indicate that Bhaba Nanda shared the common intention of his other two brothers for the commission of a lesser offence than murder.But while committing the act in furtherance of that common intention, Phanidhar and Harendra developed and shared the common intention of causing his murder.A. 439/1999 Page 13 of 15For the reasons stated above, the appeal of appellants Phanidhar and Harendra is dismissed.The appeal of Bhaba Nanda is partly allowed.The sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him is altered to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years only.The conviction of all the appellants under Sections 323/34 is also maintained."Keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, we are inclined to convert the conviction of the Appellant Nafees under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I IPC.The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for the injuries or attempt to murder Radha(PW9) is sustained.The sentence awarded under Sections 307/34 is modified to the period already undergone, while sentence of seven years for offence under Sections 392/397/34 is retained.Similarly for the offence under Section 304 Part I, the appellant Nafees is awarded sentence of imprisonment for the period undergone.We have also noted and the amicus curiae has stated at the bar that the appellant is not involved in any other criminal case and the appellant was released on suspension of sentence on 18.07.2003 and since then, he has not been implicated in any criminal case.Fine of Rs.2,000/- for each offence under Sections 302, 307 and 392 read with Section 397/34 has been imposed.Fine of Rs.2,000/- is imposed for the offence under Section 304 Part I. The other fines are maintained.The said fines will be paid by the appellant within one month from today, in default of which the appellant will have to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for each fine of Rs.2000/- in each case.Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court.The appeal is accordingly disposed of.(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 23, 2014/pst Crl.A. 439/1999 Page 15 of 15A. 439/1999 Page 15 of 15 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,142,884 | The appellants were charged for committing murder of 5 years oldboy named Bharat Singh.As per the prosecution version, Bharat Singh wasthe grandson of Ram Singh.At about 1.30 p.m. on that day, he instructed his grandson Bharat Singh(the deceased) to look after the cattle as he was going to his house forlunch.The boy obeyed the instructions of his grandfather and startedgrazing the cattle.After some time, when Ram Singh came back from hishouse, he found the boy missing.He called out his grandson by name butwithout any response.On this, Ram Singh along with his son Pratap Singh(Uncle of missing boy and the complainant) started their search for theboy.When the boy was not traced till evening Pratap Singh (PW-4) eveninformed the Patwari (Revenue Officer) about this.He also joined thefather and grandfather in searching the missing boy.The search went ontill late night but with no results.However, when the search began nextmorning i.e. on 16.10.1982, at about 11.00 a.m. the dead body of the boyBharat Singh was found lying in a cave.FIR No.A-5 was lodged with thePatwari in which Diwan Singh son of Nathu Singh, Ramesh Singh s/o DiwanSingh and Diwan Singh s/o Mahendra Singh were named on suspicion by thecomplainant.The dead body was taken into custody by Patwari (PW5) whoprepared the inquest report (Ex.A6), sketch of the dead body (Ex.A-7) andthe sample seal (Ex.A-10).A.K.SIKRI,J.The appellants in these two separate appeals challenge the impugnedjudgment and order dated 16.5.2006 passed by the High Court of Uttranchalwhereby the High Court has been pleased to confirm the conviction andsentence of the appellant to undergo life imprisonment u/s 302 IPC andfurther sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment u/s 201 IPC.At about 3.10 P.M. on 18.10.1982 the autopsy wasconducted of the deceased Bharat Singh by Dr.C.B.Pal (PW2) in the districtHeadquarters at Pithoragarh who prepared the post-mortem report (Ex.A1).The said Medical Officer found following ante mortem injuries on the bodyof the deceased:a. Legature marking 2.5 cm.in bredth encircling the next transversely and obliquely.The whole of the legature mark depressed encircling upto back of both ears, knot on the left side.b. Lacerated wound on the back of head measuring 3.5 cm.x 1 cm.x bone deep.cm x 0.5 cm.obliquely on the left side of the forehead.d. Contusion mark measuring 5 cm x 2 cm on the anterior part of left axial.e. Multiple contusion and abrasion mark present all over the body.f. Contusion mark 4 cm x (six) just below the chin.The Investigation Officer after investigation, submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.A-17) on 29.1.1983 against four accused persons namely RameshSingh s/o Diwan Singh (S/o Mahendra Singh), Diwan Singh s/o Mahendra Singh,Diwan Singh s/o Nathu Singh, Tara Singh s/o Diwan Singh s/o Nathu Singh.The name of appellant Tara Singh figured in the charge sheet, though in theFIR it was not mentioned.On 27.9.1983, the ld.Sessions Judge Pithoragarh framed the chargesagainst the accused Diwan Singh s/o Nathu Singh and accused Diwan Singh s/oNathu Singh relating to offence punishable u/s 302 r/w Section 34 of theIPC and he further framed charges against accused person Ram Singh and TaraSingh (the appellant herein) under 3 heads i.e. u/s 302 of the IPC, u/s 364of the IPC and u/s 201 of the IPC.All the accused persons pleaded notguilty and claimed to be tried.After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge pronounced his judgmentdated 16.11.1984 thereby acquitting Diwan Singh s/o Nathu Singh and DiwanSingh s/o Mahendra Singh of the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC.However, in so far as the appellants are concerned, they were convictedunder Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of Bharat Singh as well asunder Section 201 IPC for concealing the dead body in a cave.Both weresentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and 4 yearsrigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC.Both the convicted personsfiled their separate appeals in the High Court questioning the veracity ofthe judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.State also filed appeal againstthat part of the said judgment whereby other two accused persons wereacquitted by the Sessions Judge.All these three appeals were heardtogether and decided by the High Court vide judgment dated May 16, 2006.All the three appeals viz. that of the State as well as of the appellantsherein have been dismissed.In essence, the judgment of the Sessions Judgestands affirmed in its entirety by the High Court.Still not satisfied, the appellants have approached this Courtclaiming themselves to be innocent persons who are wrongly framed andconvicted in the said case.At the time of hearing, nobody appeared for the appellant Ram Singh.His first submission was that evenas per the complainant (PW4) who had lodged the FIR, the suspects wereother three persons and not Tara Singh.This argument hardly carries anysubstance.Merely because the complainant did not suspect the involvementof the appellant Tara Singh would not mean that he could not be named inthe charge sheet when during investigation it came to light that he wasalso perpetrator of the crime.Rather in such a situation not implicatinghim would have been the travesty of justice.It is a matter on record thatthere was no known eye witness to the crime and because of this reason.Other three names were also mentioned only on suspicion.During theinvestigation when the statement of Tara Dutt (PW1) and Diwan Singh (PW3)were recorded, role of the appellant Tara Singh in the crime surfaced.Therefore, non-mentioning of the name of Tara Singh in the FIR would be ofno significance.As per his statement, the accusedpersons live in Bhaati Gaon which is at a distance of one mile from hisvillage.He further deposed that on 15th October, 1982 while he wasreturning after grazing the cattle, he had seen two accused named TaraSingh and Ramesh Singh (appellants herein) who were holding Bharat Singh(the deceased).They had clasped his mouth and were taking him from theside Ganga Nath Temple to downwards direction.Very next morning, he lefthis house for going to ‘Diety Shanigaad Dewta’ and he returned from thereon fifth or sixth day.In his cross-examination, he stated that he had seenthe child carrying from a distance of ¾ of a mile.He was 75 years of age.He admitted that his eye-sight was weak.9. Inviting out attention to this part of the cross-examination, it wasargued that an old man of 75 years with failing eye sight could not haveseen or recognized the appellants and deceased from such a far awaydistance.We are not convinced with this argument either.Had it been anincident on planes, probably assertion of the learned senior counsel thatit was difficult to recognize persons from such a distance could carry someweight.However we are dealing with the incident which occurred in a hillyarea and it is not difficult to spot a person from higher height at thatdistance.In the hilly terrain, the aerial distance is much below than theland distance.We have gone through the entire testimony of the saidwitness who seems to be the totally disinterested and independent witness.Mr. Attri also made efforts to discredit the testimony of otherwitness namely Daan Singh (PW3).Mr. Daan Singh has made statement to theeffect that his house is about ½ km from the house of Diwan Singh s/o ofMahendra Singh.On 15th October 1982 when he was coming from Bisonia Tok,which is in his village, with bundle of chhilka on his head at about 1.30or 2.00 p.m., he saw Bharat Singh taking care of his goats near Ganganathtemple.Appellant Ramesh Singh came from downwards with appellant TaraSingh behind him and both of them sat with Bharat Singh.After few hours,he came to know Bharat Singh had disappeared as there was talk in thevillage to this effect.He joined the village persons who were searchingfor Bharat Singh.The next day, the Patwari came to the village and theystarted searching for the boy.He told village Pradhan as well asgrandfather of Bharat Singh at that time that he had seen the deceasedBharat Singh with appellants on the previous day.The submission of Mr.Attri is that conduct of Daan Singh is very natural unnatural as he shouldhave told about the said incident on the same day when he found Bharat haddisappeared.It has come on record that he is related to the informant’sfamily as well as family of the accused persons.Thus, he was equally knownto both and had no axe to grind.He is witness to ‘last seen’.The High Court has rightly observed that hisstatement appears to be natural and true.However, at the sametime having regard to the aforesaid discussion and after reading thetestimony of all other witnesses, we agree with the conclusion of thecourts below that there is a complete chain of circumstances proving thecharges against the appellants herein.This chain of circumstances consistsof following links:“i) The accused persons were harbouring enmity against the family of deceased.vi) The boy (Bharat Singh) could not be traced out on 15.10.1982 even after in all the places where he could have been found.The next day i.e. on 16.10.1982, the dead body of the deceased, on search, was found in a cave.vii) On postmortem of the dead body it was found that the boy had died of strangulation.”The last argument of Mr. Attri was that investigation in this casewas conducted by a Patwari and not by a Police Officer and therefore entireinvestigation is vitiated.In the first instance, we may point out that nosuch argument was raised before the trial court and the High Court.Vide this Notificationrules for appointing Police Officers and for regulating the procedure andfor prescribing the powers and duties to be exercised and performed by themin the District of Almora and Garwal and the Hill Pattis of Nainital, havebeen framed.Appendix to this Notification confers various powers andduties which Patwaris are required to perform as police officers.Itspecifically confers upon them the powers to register the reports of crimeand conduct the investigation in relation thereto.Though lots of otherdocuments are filed to demonstrate this very legal position viz. Patwari isduly authorized to conduct such investigation in the absence of a policeofficer, it is not necessary to dilate upon this aspect any further.As a result, these appeals are held to be devoid of any merit and areaccordingly dismissed.February 25, 2014 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,145,945 | C.R.R. No.2843 of 2014 Debasish Bose & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus The State of West Bengal & Another ...Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Sompyapriya Chowdhury.In the instant Revisional Application petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated 20th June, 2014 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in connection with CGR No.2817 of 2011 arising out of Gariahat P.S. Case No.303/11 dated 05.08.2011 under Sections 406/420/465/467/468/471/474/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore permitted the Oppsite Parties herein to proceed with the case in place of the original de-facto complainant (since deceased) and has also permitted them to file Naraji Application (Protest Petition).Somyapriya Chowdhury, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking for setting aside the impugned order dated 20th June, 2014 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in CGR No.2817 of 2011 allowing the petition filed under Section 302 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to the de-facto complainant's daughters to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the deceased de-facto complainant and also to file Naraji Petition.He further contended that the Learned Magistrate has passed the order without considering the infirmities involved in this matter in respect of filing of Protest Petition by the O.P.s.He contended yet further that the right to file the Protest Petition is conferred only on the Informant who lodged the First Information Report and none else.The O.P.s.Therefore, according to Mr.Chowdhury, the Learned Magistrate acted illegally by vesting the right of the de-facto complainant upon the Opposite Parties who are her legal heirs, to file the Naraji Petition.He concludingly submitted that the impugned order so far as it relates to filing the Naraji Petition by the Opposite Parties is liable to be set aside.I have also gone through the entire materials available on record with special attention to the impugned order.Before entering into the merits, I think it better and profitable to make a brief reference to the relevant facts to understand the controversy raised in this Revision.Even thereafter she lived there till the year 2003 along with her youngest daughter Sonali Rakshit (O.P.No.3 herein).Between the period from 2003 to 2009 she lived with her eldest daughter Smt.In the year 2009 her son Debasish Bose (Petitioner No.1 herein) fraudulently and dishonestly induced her to believe that he intended to help her financially by inducting tenants in the ground floor of the said premises and he made her sign a few papers.She was then suffering from various ailments including vision problem and she was in dire need of money for treatment.In the year 2010 the petitioner No.1 further representated to her that the said premises required renovation to fetch maximum rent from the tenants and asked her to stay with the O.P.No.3 at Uttarpara.Since then the petitioner No.1 did not allow her to come back.Having realized that she was defrauded by the petitioners she filed a petition of complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore against them alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 406/420/465/467/468/471/474/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code and praying for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,153,762 | Being aggrieved, the present Appeal is filed.The case of prosecution, in nut-shell, is as follows:(A).On 24th July 2002 at about 1.35 a.m. Complainant Asha Subhash Chavan, resident of ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 7 Ghugalwadgaon Shivar (Tq-Shrigonda, Dist-Ahmednagar) filed First Information Report (FIR) with Shrigonda Police Station and Crime No.193 of 2002 came to be registered.The FIR (Exhibit 31) was to the following effect:Complainant reported that she resides at the Shivar mentioned above along with her husband and four children.Nearby her mother-in-law Saibai (PW-4) and her father-in-law Rupchand reside separately.Adjoining nearby there is field of accused No.1 Sampat Arjun Dangde.The FIR refers to an earlier incident in the afternoon of 23rd July 2002 of scraping of common Bandh, which led to quarrel and accused No.5 Mangal assaulted the complainant.Regarding that, the complainant had already filed another FIR (and a separate case was pending at the time of trial).Regarding the incident relevant for present matter, FIR states that after report ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 8 regarding the afternoon incident was filed, the complainant came back home at about 8.30 p.m. and was talking to her parents-in-law.The husband was watering onion in the field.While they were talking, the complainant heard her dog's barking and coming out she saw that her husband was coming running towards house and he was being followed by the accused persons.FIR names all the five accused.It is stated that her husband called out to her that these people have come to beat them and so she should run.Consequently, she and her husband ran towards the debris of well in the field of one Eknath Pawar and the accused could not find them.while they heard shouts of her parents-in-law and saw their house had been put to fire and the accused were shouting and abusing loudly as to why the complainant and her husband had hidden and they should come out and accused will throw them in the fire.In the light of the fire, the ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 9 complainant and her husband saw the accused going towards their own home and thus she and her husband came back near their house.They saw that the residential "Chapper" (i.e. thatched hut) of residence and portion where animals are kept had fully burnt.They came to know from their parents-::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::in-law that when they ran and the parents-in-law sat in front of house on the otta, the accused persons came there and beat them by kicks and blows and holding them by feet, they had put them near the sugarcane crop and told them if they shout, they would be killed.The parents-in-law told that accused No.2 Tulshiram and accused No.1 Sampat had put the Chapper i.e. thatched hut to fire with the help of match stick and accused No.3 Vikram, accused No.4 Sakharam and accused No.5 Mangal had spread the fire with the help of "Pacharat" (i.e. dry leaves of sugarcane).In the said fire, household articles, bags of grains, clothes, Rs.10,000/- and other articles got burnt.(B).The offence was registered by A.S.I.Baburao Jape (PW-7).He had issued Yadi Exhibit 43 to send the parents-in-law to the hospital.The investigation was done by P.S.I. Rajendra Padwal (PW-8).It appears that in the night itself this I.O. went and the accused Nos. 1 to 4 came to be arrested.At dawn he prepared the Spot Panchnama (Exhibit 33).Statements of witnesses were recorded.Accused No.5 had obtained anticipatory bail.It was a hut of 20 ft.X 10 ft.length and width facing North.There were four feet height walls.The thatched roof appears to have been of Pacharat i.e. dry leaves of sugarcane.In the burnt Chapper, iron cot was found which had bent due to burns.Watch and other household articles were also found to have burnt in the Chapper.Part of Chapper where animals are tied, was also burnt.Babool tree and Neem tree ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 17 along with wheel of the bullock cart was also found to have burnt.there was field of complainant.On the Northern side there was coconut tree and toilet and there was field of the complainant.From the Chapper at 70 ft.there was tamarind tree where there was Chapper of Rupchand Chavan (father-in-law of the complainant).To the South of the Chapper, there was field of complainant having sugarcane crop.In the cross-examination of complainant she was asked and she stated that she does not understand East West etc. but knows sunrise and sunset.She deposed that there is Chari No.12 ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 18 towards the sunrise side of her house and the said Chari is border of village Andhalgaon.The way to the Vasti of complainant was from Ghugalwadgaon to Andhalgaon road.She stated that she could not say if their land in which her husband was making irrigation at the time of incident was after 3 to 4 survey numbers.She denied that, that field was half furlong away.However, her cross-examination shows that the said Vasti of said Awasar got burnt after 2-4 days of the present incident and the said person left his Vasti and went away to another place.PW-5 Nivrutti Kharade (the grand son of PW-4 Saibai) admitted in cross-examination that the road of Andhalgaon village was situated towards East of the house of his grand father.The Spot Panchnama has already recorded that said Rupchand had Chapper at about 70 ft.He states that he had gone to the spot and seen at that place the burnt Chapper.He says that he prepared the sketch map.No doubt in the cross-examination he accepted that for preparing sketch map, he had taken the help of Spot Panchnama.However, the sketch map shows particulars other than what is mentioned in the Spot Panchnama also, like another tamarind tree at 50 ft.The Chapper of the parents-in-law as per the sketch prepared by PW-6 Ramchandra would be some-what to the North-East side.In the cross-examination PW-6 accepted that to all the four sides of the Vasti of the complainant, there are houses of other people at about 200 ft. - 250 ft.From the above discussion, what emerges ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 20 is that in the field the complainant had made Vasti or her residence and she was living with her family in the Chapper.The nearest other Chapper appears to be of her father-in-law, which is at a distance of about 70 ft.as per the Spot Panchnama.The Appellants - original accused Nos. 1to 5 (hereafter referred as "accused") have been convicted in Sessions Case No.141 of 2002 by First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, on 13th December 2002 for offence punishable under Section 143 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" in brief) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.300/- each.In default, they are liable to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days each.They have also been convicted for offence ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 6 under Section 506 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months and fine of Rs.300/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days each.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::Under Section 436 read with 34 of IPC, they are convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.3000/-each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months each.They came to be acquitted of offence punishable under Section 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.Rs.9000/- from the fine amount, if paid, is to be made over to the complainant Asha Subhash Chavan (PW-1) as compensation.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::The accused consequently returned towards the house of the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::Complainant reported that she along with her ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 10 husband and parents-in-law had come to the police station and the parents-in-law were required to be sent to the hospital.She thus, accordingly filed the FIR which came to be registered as mentioned above.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::The I.O. took steps to get map of scene of offence prepared.The same was prepared by Circle Inspector Ramchandra Vetal (PW-6).Upon investigation, offence came to be registered.Charge was framed against the accused ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 11 persons for offences mentioned.They came to be convicted under Section 143, 506, 436 read with 34 of IPC and acquitted of the rest of the Sections.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::The prosecution brought on record evidence of eight witnesses to prove the charge.Against the conviction the present Appeal claims and it has been argued by the learned senior counsel Shri Hon for the accused that evidence shows that there was admitted enmity between accused persons and the complainant and in the earlier part of the day itself the complainant had filed complaint against accused No.5 Mangal regarding another incident.It was dark night and the witnesses could not have seen the accused persons.The cross-examination of witnesses showed ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 12 that the witnesses were exaggerating the incident, keeping in view the contradictions and omissions.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::Although the complainant claims that her mother-in-law Saibai was injured near her nose, PW-4 Saibai did not claim so.The learned senior counsel took me through the cross-examination of witnesses to point out the contradictions and omissions.According to the counsel, at some distance from the spot, other people were also residing and still no independent witness has been examined.There was no direct evidence available regarding who started the fire.There was no medical evidence of injuries of PW-3 and PW-4, although it is stated that the incident went on for 10 - 15 minutes.When this Appeal came up for hearing, Criminal Application No.2477 of 2016 was filed to compound offence.Criminal Application No.2264 of 2016 was filed seeking to add the complainant as party Respondent and requesting to release the ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 13 accused on the basis of sentence already undergone.I had passed orders on 25th April 2016 directing the accused and complainant to appear before the Registrar (Judicial) for recording of the alleged compromise and I had made it clear that as far as the question whether or not to allow compounding of non compoundable Sections, this Court would take necessary decision after receiving report of the Registrar.I had directed that in the meanwhile I will proceed to hear the Appeal.The Appeal was accordingly finally heard on 25th April 2016 itself and reserved for Judgment.Subsequently report of Registrar was received regarding recording of the compromise.On 3rd May 2016 the report received was kept on record and as the arguments were already over, the matter was reserved for Judgment.Subsequently, on 6th May 2016, the complainant has filed another Criminal Application No.2610 of 2016 with the assistance of another Advocate resiling from the said compromise giving various reasons and that she was misled.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::cria2.03 14 Criminal Application No.2609 of 2016 was filed by her to engage another Advocate.As the offences under Section 143 and 436 of IPC are even otherwise non-compoundable and as the facts of the matter would show that there were also other persons injured and affected by the incident like PW-3 Subhash Chavan and the parents of PW-3 Subhash, looking to the above developments, I would simply ignore the compromise tendered earlier which was earlier recorded before Registrar but resiled and this Court had yet not accepted it or acted upon it.The learned A.P.P., in reply to the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the accused, submitted that there is evidence of the complainant based on the FIR and she was corroborated by other witnesses.The offence of arson is serious offence and has social impact and looking to the evidence and the reasons recorded by the trial Court, the Appeal deserves to be ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 15 rejected.According to the learned A.P.P., the accused deserve to be convicted and have been rightly convicted and sentenced.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::It would be now appropriate to refer to the evidence available in this matter and considering the law with facts whether the Judgment as passed by the trial Court needs to be maintained or is required to be disturbed.Before discussing the incident, it would be appropriate to keep in view the spot of incident.The evidence shows that the complainant along with her husband and children had made a Chapper or thatched hut and was living in the field, which the agriculturist refer as "Vasti".Such "Vasti" in the field is normally single house in the field of the person who has made "Vasti"and is residing there.The Spot Panchnama Exhibit 33 has been proved by PW-2 Janardhan Pawar.No doubt he is father of the complainant Ashabai.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::cria2.03 16 However, there is other evidence available from PW-8 PSI Rajendra who had early morning gone to the spot and prepared this Spot Panchnama.Other than that there is evidence of PW-6 Ramchandra Vetal who also prepared sketch of the spot Exhibit 41, may be after about 3 months, but even at that time he had found that the burnt Chapper was there on the spot.Apart from the Spot Panchnama, in the evidence of witnesses also various details about the spot have come on record.Firstly referring to the Spot Panchnama Exhibit 33 what appears is that the Chapper was in the filed Gut No.30 at Ghugalwadgaon.Coconut tree in front of the Chapper had also burnt.As per the Spot Panchnama, the loss of household articles appeared to be of the extent of Rs.25,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::The Spot Panchnama shows that on the Eastern side there was field of one Harichandra Gopalrao Chavan.To the West 30 ft.She accepted that there was a Vasti of one Gorakh Awasar, servant of Sahebrao Lokhande, which was in the adjoining field.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::from the ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 19 Chapper of the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::towards North of the present Chapper.In the cross-examination of witnesses who are basically rustic villagers, the cross examiner at places has taken distances which appear more to be on surmises and estimation of concerned witness.However, looking to the Spot Panchnama and the above discussion, the picture emerges is as above.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::Keeping the above spot in view, now it would be appropriate to discuss the evidence of the complainant herself.Regarding the present incident, the evidence of the complainant shows that she returned to her house after filing complaint regarding the afternoon incident in the evening.She deposed that she came back at about 8.15 p.m. and was sitting in the house with her ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 21 parents-in-law and her husband was irrigating the onion crop.She was talking with her parents-in-::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::law and noticed that dog was barking and so she says that she saw towards the concerned side as to why the dog was barking and found that accused Nos. 1 to 5 were running behind her husband and her husband, while running towards her Vasti, asked her to run as accused had come to beat them.The evidence of complainant is that thereupon she and her husband ran towards the upper side to the debris of well belonging to one Eknath Pawar and hid.She deposed that thereafter they heard noise of shouts of her parents-in-law and so they stood up.She says that she saw fire flames at the side of their house and accused Nos. 1 to 5 were there.She saw them in the light of fire flames.According to her, accused Nos.1 to 5 were shouting and saying as to why complainant and her husband concealed themselves and further said that they should come out so that the accused would throw them in the fire flames.Her evidence is that in ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 22 the light of fire flames, she saw the accused had thrown her in-laws holding them by feet, near the sugarcane crop and told them that if they would shout, the accused would throw them in the fire flames.According to her, after this the accused persons left the spot while abusing.She deposed that thereafter she and her husband went near the in-laws.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::The evidence of the complainant further is that when she and her husband went near the in-laws, they told them that accused Nos. 2 to 5 had set the Chapper on fire.The whole Chapper had got burnt.Her evidence gives details as to the articles which were there in the house and which got burnt.She further deposed that the coconut tree in front of the house and the Babool tree and Neem trees also suffered burns.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::I have already in Para 2 (A) reproduced the contents of the FIR Exhibit 31 while referring to the case of the prosecution.If those contents are kept in view and this evidence is seen, the evidence gets support from the FIR which was filed instantly.It was almost immediately filed after the incident took place, considering the fact that some time may have been required to go from Ghugalwadgaon to Shrigonda Police Station.It also appears that the police asked that the old parents-in-law be got first medically examined and then the FIR was registered.The cross-examination of the complainant shows that at the time of incident her children were sleeping in the house of the parents-in-law.This is corroborated by PW-4 Saibai also.It appears that the children would normally sleep there.In evidence complainant gave estimate of that house of her in-laws to be at about 100 ft.To repeat, the Spot Panchnama has stated that the distance was 70 ft.In the cross-examination of the complainant she ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 24 accepted that there were lands of Bhausaheb Chavan and Haribhau Chavan adjoining to her land.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::However, she denied that they had made "Vasti" in the field.Even if they would have made "Vasti" in the field and even if their evidence would have been available, the fact remains, and as can be seen from the cross-examination of PW-4 Saibai, the said Haribhau Chavan is also cousin brother of her husband Rupchand.Thus, even if that witness was to be brought and examined, the accused would still have the argument that he is relative.In the cross-examination the accused brought on record the admissions of the complainant that she had filed case against one Sahebrao Lokhande and that she had filed case against one Bhausaheb Chavan and Harischandra ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 25 Chavan also as she had dispute of way.Even if such cases were required to be filed by her, that by itself would not mean that if her house is burnt down, she should be suspected in her complaint.The complainant fairly admitted in the cross examination regarding her earlier disputes with the accused persons and fairly accepted that she did have inimical relations with accused Nos.1 to 5 since many years.Looking to her evidence, although it can be said that she had strained relations with the accused, however burning down of residential house in which household articles get burnt, where the person has been residing, is serious matter and only because of earlier strained relations, the witness cannot be doubted specially in the background where she immediately went and filed FIR to the police station and when the police also came down in the early morning, and did find the Chapper of the complainant burnt with household articles destroyed as per the Spot Panchnama.The Police Official PW-8 Rajendra ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 26 Padwal was only discharging his official duty and there is no reason not to believe him that in the morning itself he found that the house has been burnt down.No doubt, it has been tried to suggest to the complainant that there is some Head Constable Popatrao Sudrik in Shrigonda Police Station and that he is related, but there is no admission by anybody accepting existence of any such Head Constable or that he is related to the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::In the cross-examination, the complainant admitted that the debris of the well of Eknath Pawar was at a distance of 400 ft.Even if this is so, if the complainant had run up there and hid earlier, does not mean that in the duration of the whole incident she continued to remain there.Her evidence shows she and her husband standing up from place of hiding and witnessing further incident when fire started.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::In the further cross-examination of the complainant, she was asked and she stated that she had told police while lodging complaint that they heard shouts made by her in-laws and thereafter she herself and her husband stood up and she saw in the light of fire flames that the accused Nos.1 to 5 were present there.The FIR Exhibit 31 bears thumb impression of the complainant.She appears to be illiterate.The cross- examination does not show that the contents of FIR were read over while taking such admission.It appears that the learned Judge of the trial Court was not careful and allowed such cross-examination to come on record.Had he seen the FIR (contents of which I have already reproduced earlier), he would not have allowed such cross-examination to come on record.It may be repeated that the FIR clearly contain wordings that after the complainant and ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 28 her husband hid near the debris of the well, the accused went back towards her house and in short-::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::while they heard shouts of her mother-in-law and father-in-law and saw the house on fire and the accused were shouting loudly and abusing as to why complainant and her husband are hiding and they should come in front and the accused would put them in fire.There is repeated sentence that in light of said fire, the complainant saw the accused going towards their house.Had the trial Judge gone into these details in the FIR, such cross-examination as in Para 7 of evidence of PW-1 Ashabai could not have been permitted.In fact the trial Judge, even in the Judgment, did not notice this and wrongly observed in Para 6 of his Judgment that Exhibit 31 nowhere states that complainant saw the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in the light of fire flames.The learned Judge of the trial Court had taken up appreciation of evidence of the complainant and her husband PW-3 Subhash together and in the process appears to have missed ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 29 and mixed the facts.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::It is stated that it was dark night.But then evidence shows that before incident started PW-3 Subhash and PW-5 Nivrutti were watering crops in their respective fields which is not in dispute.Naturally, they had trained eyes to identify co-villagers when they come near.Material part of incident took place near Chapper and once fire started there was further visibility.Thus keeping in view the cross-examination of the complainant, I do not find that she can be said to be shattered regarding her evidence stated in the examination-in-chief, which is fully supported by the instant FIR which she had filed.To corroborate the complainant, the prosecution examined PW-3 Subhash Chavan, the ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 30 husband of the complainant.PW-4 Saibai is the mother-in-law.It appears from the evidence of PW-::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::4 that her grand son Nivrutti Kharade was also residing with her.I have gone through the evidence of these three witnesses.In the cross-examination of these three witnesses, certain contradictions and omissions were brought on record by the accused.Having gone through the cross-examination of these witnesses and the Judgment of the trial Court, I am, while referring to the evidence of these witnesses, ignoring portions which are part of the contradictions or omissions and I am referring to only parts of their evidence without the contradictions and omissions, to see if these witnesses are able to corroborate the complainant in material particulars.The evidence of PW-3 Subhash Chavan, husband of the complainant, shows that he and the ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 31 complainant were residing in the Vasti at their land and his parents were residing in separate Vasti near tamarind tree in their land.He deposed that on 23rd July 2002 at about 8.30 p.m. he was irrigating his onion crop in his land and at that time the accused Nos.1 to 5 arrived and came towards his house.His evidence shows that he reached near his house and asked his wife to run and then he and his wife ran towards the well of Eknath Pawar and concealed themselves behind the debris.He deposed that he heard shouts of his parents and saw fire flames.He deposed that the accused left the spot making shouts and he returned back to his house.According to him, his parents told them that accused Nos.2 and accused No.1 had set the Chapper on fire with lighted match stick and that accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 had put burning Pacharat on the Chapper.He deposed that he then went to the police station along with his parents.His evidence is that Chapper was completely burnt.He gave details of the loss of ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 32 Rs.10,000/- and domestic articles in the fire.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::According to him, when they reached the police station, the officer was not present and the other police official asked them to first go to the dispensary and so they went to the dispensary and after returning back, complaint was lodged.Reading evidence of the witnesses, what appears is that this Gut No.35 was nearby to the Gut No.30 at some distance where incident took place.in-law of the complainant, who deposed that the complainant and her husband reside near their house.They have separate houses.According to her, the incident took place in the evening time.Her son (i.e. PW-3) was present in land for supplying water to onion crop.Her evidence shows that the son had asked his wife to run away as accused had come to beat them.Her evidence shows ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 33 that the accused did not find complainant or her husband and they came back.According to her, thereafter the accused beat her and her husband.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::She deposed that they were beaten by kicks and fists and they were thrown in the sugarcane crop.Her evidence shows that accused No.1 Sampat and Accused No.2 Tulshiram set the Chapper on fire with lighted match stick.She further deposed that accused Nos.3 to 5 used burning Pacharat to add to the fire and the entire Chapper containing household articles and the coconut tree were burnt.Her evidence is that thereafter the accused left the spot and the complainant and her husband returned near the spot.She has also deposed that they had then gone to Shrigonda Police Station and as somebody was not present, they were asked to go to dispensary and after the medical officer examined her and her husband, they returned and the complaint came to be lodged.The evidence of this witness regarding the injuries caused to her and her husband is not supported by the medical ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 34 evidence which could have been there as they had gone to the medical officer, but the same was not brought on record and thus the offence under Section 323 of IPC was not found to be established.I thus need not dilate on that part of incident regarding causing injuries to this witness.However, when I read the other evidence, there is no reason to discard her evidence regarding the accused persons setting the hut of the complainant on fire.There are no contradictions, omissions in that regard.She corroborates the complainant on this count.She denied the suggestion that her own Chapper or house was 500 - 600 ft. away.She accepted that she got terrified due to the beating and could not understand as to what was going on but she denied that they had concealed themselves in the sugarcane crop due to fear of further beating.She denied that her evidence is false that the accused had come running to the house of her son and they had set the Chapper of complainant on fire.The ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 35 contradictions, omissions in the evidence of this witness relate to periphery details but not with regard to the main incident of the accused putting the house of complainant to fire.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::Then there is evidence of PW-5 Nivrutti.He is the grand-son of PW-4 and the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 shows that he is cultivating the land of his grand parents and was residing with them.He has also corroborated the complainant that incident took place on 23 rd July 2002 at about 8.30 p.m. He deposed that he was giving water to the onion crop in the land and at that time PW-3 Subhash was also irrigating his own onion crop.He deposed that present accused Nos.1 to 5 came there and ran behind PW-3 Subhash.As the accused chased PW-3, this witness says that PW-3 and his wife went off near the well of Eknath Pawar.His evidence shows that the accused persons had come near the Chapper of the complainant and put the same to fire.His evidence shows that after the ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 36 accused left the spot, PW-3 Subhash and the complainant came back near the spot and then they had gone to file complaint.In the cross-::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::examination of this witness, he was asked and he stated that his statement was recorded by the police.He accepted that he had stated to police in his police statement that 4-5 persons ran away in the dark.This suggestion was made to the witness without referring to the context.It was not asked "if it happened" that he saw 4-5 persons running away in the dark.The context would show that this related to he seeing 4-5 persons running after PW-3 and he then going to the spot to see what was happening.Thus such statement without reference to context, cannot be mis-read to give benefit to the accused.In his cross-examination from his statement to the police portion marked 'A' was got proved which was ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 37 relating to PW-3 Subhash telling him as to what was the loss he sustained.Regarding that portion, this witness stated that he had not told the same to the police.Thus, what the witness claimed is that he did not tell the police that PW-3 Subhash told him details of the loss he sustained, in the fire.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::Thus, having gone through the evidence of PW's 3 to 5, ignoring the contradictions and omissions which are regarding periphery details, I find that these witnesses still corroborate the complainant in material particulars regarding the incident of putting the house to fire and criminal intimidation by Accused.The complainant herself cannot be said to be shattered as her evidence remained unshaken in the background of the FIR which she had filed.Looking to the details of the incident, execution of the same may not have lasted for ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 38 long.I keep in view the fact that there is no immediate neighbour as such residing there, except the parents-in-law and PW-5, at their Chapper at a distance of about 70 ft.The evidence also shows that in the earlier afternoon there had been incident of quarrel between the complainant and accused No.5, due to which the complainant had gone ahead and filed complaint in the police station.This may have also agitated the accused persons leading to the present incident.Although PW-1 and PW-3 to PW-5 are related witnesses, the fact that in the night itself FIR was filed and in the morning PW-8 Rajendra Padwal (PSI) found the hut burnt with household articles destroyed, lends credence to ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: cria2.03 39 the grievance complainant was making.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::I have gone through the reasons recorded by the trial Court.The trial Court accepted the evidence regarding accused forming an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to abuse and threaten the complainant and that they did put the house of complainant to fire.Trial Court accepted that the accused did threaten the complainant to kill.Consequently, the accused were convicted under Sections 143, 506, 436 read with 34 of IPC.Looking to the reasons recorded by the trial Court, although I find that it wrongly read the evidence of PW-1 complainant to some extent, the conclusions drawn by the trial Court, however, are correct.The accused persons are rightly convicted of the offence under Sections 143, 436, 506 read with 34 of IPC.25 (A).There is no substance in the Appeal.The Appeal is dismissed.The accused Nos.1 to 5::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::cria2.03 40 shall surrender to their bail bonds.The trial Court shall ensure execution of the sentences.(B).Criminal Application Nos.2609 of 2016, 2610 of 2016, 2264 of 2016 and 2477 of 2016 do not survive and are disposed of.[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] asb/MAY16 ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:59:57 ::: | ['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,155,979 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this Second repeat bail application u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 17/02/2018 by Police Station Mungawali, District Ashok Nagar in connection with Crime No.130/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 120-B of the IPC.He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for grant of bail.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge rahul Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2018.07.16 10:38:36 +05'30' | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,158,193 | This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant.Applicant has been arrested after a prolong absconsion in connection with Crime No. 511/2013 registered at P.S. Saman, District Rewa for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 327, 294, 323, 506-B, 34 and 302 of IPC. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,167,638 | Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State.Perused the records.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Mamchand and Naresh against State of U.P. and Amrish with prayer to quash summoning order dated 6.9.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 793 of 2019, Amrish Vs.Mamchand and another, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 0214 of 2015, u/s 452, 323, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Badgaon, district Saharanpur, pending in court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/ J.M., Deoband, District Saharanpur.Learned counsel for applicants argued that this summoning is being challenged on the ground of section 468 Cr.P.C. Final report was submitted in investigation of Case Crime No. 0214 of 2015, whereupon protest petition was filed by complainant Amrish after lapse of three years three months.Then after this enquiry under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was taken and after that impugned summoning order was passed.Whereas occurrence was of 31.8.2015 at 5.00 P.M. and this case crime number 214 of 2015 was got registered at P.S. Badgaon, District Saharanpur, on 1.9.2015 at 16.30 hours.Then after statement of Amrish was recorded on 5.8.2019 u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of his witnesses Bhoop Singh on 19.8.2019 and Pawan on 24.8.2019, then after summoning order dated 6.9.2019 was passed.L.J. 360, Basavantappa Basappa Bannihalli and another Vs.Shankarappa Marigallappa Bannihalli have been pressed.Learned AGA has vehemently opposed.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record, it is apparent that Case Crime No. 0214 of 2015, was instantly got registered at P.S. Badgaon, district Saharanpur, u/s 452, 323, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. This case crime number was got investigated and resulted in submission of final report.Thereafter notice was issued to informant and after receipt of notice this protest petition dated 4.1.2019 was filed by Amrish. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,174,257 | as (Allowed).C.R.M. 2191 of 2019 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.02.2019 in connection with South Bidhannagar P. S. Case No.03 of 2019 dated 08.01.2019 under Sections 354B/323/326/307/506/509/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Subhanka Das & Ors.... Petitioners.Dr. Jyotirmoy Adhikary, Ms. Purnima Mukherjee....for the Petitioners......for the State.Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners viz., Subhanka Das @ Sasanka Das @ Susanka Das, Tapas Das and Bikash Das shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the trial court and pray for regular bail within fortnight from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,190,595 | Marbling effect at back and front of both thighs.Cause of death opined is cardiac arrest as a result of head injury.4. 7 accused, namely appellants Ashok, Vinod Kumar and Shiv Shankar as also Surender Kumar, Rajender Sharma, Sushil Sharma and Vijay were put up for trial for having entered into a conspiracy to commit the offence of abducting deceased Mamchand and in furtherance thereof inflicting such bodily injuries on him with the intention of causing death.Accused were also tried for the offence of causing disappearance of evidence by secretly throwing the dead body of Mamchand.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 2 of 16Mamchand had died.Post-mortem conducted on 14.7.1999 noted the external and internal injuries on his person as aforenoted in para 1 and 2 above.As per the aforenoted witnesses, Mamchand was working as a Manager in the shop of the appellants where gold jewellery used to be manufactured.As per the witnesses, the appellants suspected Mamchand of having stolen gold weighing 1 kg.The post-mortem report Ex.PW-20/A-1 records the following injuries on the person of deceased Mamchand:-2. Contusion on both thigh and leg.Contusion Rt.temporal region."Internal injuries are recorded as under:-"Subdural Subarachnoid hematoma at right parietal region."Appeal No.84/2010 Page 1 of 16Appeal No.84/2010 Page 1 of 16Whereas accused Sushil Kumar died pending trial, in view of the evidence led, Surender Kumar, Rajender Sharma and Vijay have been acquitted.Appellant Ashok Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Shiv Shankar have been convicted for the offence of having entered into a conspiracy to abduct the deceased and murder him as also the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.Appellants Ashok Kumar and Vinod Kumar are sons of appellant Shiv Shankar and as per record were aged 20 years, 29 years and 54 years respectively when the offence was committed.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 2 of 16At the intervention of the appellants probably some kind of an informal panchayat proceedings were held at the shop of one Ishwar Singh Pradhan in village Nangloi.After some arguments and discussions Mamchand left in the company of the appellants and never returned home.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 3 of 16Appeal No.84/2010 Page 3 of 16When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants failed to render any satisfactory explanation as to when they parted company with Mamchand.The appellants denied being with Mamchand as claimed by the witnesses of the prosecution, which denial is obviously false and as conceded by learned counsel for the appellants, the testimony of PW-2, PW-5, PW-8, PW-11 and PW-19 proves that the appellants and Mamchand were at the shop of Ishwar Singh to sort out the issue of theft of 1 kg gold in the shop of the appellants and since Mamchand did not acknowledge having stolen the gold, appellants and Mamchand left the shop of Ishwar Singh and all of them walked away together.Being satisfied with the quality of last seen evidence against the appellants and noting that the appellants have failed to render any satisfactory explanation as to when the deceased parted company with them, the only question which needs to be answered is: what is the offence committed by the appellants?Now, the motive proved against the appellants is of suspecting Mamchand to have stolen jewellery weighing about 1 kg belonging to the appellants.From the injuries on the person of Mamchand, it is apparent that Mamchand was physically beaten, probably to extract a confession from him.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 4 of 16 Save and except one injury on his head resulting in subdural subarachnoid hematoma, no other fatal injury is to be found.It is relevant that except for 1 injury on the temporal region, all others which are on the thighs and the legs are non-life threatening injuries.The injuries are contusions as also injuries resulting in marbling effect at the back and front of both thighs.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 4 of 16But, two things could have happened.Either Mamchand fell when he was pushed or probably, overdoing what was intended to be done, one accused intentionally or accidentally hitting a blunt object on the head of Mamchand.Secondly, the brain has not been damaged but subdural subarachnoid hematoma was detected.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 5 of 16 Medical Jurisprudence guides us that there are three membranes inside the skull which enwomb the brain.These three membranes afford protection against injury to the brain.The outer most membrane, just beneath the skull, is called dura mater.Beneath the dura mater is another membrane called arachnoid mater and beneath the arachnoid mater is the third membrane called pia mater.Medical Jurisprudence further guides us that suffering head trauma means either something hitting the head or the head hitting a hard object resulting in extravasation of the capillaries.Depending upon the intensity of the trauma haemorrhage takes place.If the intensity is more, the haemorrhage of the pia mater takes place i.e. the internal most membrane gets affected.If the intensity is less, the arachnoid mater is affected resulting in subarachnoid hematoma.Where the impact is the least, the dura mater is affected resulting in subdural hematoma.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 5 of 16As noted above in para 2, in the instant case, subdural and subarachnoid hematoma was noted.Meaning thereby, the intensity of the blow on the head was not severe enough to impact the pia mater; it was more than the injury which would have only caused subdural hematoma i.e. the force used was in the mid category.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 6 of 16Appeal No.84/2010 Page 6 of 16Instant case is of using force to extract a confession.Even in the case of custodial deaths, where accused were beaten to extract confessions, the judicial trend has been to hold the police officers guilty of intending to grievously hurt or doing an act having knowledge that death may result due to their acts.We need not make a catalogue of various decisions pertaining to custodial death and the relatable intention while causing injury to extract confessions, for the reason, most of them have been noted by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 153 (2008) DLT 693 (DB) State Vs.Two persons named Ram Kumar and Mahender were severely assaulted in police custody.Both died before any meaningful medical aid could be extended.The finding of the Court of Sessions that the police officers were guilty of murder was set aside by the Division Bench holding that with reference to the injuries caused, at best knowledge could be imputed to the police officers that the victims may die.The police officers were convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 7 of 16Appeal No.84/2010 Page 7 of 16Appeal No.84/2010 Page 10 of 16 case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:Appeal No.84/2010 Page 10 of 16Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.(4) The court making a supervision order under sub- section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 11 of 16(5) The court making a supervision order under sub- section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned."There is positive evidence that Ashok and his brother Vinod Kumar were living a meaningful life, earning their bread and butter, helping their father Shiv Shankar run jewellery business.During the pendency of the trial which commenced in the year 1999 and decision being rendered on 4.1.2010, all appellants were admitted to bail but were taken into custody when impugned decision was pronounced.During this period Vinod got married and has been blessed with two daughters.As regards Vinod and Shiv Shankar, save and except that they were more than 21 years of age and are not entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Crl.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 12 of 16 Offenders Act 1958, the two would certainly be entitled to be considered whether the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 should be extended to them.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 12 of 16Alternatively learned counsel argues that the sentence which may be imposed upon appellants be kept in abeyance and the three be released on probation after entering into a bond for the period of their sentence requiring them to maintain peace and good behaviour.If we do so, under either alternative all the appellants who are in jail would earn their freedom.K.B.Andley, learned senior counsel, on instructions from the parokar of the appellants namely Jai Bhagwan who is the brother-in-law of Shiv Shankar i.e. whose sister is married to Shiv Shankar, states that on behalf of his clients his consent be taken on record that the father and two Crl.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 13 of 16 sons would pay compensation in sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) to the widow of the deceased and that the three appellants would jointly deposit the compensation with the learned Trial Judge within 7 days from today.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 13 of 16Accordingly, without quibbling on the issue of sentence for the reason even if we were inclined to sentence the appellants to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years which we were contemplating but being inclined to grant benefit of probation to the appellants, we dispose of the appeal modifying the conviction of the appellants and hence the sentence.The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC.The conviction of the appellants for the other offences are maintained.The order on sentence is modified with a direction that for all the offences the appellants shall stand sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone with a further direction that the appellants shall jointly pay compensation in sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) to the widow of the deceased within one week from today.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 14 of 16Appeal No.84/2010 Page 14 of 16Compensation shall be positively deposited with the learned Trial Judge within a period of one week from today and on the same being deposited the learned Trial Judge would proceed to issue notice to the widow of the deceased for which purpose we direct SHO PS Nangloi to render all cooperation and assistance to the learned Trial Judge.While imposing the sentence, we may frankly confess of being guided by the fact that the adventurism by the appellants was a one-time brush with the criminal law.The appellants had employed ten workmen who are without a job since the workplace of the appellants had to close since all male members of the family were in jail.In other words, ten families were rendered without a livelihood and were suffering for the misadventure by the appellants.We have also been influenced by the fact that it would be desirable to compensate the family of the deceased and the pecuniary loss to the appellants would sufficiently deter them not to be adventurous in future.We have attempted to blend penal justice of sending an accused to jail with compassionate justice of securing freedom of first time offenders with compensation to the victim.In view of our present decision we direct that the appellants who are in jail shall be set free forthwith.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 15 of 16Appeal No.84/2010 Page 15 of 16Copy of this decision be handed over to learned counsel for the appellants under signatures of the Court Master.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE April 15, 2010 mm Crl.Appeal No.84/2010 Page 16 of 16Appeal No.84/2010 Page 16 of 16 | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,286,426 | Accused no.1 Anna and accused no.2 Vitthal are brothers interse and they are having their agricultural land at Block No.301 situatedat village Tamaswadi, Taluka Newasa.In the same block number,abutting to their land from the Eastern side, there is land of theinformant, Kondiram and his deceased brother Appa.The accusedand prosecution witnesses were having land disputes over theboundary.While injured Appa was being taken in a bullock-cart to thehospital at Tamaswadi, he died on the way.Then, his body wasbrought back to his house.Crime was registeredat C.R. No.201/1994 at Newasa Police Station under Section 302 readwith Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code at 3.30 p.m. and the crime wasinvestigated into.The post mortem conducted by P.W.8 Dr. AshokZarekar disclosed that there was one contusion of 7 cm x 3 cmreddish blue in colour on the auxiliary line left side over 9 th and 10thrib.It was resulted into rupture of the enlarged spleen and it was thecause of death.A muffler, cap and chappals of the deceased wereseized from the spot by drawing spot panchnama.Accused nos.1 and2 were arrested.The statements of material witnesses were recorded.The ocular evidence shows that deceased Appa had sustainedinjury on his ribs.It was of the size 7 cm x 3 cm, reddish blue incolour.While he was being taken to the hospital, he has died.Onnext day, Dr. Zarekar conducted post mortem.He deposed that thedeceased had one contusion on left side on the anterior axillary lineon 9th and 10th rib having size of 7 cm x 3 cm horizontal, reddish bluein colour.It has caused internal damage in the form of rupture ofspleen.His evidence shows that the normal size of spleen is 150 gms.As discussed later, the oral evidence discloses that accusedno.2 had given blow of Danda on the chest of deceased Appa.Hence,we hold that the deceased died homicidal death.With regard to complicity of the accused, it is to be noted thatthe accused are owners of land adjacent to the land of the deceasedand they had boundary dispute.In Sessions Case No.155 of 1995 before Additional SessionsJudge, Shrirampur, the two accused were prosecuted under Section302 read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.They were acquitted ofthe said offence and were convicted under Section 324 read withSec.34 of Indian Penal Code.Accused no.1 Anna was sentenced tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fineof Rs.4,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period ofsix months.Accused no.2 Vitthal was sentenced similarly, but he wasgiven benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and was directed to furnishP.R. bond of Rs.5,000/- for his good behaviour for a period of threeyears.The aggrieved accused have filed Criminal Appeal No.459 of2000 to challenge the said conviction and sentence, while the originalinformant Kondiram, brother of the deceased has filed CriminalApplication No.1140 of 2002 is filed seeking leave to file appealagainst acquittal under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code.Heard learned Advocate Mr M.G. Kolshe Patil for informant,learned A.P.P. Mr Badakh for the State and learned Advocate Mr S.S.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 :::Appeal No.459/2000 3Jadhavar for accused.The leave to file appeal against acquittal is granted.The appealagainst acquittal be numbered.The facts relevant for deciding these appeals may be stated asfollows :One Criminal Case bearing No.9/1992 of assault and oneCivil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.378/1992 for encroachment werefiled by relatives of the deceased against the accused.On 21.12.1994at about 9.00 p.m., deceased Appa had gone to his land for wateringthe wheat crop.That time, his wife Lata P.W.1 was at her residence,which is 150 ft. away from the spot.At about 9.00 a.m, P.W.2 Rahibaiwho is neighbour of the accused and prosecution witnesses saw boththe accused assaulting Appa and she raised shouts.Then, Appa's wifeP.W.1 Lata and brother's wife P.W.6 Matabai rushed to the spot.Theysaw that Appa was lying on the ground with injury and accused nos.1and 2 were present there along with sticks and one wooden bar intheir hands.They brought injured to their house and the matter wasreported to his brother Kondiram, who was working in some other::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 ::: Cri.Appeal No.459/2000 4field.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed at Newasapolice station.In due course, case was committed to the Court ofSessions at Shrirampur.Learned Additional Sessions Judge framedcharge at Exh.3-A. The accused pleaded not guilty.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 :::The prosecution examined nine witnesses.Defence of theaccused is of total denial.The learned Additional Sessions Judge,Shrirampur held both the accused guilty only for causing hurt bydeadly weapon punishable under Section 324 read with Sec.34 ofIndian Penal Code.The birth certificate of accused no.2 and report ofProbation Officer was called.Accused no.2 was aged 18 ½ years atthe time of incident.The accused were sentenced as referred above.Learned Advocate Mr Jadhavar for the accused submitted that::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 ::: Cri.Appeal No.459/2000 5there was a single injury.P.W.2 Rahibai was the first person to arriveon the spot and after hearing her shouts, P.W.1 Lata and P.W.6Matabai had been to the spot.They could not have seen both theaccused assaulting the deceased.P.W.2 Rahibai has turned hostile.She has told that accused no.2 was present there along with Danda.She stated that accused no.1 came there later.The evidence of P.W.1 Lata and P.W.6 Matabai will have to be discarded.P.W.4 Kondiramand P.W.7 Police Patil Sahebrao have no personal knowledge.P.W.3Ramesh is a panch to the discovery.He has deposed about discoveryregarding weapon.P.W.5 is a spot panch, P.W.8 Dr. Zarekar andP.W.9 Investigating Officer P.S.I. Budhwant cannot show theinvolvement of accused persons in the crime.On the point of natureof offence, Mr Jadhavar submitted that as per evidence of P.W.8 Dr.Zarekar, the spleen of the deceased was very much enlarged and itcould have ruptured with a small injury.Unfortunately, it wasruptured and it resulted into death of Appa.The injury cannot becalled sufficient in ordinary course to cause death.Hence, the findingof learned trial Judge that no offence under Section 302 of IndianPenal Code was disclosed and only offence under Section 324 readwith sec.34 of Indian Penal Code is disclosed, is correct.Accused no.2 has beenalready released by giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.Considering the facts and circumstances, the appeal be allowed andaccused no.1 be acquitted and the appeal of the informant bedismissed.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 :::Learned Advocate Mr M.G. Kolshe Patil for the informant has::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 ::: Cri.Appeal No.459/2000 6argued that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 that both theaccused were present in the field of the deceased armed with stickand Danda and they had caused injury to deceased Appa which hasresulted into his death.The injury is described as sufficient inordinary course to cause death.Hence, both the accused be heldguilty under Section 302 read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code andshould be punished.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 :::Learned A.P.P. Mr Badakh has supported learned Advocate MrM.B. Kolshe Patil.Mr Kolshe Patil has relied on Ram Tahal and ors.The State of U.P., AIR (1972) sc 254 and Parichhat and ors.The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1972) SC 535, wherein itis held that common intention can be developed on the spot.It canbe inferred from the conduct of the parties and the circumstances ofthe case.Even if, the injury is caused by one person, the other whowas associated him will be guilty for commission of the offence infurtherance of common intention.In Parichhat's case (cited supra), itis held that when the accused is guilty of committing offencepunishable for imprisonment for life, he is not entitled for the benefitunder Probation of Offenders Act. In this case, the appellants'conviction under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code wasconverted into punishment Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code andthey were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.The points for our consideration with our findings are as follows:::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 :::However, the spleen of deceased was enlarged in size to 350 gms,and weight was double the normal one and it was ruptured because ofexternal injury noticed by him.None the less, it is clear that thedeceased died due to external injury, which caused the internal::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 ::: Cri.Appeal No.459/2000 8damage of rupture of spleen.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 :::Certified copy of criminal complaintbeing Criminal Case No.9/1992 shows that the father of the deceasedhad filed complaint against accused nos.1 and 2 and their brother inrespect of incident dated 18.12.1991 for offences punishable underSections 447, 323, 504, 506 read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.Besides, Kondabai, mother of deceased had filed R.C.C.No.378 of1992 for removal of encroachment to the extent of three to four feet.There is no dispute that in the past, accused were on inimical termswith deceased.The accused have taken stand that their dispute wasresolved, but there is no material to support their stand.As per evidence on record, P.W.2 Rahibai is neighbour of thedeceased.On the day of incident at 9.00 a.m., deceased Appa hadgone to his field.His house is 150 ft. away from the field.P.W.2Rahibai aged 60 years deposed that while she was proceeding to thefield of Bhausaheb Khopse, she saw Appa lying in his field.That time,the accused Vitthal was standing there with a Danda in his hand.Shehad not deposed that accused nos.1 and 2 were assaulting him and,therefore, learned A.P.P. with the permission of Court, cross-examined::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 ::: Cri.Appeal No.459/2000 9her.She stated that accused no.1 came there after some time.Shewas confronted with her previous statement showing that she hadmade statement that she had seen both the accused assaulting thedeceased Appa, but she denied the suggestions.She stated that aftershe raised shouts, P.W.1 Lata, wife of deceased and P.W.6 Matabai,wife of his brother came there and the injured was brought home.She stated that accused no.1 came there later and he was not presentthere.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 :::15. P.W.1 Lata and P.W.6 Matabai have deposed that at the relevanttime, when they were in their house, they heard shouts of Rahibai andthen they ran towards their field.They stated that they had seen boththe accused beating deceased Appa with Danda and stick.Learnedtrial Judge has believed them.However, we find that there is a singleinjury and P.W.2 Rahibai had seen Appa lying on the ground.So, theinjury was caused before arrival of P.W.2 Rahibai.P.W.1 Lata andP.W.6 Matabai arrived after hearing the shouts of Rahibai.They camefrom a distance of 150 feet.They could not have seen any assault ondeceased Appa.Therefore, their evidence cannot be believed.P.W.2Rahibai was declared hostile.L.J. 487 (SC), a witness cannot be declaredhostile by the prosecutor.The prosecutor has to merely seekpermission for cross-examination of the witnesses, who are notsupporting the prosecution and it is for the Judge who has to decide,whether they have turned hostile or not.We find nothing in theevidence of P.W.2 Rahibai to suggest that she was won over by the::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 ::: Cri.Appeal No.459/2000 10accused.Her evidence is trustworthy and it can be relied upon.Herevidence shows that she saw the deceased Appa lying on the ground,his muffler, cap and chappals lying there in his own field and accusedno.2 Vitthal present there in the land of Appa with a Danda in hishand.She stated that accused no.1 came thereafterwards.Since there is a single injury, the evidence of Rahibaidiscloses that it must have been caused by accused no.2 Vitthal.Name of accused no.1 Anna must have been taken only because ofenmity.If he was present along with stick in his hand, he would havegiven some stick blows, but there is a single injury to Appa.We,therefore, rely on the evidence of P.W.2 Rahibai.Her evidence showsthat the injury was caused by accused no.2 Vitthal.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 :::The evidence of P.W.8 Dr. Ashok Zarekar shows that there wascontusion reddish blue in colour of size of 7 cm x 3 cm.There was nofracture of ribs.It shows that the blow was not given with tremendousforce.His evidence shows that the spleen of deceased Appa wasalready enlarged to the size of double the normal.The blow of stickcaused the rupture of spleen and it has resulted into death of Appa.There is nothing on record to show that accused no.2 Vitthalwas aware that the spleen of Appa was enlarged and some blow onthe spleen would cause his death.In absence of such evidence, it isnot a culpable homicide.We agree that the nature of act of accusedno.2 Vitthal disclose offence punishable under Section 324 of IndianPenal Code only.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 :::Appeal No.459/2000 11The birth certificate of the accused no.2 shows that he was bornon 1.6.1976 and on the date of incident, he was aged 18 ½ years.Hehas given single blow of Danda.It has not caused fracture of ribs.Considering the facts, we find that this was a fit case for extending thebenefit of Probation of Offender's Act.However, the injury caused by P.W.2 Vitthal has resulted intodeath and, therefore, the learned trial Judge ought to have exercisedthe powers under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. to award compensation.Thereport of Probation Officer shows that accused no.2 was having sharein the ancestral land and he was doing agricultural work.We feel that the learned trial Judge ought to have exercisedpowers under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. to grant compensation to therelatives of the deceased.However, there is no appeal forenhancement of the sentence.In the light of these facts, the appealfiled by the informant deserves to be dismissed, while the CriminalAppeal No.459 of 2000 filed by the accused deserves to be allowedpartly.Hence, we pass the following order :- ORDER -(I) Criminal Appeal No.459 of 2000 is partly allowed in respect ofaccused no.1 Anna Limbaji Keskar.The conviction of accused no.1Anna under Section 324 read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and thesentence passed thereunder are hereby set aside.Accused no.1 AnnaLimbaji Keskar is acquitted of all the charges.Fine amount deposited::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 ::: Cri.Appeal No.459/2000 12by him shall be refunded to him.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 :::(II) The appeal by accused no.2 Vithal @ Vithu Limbaji Keskarstands dismissed.(III) The appeal filed by the informant Kondiram Balaji Jankar ishereby dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:52:35 ::: | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,922,892 | Multiple punctured wounds varying size around 0.5 cm.Injury is caused by some fire-arm.Nature of injury will be given after X-ray report and expert opinion.Ex. P-1 is the injury report.Dr. R.K. Rawat took X-ray of the skull both AP view and lateral view and found radio opaque shadow of metallic density in right parietal area.Ex. P-6 is the X-ray report and Exs.JUDGMENT Fakhruddin, J.Briefly stated, prosecution story is that on 1-6-1991 accused-RaJu alias Virendra Singh went to the house of Atar Singh (P.W. 6); there a quarrel took place between the accused and Panchu.Accused beat Panchu with lathi.Raju alias Rajendra (P.W. 3) and Surendra Pathak (P.W. 7) intervened and asked the accused not to beat Panchu.Upon this, the accused went inside his house, brought a gun and fired at Surendra Pathak (P.W. 7) who sustained gunshot injuries on the right side of head, shoulder and face.It is said that on intervention of Atar Singh (P.W. 6) and his wife accused ran away from the spot.First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Surendra Pathak (P.W. 7) on the basis of which Crime No. 179/1991 Under Section 307, I.P.C. was registered; injured Surendra Pathak was sent to the Hospital for medical examination and treatment, where he was examined by Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (P.W. 1) who found the following injuries on the person of Surendra Pathak :circumference; one above right pinna 3 cm.above pinna and 7 wounds superio-posteriorly to this (occipital region.Advised X-ray of skull for f/B detection.Case was referred to Neurology for X-ray and expert opinion.P-7 and P-8 are the X-ray plates.Spot map (Ex. P-3) was prepared and after usual investigation 'challan' was filed.Accused abjured the guilt.It was contended that Atar Singh (P.W. 6) was beating Panchu who cried for help; hearing the cries and seeing the crowd Gita (D.W. 3) along with her sisters and mother went there to rescue him.She asked Atar Singh (P.W. 6) not to beat Panchu.Raju alias Rajendra (P.W. 3) who was present there and was also beating Panchu caught her braider hair, pulled her and slapped her.On this Gita (D.W. 3), her sisters and mother beat Raju alias Rajendra (P.W. 3).It is stated that thereafter Raju alias Rajendra (P.W. 3), Atar Singh (P.W. 6), Surendra Pathak (P.W. 7) and 4-5 persons, duly armed with Katta.chain, etc. came to the house of the accused where again Raju and others misbehaved with Gita and other ladies, caught hold of their braided hairs.The child in the lap of Gita fell down.Complainant Surendra Pathak (P.W. 7) took up a stone to strike the accused.It is said that when their persuasion failed, the appellant in order to save his sisters and mother fired in the air as a result of which some pellets might have struck Surendra Pathak (P.W. 7).Prosecution in this case examined Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (P.W. l),Gambhir(P.W. 2), Raju alias Rajendra (P.W. 3), Yogesh Shukla (P.W. 4), Diwakar Indulkar (P.W. 5), Atar Singh (P.W. 6), Surendra Pathak (P.W. 7) who is the injured and Dr. R.K. Rawat (P.W. 8), Radiologist.The Investigating Officer has not been examined.The defence examined Imrati Devi (D.W. 1), mother of the accused, Laxmibai (D.W. 2), mother of Panchu, Smt. Gita (D.W. 3), sister of the accused, Ramdayal (D.W. 4) and Gorelal (D.W. 5).Learned trial Judge held the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para 1 above.It was contended that the complainant party was the aggressor, and the trial Court has not considered the defence version and the evidence of the witnesses examined by the defence.The findings arrived at are perverse.Shri A.S. Rathore learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, on the other hand, supported the conviction and sentence.Raju alias Rajendra (P,W. 3) is the person who is said to be the cause of the incident.The genesis of the incident as sought to be suggested by the prosecution, has not been supported by this witness.The defence has put a suggestion to this witness that he and Atarsingh (P.W. 6) were beating Panchu, and Gita (D.W. 3) asked them not to beat him.This suggestion has been denied by the witness.He stated that he of his own accord had not gone to the police station to lodge the report.The defence has put a suggestion to him that it was he, Raju alias Rajendra (P.W. 3), Atar Singh (P.W. 6) and other persons who had gone to the house of the accused and there the incident took place resulting in the gunshot injuries to him.The witness has denied this suggestion.He has, however, stated that he and Atar Singh (P.W. 6) were standing from each other at a distance of 10-20 cubits, and Raju was standing near him.He also denied the defence suggestion that at the house of the accused he caught the braided hair of the sister of the accused and on this the accused fired.Atar Singh's wife has not been examined.Yogesh (P.W. 4) and Diwakar Indulkar (P.W. 5) have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case.The defence, however, has come forward with a different story.Defence version is that Panchu was being beaten by Atar Singh (P.W. 6).Hearing the cries of Panchu and his mother, accused's mother Imarti Devi (D.W. 1) went there.People from the neighbourhood had gathered there.Panchu's mother was entreating Atar Singh not to beat her son.Atar Singh then called Raju alias Rajendra (P.W. 3).He came and he also began to beat Panchu.Seeing this, Gita (D.W. 3), daughter of Imarti Devi (D.W. 1) and sister of the accused asked them to leave Panchu.On this Raju became furious, caught her braided hair and slapped her.Seeing this, Imarti Devi, Gita and her sisters beat Raju.Soon thereafter, the complainant Surendra Pathak (P.W. 7), Raju alias Rajendra (P.W. 3), Atar Singh (P.W. 6) along with 4-5 persons, duly armed with Katta.chain, etc. came to the house of the accused, manhandled Gita and Sita by catching their braided heirs; the complainant picked up a stone to hit the accused.The child in the lap of Gita fell down.Seeing this, the accused fired in the air.Laxmi (D.W. 2), mother of Panchu, stated that her son Panchu was being beaten by Raju (P.W. 3) and Atar Singh (P.W. 6).Sita and Gita (D.W. 3) went there and asked them not to beat him.Raju slapped Gita.Gita (D.W. 3) who is sister of the accused has stated that knowing about Panchu's beating by Raju and Atar Singh she had gone through and asked them not to beat Panchu.Raju misbehaved with her and slapped her.On this she along with her sisters and mother beat Raju.After some time Raju (P.W. 3), his 3 brothers and Surendra Pathak (P.W. 7) along with 4-5 persons came to the house of the accused, forcibly opened the door and entered the house, where again caught her braided hair, she was having in her lap her two year old child, Raju began to beat her with chain and she cried, her mother and brother came to her rescue.Complainant Surendra Pathak (P.W. 7) took out a stone to hit the accused.On this the accused ran to beat Surendra Pathak.She feigned ignorance about firing.Ramdayal (D.W. 4) stated that at Atar Singh's house Panchu was beaten.Gita came there, she was slapped by Raju, and then Gita along with her sisters beat Raju.Thereafter, Raju, Surendra Pathak along with 7-8 persons came to the house of the accused and began to attack his sisters.On this accused fired his gun in the air. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,289,349 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 24.02.2015 relating to crime No. 08/2015 registered at police station Chunabhatti, Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120-B, 34 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act.Though few criminal cases were registered against him in the past but he was not convicted in any of them.In the present case, it is alleged against the applicant that he created a conspiracy that some assault should be made on him to implicate a particular person as an accused.However, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant for causing injury to himself, either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 120-B of IPC.There is no allegation against the applicant that he had any arm of prohibited nature.Prima-facie no offence under Section 25 / 27 of the Arms Act is made out against the applicant.The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned public prosecutor for the State opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,294,848 | Applicant is father of victim.3. Facts in brief, necessary for adjudication of this application, need be summarized as under.On 29.04.2008, applicant lodged a Police Report at Police Station Bilsi that his daughter, Neha Sharma alias Jyoti Sharma had gone to attend her examination of B.A. Part-II, Paper Sociology in the second meeting on 23.04.2008 but has not returned till then and is missing.Police could not make any progress to find out girl but applicant continued with his private attempts and inquiries to find out whereabouts of girl.He came to know from the witnesses that on the date of incident, his daughter was seen in the Car of one Tejendra Sagar and Neeraj Sharma.Applicant made complaint to various authorities that the statement of girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded under duress and she was under influence of drugs.It was stated in Protest Petition that Neeraj Sharma was a distant relative of victim and used to come to her House.Thereafter, he started bringing Tejendra Sagar which was opposed by the Girl.On the fateful day, she was forcibly dragged in a Car by the above named two persons along with other unidentified persons.After being drugged unconscious she was driven upto Lucknow where again she was drugged and raped by aforesaid two persons and also a close relative of Tejendra Sagar, i.e. Yogendra Sagar, the then sitting M.L.A. of Ruling Party.The total paper-book is running in 372 pages.This is an application whereby applicant has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to respondent-2, Yogendra Sagar, vide order dated 03.06.2014, passed by Sessions Judge, Budaun in Case No. 64 of 2011 under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 I.P.C, Police Station Bilsi, District Badaun.Thereafter Report was lodged as Case Crime No. 378 of 2008, under Sections 366 I.P.C. against aforesaid two persons.On 17.05.2008, applicant's daughter was chance recovered from Railway Station of District Muzaffarnagar.Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also sought to be recorded on the same date, but Magistrate refused on the ground that victim was not in the state of mind to give free statement, and fear was writ large on her face.She was repeatedly gang raped by them for several days.Upon raising public outcry she was released at Muzaffarnagar wherefrom she was allegedly recovered.Tejendra Sagar challenged Magistrate's order dated 18.08.2009 in an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc.Sri Neeraj Sharma, also challenged summoning order dated 18.08.2009 before Sessions Judge, which was dismissed whereafter he surrendered.So far as respondent-2, i.e. Yogendra Sagar is concerned, he also challenged summoning order in Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2010 before Sessions Judge.Since Revision was barred by limitation, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963") requesting for condonation of delay was also filed.By order dated 06.07.2010 application filed under Section 5 of Act, 1963 was rejected by Sessions Judge.Consequently Revision also stood dismissed as barred by limitation."This writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 18.8.09 and 6.7.10 passed by the courts below.Vide order dated 18.8.09 the petitioner along with others was summoned by the ACJM, Court No.2, Badaun under Sections 366, 376(g), 506, IPC and when that order was challenged in revision, the revision was dismissed as it was found to be barred by time.Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manish Tiwary for O.P. No.2, learned AGA and perused the record.Thereafter, the statement of Kuldeep Kishor Sharma was recorded on 4.5.08 in which he suspected that in the taking away of the girl Tejendra Sagar and Meenu @ Neeraj Sharma were instrumental at which the case was registered under Section 366, IPC.Her statement was recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. on the very same day in which she narrated that she had married with Mohd. Shami @ Rohit.As the police wanted to get her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. on the same day, it was objected by the father of the girl and on his request the girl was sent to Nari Niketan.She remained there for 5 days.In that statement too she did not name the petitioner.Thereafter, on the request of the first informant the matter was transferred for investigation to the C.B.C.I.D. Before the C.B.C.I.D. the statement of the girl was recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and in that statement too she did not name the petitioner and also repeated the same version which she had also taken in her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. The C.B.C.I.D. submitted final report in the case.Against the final report protest petition was filed by the father of the girl.That protest petition was treated to be a complaint.In support of the complaint statements of the father, the girl and three other relatives were recorded and thereafter, the trial court passed the summoning order.That summoning order was challenged in revision and the revision was dismissed as it was found time barred.It has been argued by Mr. Dilip Kumar that in view of the above factual matrix it is very much clear that the statements of the girl and her father and relatives was nothing but a device to falsely implicate the petitioner and others otherwise there could not have been any occasion for 11 months to keep mum and not to name the petitioner at two stages of the investigation i.e. investigation before the local police and the C.B.C.I.D.Issue notice to O.P. No.2 to file counter affidavit within 2 weeks.Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within 1 week thereafter.It has also come on record that interim order was not extended after 03.01.2011, yet no attempt was made by Police to arrest respondent-2 and no proceedings commenced in the Court below also.This Court held that Delay Condonation Application was rejected in a technical manner instead of considering to do substantial justice.Court set aside order dated 06.07.2010, condoned delay and directed Sessions Judge, Budaun to decide Revision on merits, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either parties.Revision was registered as Criminal Revision No. 230 of 2012 and thereafter decided vide judgment dated 22.08.2012 by Sessions Judge, Budaun by dismissing the same.He again came to this Court filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc.Accused Neeraj Sharma, in the meantime filed Criminal Misc.Thereafter, a further order was passed on 07.11.2012 by Magistrate, operative part whereof reads as under:^^,d vU; izkFkZuk&i= ifjoknh }kjk bl vk'k; dk fn;k x;k gS fd ifjoknh us fn0 26-10-12 dks bl eqdnesa esa izkFkZuk&i= fn;k Fkk] ftlesa vfHk;qDr dh lEifRr ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ dks izkIr m)j.k [krkSfu;k Fkha] mudks layXu djus dk izkFkZuk i= esa vafdr fd;k Fkk] ysfdu lgou og m)j.k [krkSfu;k layXu gksus ls jg x;hA vr% ;ksxsUnz lkxj dh lEifRr m)j.k [krkSfu;k dqy 10 ist izekf.kr izfr;ka rFkk mlds }kjk ukehus'ku ds le; fn;k x;k lEifRr dk fooj.k layXu izkFkZuk&i= fd;k tkrk gS] ftudks izkFkZuk&i= fnukafdr 25-10-12 ds lkFk layXu fd;k tk;sA esjs }kjk i=koyh rFkk izkFkZuk&i= ds lkFk layXu dh x;h m)j.k [krkSfu;kWa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA pwWafd vfHk;qDr vHkh rd Qjkj pyk vk jgk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkZuk&i= ,oa layXu [krkSfr;ksa esa vfHk;qDr ;ksxsUnz lkxj ds uke of.kZr vpy lEifRr ds laca/k esa dqdhZ gsrq ftykf/kdkjh cnk;wWa dks i= fy[kk tk;sA vfHk;qDr ds fo:) ,u-ch-MCyw- @ 83 tkjh gksA i=koyh okLrs vfxze vkns'k fnukad 17-11-12 dks is'k gksA** "Another application has been filed by the complainant to the effect that the complainant, in this case, moved an application dated 26.10.2012 making mention of Khataunis, which the applicant had, with respect to the property of the accused and requesting them to be annexed to the case; but the Khataunis could not inadvertently be annexed to it.The file and the Khataunis, annexed to the application, are perused by me.As the accused has still been absconding, a letter, in such a situation, be written to District Magistrate, Budaun, with respect to attachment of the accused Yogendra Kumar's immovable property mentioned in the application and in the Khataunis annexed to it.NBW/83 be issued against the accused.The file be put up on 17.11.12 for further orders."On earlier occasion, the Senior Superintendent of Police of the district had assured the court in person for execution of the warrants but that also remained unfulfilled assurance on paper.Later on, affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State stating that they are making their best effort to apprehend the respondent no.4 and secure his presence before the Court but it appears that the exercise is merely paper work.The Court is left with no other option but to summon the highest of the police department to ensure the execution of the non-bailable warrants and to secure the presence of the accused respondent no.4 before the Court.Accordingly, the Principal Secretary (Home), Director General of Police, U.P. and Senior Superintendent of Police, Budaun shall either ensure execution of the non-bailable warrants and custody of the respondent no.4 and his production before the trial court before the next date fixed or else all the three officials would appear in person along with their respective affidavits of explanation.In case, non-bailable warrants are executed and the accused respondent no.4 is apprehended and produced before the trial court, the said three officials need not appear in person but cause an affidavit to be filed through Station Officer, Police Station Bilsi, district Budaun informing the Court about the action and the details of the execution as aforesaid.Let three copies of this order be given to learned A.G.A. within forty eight hours for information to the aforesaid three officials.Within three days, i.e, 03.06.2014, learned Sessions Judge passed order granting bail.Reasons assigned by Sessions Judge in granting bail which prevailed with him, as stated in the order dated 03.06.2014, read as under:^^bl ekeys esa egRoiw.kZ rF; ;g gS fd /kkjk 164 n0iz0la0 ds c;ku dh lR;rk ds laca/k esa l= U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fuxjkuh vkSj ;kfpdk,a nkf[ky dh x;h Fkha tks fujLr dh x;hA rkRi;Z ;g gqvk fd /kkjk 164 n0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr fn;k x;k c;ku vkt Hkh vfUre gS vkSj ml ij dksbZ iz'ufpUg ugha gSA f}rh; &tgkWa rd ehuw 'kekZ vkSj rstsUnz lkxj dh tekur fujLr fd;s tkus dk fcUnq gS] muds fo:) /kkjk 200 ,oa 202 n0iz0la0 esa vigj.k dk vkjksi yxk;k x;k Fkk rks izFke n`"V;k lansg dh ifjf/k esa gS ijUrq ;gka ;ksxsUnz lkxj ds fo:) vigj.k dk dksbZ Hkh vkjksi ugha gSA r`rh;&bl ckr dk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;k gS fd y[kuÅ o fnYyh o vU;= esa fdl LFkku ij ;ksxsUnz lkxj }kjk dc vkSj fdl le; o LFkku ij cykRdkj fd;k x;kA prqFkZ&;g Hkh Li"V ugha gS fd og ;ksxsUnz lkxj dks fdl izdkj iwoZ ls tkurh Fkh vr% tc rd U;k;ky; esa ;ksxsUnz lkxj dks mifLFkr djkdj igpku u ys] rc rd mlds lk{; bl laca/k esa iz'ufpUg ls nf'kZr gSA iape&;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djkus /kkjk 161 ,oa 164 n0iz0la0 ds c;ku vafdr gksus rd izkFkhZ @vfHk;qDr ;ksxsUnz lkxj ds fo:) dksbZ Hkh vkjksi ugha yxk;k x;k FkkA mYys[kuh; gS fd ;ksxsUnz lkxj ,d laHkzkUr iwoZ fo/kk;d gSa vkSj iqfyl }kjk cjkenxh ds le; vLirky ls LikubZy dksMZ ds bykt djkrs oDr fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k FkkA rkRi;Z ;g gqvk fd og ,d xaHkhj chekjh ls xzLr gSA vr% xq.k&voxq.k ij fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk mls dM+h 'krksZa ij tekur ij NksM+s tkuk mfpr gksxkA vr% vfHk;qDr ;ksxsUnz lkxj dk tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA** "In the instant case, a material fact is that revisions and other petitions had been filed before the Sessions Court and the Hon'ble High Court calling in question the veracity of the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., which were dismissed.Fifth- It is worth mentioning that no charge was levelled against applicant/ accused Yogendra Sagar till the recording of statement u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. regarding the FIR.It is said that conduct of respondent-2 has not at all been looked into that he was absconder for last more than four years inasmuch initially non-bailable warrant was issued and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was directed on 12.07.2010 and 29.03.2011 and subsequently fresh non bailable warrant was issued on 27.02.2012 but for almost two years, and even thereafter, respondent-2 conveniently avoided his arrest due to influence of his political clout and Police showed complete complacence with him.It is also said that bail granted to respondent-2 is bound to hamper the process of justice as he has used all his power to harass prosecution witness and therefore bail should be cancelled.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent-2 running in 40 pages and 51 Annexures.The I.D. of above mobile was found that of one Nagendra but further investigation disclosed continuance of sale transactions of the said mobile from one to another.I.O. prepared several Parchas and submitted report that Mobile No. 9358782648 was ultimately found with Mohammad Shami Khan.It has also been pointed out that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., girl Kumari Neha alias Jyoti Sharma stated that she met Mohammad Shami who earlier told his name as Rohit but subsequently disclosed his correct identity and she has married with him with her consent.From Annexure CA-11, we find that Investigating Officer moved application before Magistrate stating that girl was recovered on 15.05.2008 and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. need be recorded.Magistrate directed that she should be kept in Nari Niketan and should be produced later on.Investigation, thereafter, it appears, was handed over to C.B.C.I.D.Considering the application for release of girl, Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun passed an order on 09.06.2008 holding that girl being major is free to go wherever she like.The girl thereafter moved an application on 10.06.2008 before Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Bareilly that she has apprehension to her life at Badaun, hence she may be sent in police custody to residence of her maternal uncle Sri Yogendra Upadhyay, resident of Biharipur Kaharwan, Police State Kotwali, Bareilly where she will feel safe.Various subsequent orders passed by Courts below in different proceedings have been placed on record but I am refraining myself from going into details of those as this may prejudice the Trial before Court below.In my view, the manner in which case has proceeded and also considering the audacity of respondent-2 that despite non bailable warrant issued by Court, for years together, he could manage to abscond and Police also could not arrest him and ultimately it is this Court's order dated 25.03.2014 when highest Officers of Police and Home Department were called upon to either arrest or appear in Court, only then respondent-2 surrendered but enlarged on bail within three days and in the last five years Trial has not completed, I am satisfied that a case of misuse of bail is made out.Bail order dated 03.06.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Budaun in Bail Application No. 775 of 2014 releasing respondent-2, Yogendra Sagar, in Case No. 64 of 2011, under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun is hereby cancelled.Respondent-2 shall immediately surrender before Police by 01.04.2019, failing which Police shall immediately arrest him and keep him in jail so as to produce him before Trial Court as and when required for further proceedings.Dt. 25.03.2019 PS | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,300,987 | Notice of the application was issued to the State and accepted by the learned APP on behalf of the State.Pursuant to proceedings dated 08.06.2020, 19.06.2020, 02.07.2020, 09.07.2020, 20.07.2020, the status reports dated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.11.2020 13:21:00 This file is digitally signed by Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 2 of 19 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 2 of 1915.06.2020, an undated status report, 30.06.2020, 07.07.2020, 27.07.2020 and written submissions dated 08.07.2020 and the chart of details of numbers utilized in the alleged commission of crime were submitted on behalf of the State.Written submissions have also been submitted on behalf of the applicant along with the copies of rulings sought to be relied upon on behalf of the applicant.As regards the aspect of the ailment of the father of the applicant and the ailment of the daughter of the applicant vide order dated 19.06.2020, it has been specifically observed to the effect that the document which the applicant had submitted in relation to his daughter's ailment related to the year 2017 and could thus not be considered qua the submission made on behalf of the applicant that the applicant's daughter still continues to suffer with the kidney disorder.The status report dated 30.06.2020 under the signatures of the ACP, Cyber Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi indicates that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.11.2020 13:21:00 This file is digitally signed by Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 3 of 19 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 3 of 19though the father of the applicant undoubtedly is bed ridden due to broken hip joint & fracture in femur (left leg), further enquiries have revealed that there are four other family members of the petitioner including his two younger brothers namely Faizul Hoda (Age-32 Years), Jaimul Hoda (Age-27 Years), and his mother and his wife are available there to take care of his father and the elder brother of the petitioner namely Khairul Hoda @ Babblu Hoda also resides in the same locality.Thus, qua the aspect of the ailment of the father of the applicant too, the prayer made by the applicant, cannot be granted.The allegations in the instant case emanate from a complaint lodged by Smt.Bhanu Prabha Gupta alleging that she received a call on 15.07.2017 on her mobile no. 9868929619 from mobile no.9563221857 in which the caller masqueraded himself as being a bank employee and asked her the details of her ATM card in the name of the activation of the blocked card and that the complainant followed the instructions of the caller and shared her SBI ATM CARD details due to which she received an OTP on her mobile number.The caller is then alleged to have asked the complainant the OTP, on which she had informed the caller of the receipt of the OTP on the same mobile Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.11.2020 13:21:00 This file is digitally signed by Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 4 of 19 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 4 of 19number on which the caller had called her and that she did not know how to open the message during the call, as a consequence of which the caller had asked her for another mobile number and the complainant gave the caller another mobile no 9873797825 on which the caller called her and got an OTP, whereafter, a sum of Rs.8,000/-was deducted from the account of the complainant.The caller is then alleged to have asked the complainant whether she had another bank account, on which the complainant replied in the affirmative and shared the details of another account of the Indian Bank Account due to which an amount of Rs.31999/- was deducted from her account and thus she was duped to the tune of Rs.39999/- from her two bank accounts, as a consequence of which the case was registered.It is indicated vide the status report dated 15.06.2020 that during the course of investigation on 15.07.2017, an amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- were found to be loaded into two online wallets of Kitecash 8617354860 and Transaction Analysts wallets of Kitecash 8617354860 and Transaction Analysts 9411269180 respectively by using the details of the debit card of complainant's SBI Bank account and that further on 15.07.2017, an amount of Rs.5,000/-Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.11.2020 13:21:00 This file is digitally signed by Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 5 of 19 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 5 of 19was found to be transferred into the SBI Bank account bearing a/c no.20015318020 of the accused Manoj Hari R/o Distt.Burdwan, W.B.During the investigation that was conducted it was found that on 15.07.2017, an amount of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.19,999/- and Rs.2,000/-were found to be loaded into three online wallets of Ola Cab 9134757185, the Mobile Wallet 7031681439 and Transaction Analysts 9411269180 respectively by utilizing the details of the debit card of the complainant's Indian Bank account.A further sum of Rs.5118/- was found to be transferred into the Central Bank of India account bearing No. 3567085615 of the said co-accused Samir Tantubai from the mobile wallet 7031681439 and Rs.5000/- was further found to be transferred into the Mobikwik wallet 8617092880 from the mobile wallet 7031681439 and a further amount of Rs.4,600/- was found to be transferred into the Central Bank of India account bearing A/c No. 3567085615 of the accused Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.11.2020 13:21:00 This file is digitally signed by Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 6 of 19 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 6 of 19As per the said status report dated 15.06.2020, the accused Chandan Mandal who made the call to the victim and transferred the cheated money into different online wallets and bank accounts and co-The co-accused Samir Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.11.2020 13:21:00 This file is digitally signed by Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 7 of 19 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 7 of 19Tantubai who is stated to have been arrested on 14.10.2019 is also stated to have been released on Court bail.As per the status report dated 15.06.2020, it was submitted vide paragraphs 11, 12, 13 & 14 further to the effect:-During the further course of investigation details of below mentioned four alleged mobile numbers were obtained from concerned mobile operators and found to be issued in the name of below mentioned subscribers from the shop of "Lalu Telecom", Girjapara, MP Road, Asansol, Paschim Bardhman, :-Efforts were also made to trace/search his accomplice Rajesh Mondal in Egara, Raniganj, West Bengal during police remand of accused Md. Saimul Hoda @ Lallu, but could not be found.Efforts are still going on to arrest accused Rajesh Mondal.a) Case FIR No. 48/2019, U/S- 420/379 IPC, PS- Nagar Sahayak, District- Katihar, Bihar, in which Bihar Police is in the process to take the custody of accused Md. Saimul Hoda @ Lallu.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.11.2020 13:21:00 This file is digitally signed by Bail Appl.On the date of hearing on 20.07.2020, a chart was submitted by the State which reads to the effect:-Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 10 of 192001531 The Ld.No.1155/2020 Page 13 of 19The said chart submitted by the State indicates allegedly to the effect that the mobile numbers utilized in the alleged commission of the crime were issued in the names of persons who stated that they did not belong to them or had never utilized the same but were also registered in alternate numbers in the name of the present applicant and monetary transactions were then allegedly effected with monies withdrawn and transferred into the account No.8617354860 qua which the applicant herein had an alternate number i.e. 9851797762 and the amount transferred into the account number 8617092880 is indicated to have an alternate mobile number i.e. 98000001015 in the name of the applicant.It has thus been submitted by the State that during the course of the investigation, the search of the owner of 'Lalu Telecom" Girja Para, MP Road Asansol (from where four alleged mobile numbers 8617354860, 9104757185, 9134757186 and 8617092880 were issued),was made and it was learnt that the owner of 'Lalu Telecom' is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.11.2020 13:21:00 This file is digitally signed by Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 14 of 19 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.Inter alia the State has submitted that apart from the applicant being wholly involved in the nexus and having played a vital role in the conspiracy by providing mobile numbers issued by him on fake IDs or without the knowledge of the subscribers to the co-accused for the purpose of commission of the crime and apart from the applicant being the owner of 'Lalu Telecom' from where the four alleged mobile numbers i.e. 8617354860, 9104757185, 9134757186 and 8617092880 used in commission of the crime were issued, the recovery at the instance of the applicant is also stated to have been made on 22.11.2019 from his shop now known as 'Heena Telecom' which was earlier known as 'Lalu Telecom' which recovery was to the effect:-Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.11.2020 13:21:00 This file is digitally signed by Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 15 of 19 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 15 of 19One Biometric thumb impression machine make SAFRAN MORPHO, colour Red & Black, in which other details are not visible/clear.One Biometric thumb impression machine make STARTEK ENG.One visiting card plastic box containing 5 cards of Lalu telecom with following details, Mob.9800001015, 9333338619 Lalu Telecom All Kinds of Mobile Sale & Service All Company Voucher & Easy Recharge Available Here Burn's Club More, Girjapara, Raniganj with logo of Airtel, Jio, Vodafone, BSNL, Reliance, Aircel and Idea" and 10 cards of Hena telecom with following details *Mob.9933491360, 9333338619 Hena Telecom SALES & SERVICING All Kinds of Mobile Voucher, SIM, Head Phone, Recharge Available Here Burn's Club More, Girjapara, Raniganj - 713347, Dist-Paschim Bardhaman with logo of Samsung, Nokia, Jio, Vodafone, Airtel, BSNL and Idea."On a consideration of the submissions that have been made on behalf of either side, this Court is of the considered view that in the instant case, the shop 'Lalu Telecom' from which the alleged fake mobile SIMs were issued or were alternatively also issued in the name of the applicant were allegedly mis-utilized by the applicant, which ipso facto negates the grant of bail to the applicant in the instant case.No explanation appears to be forth coming on behalf of the applicant qua the issuance of alternate mobile numbers in the name of the applicant.that he has been incarcerated since 15.11.2019; that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case; Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.11.2020 13:21:00 This file is digitally signed by Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 1 of 19 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 1 of 19that two other co-accused persons namely Samir Tantubai and Manoj Hari who were the main and only beneficiaries, have already been granted bail;that the charge sheet in the matter has been filed; that the applicant was not even named in the main charge sheet;accused Manoj Hari were arrested on 04.10.2018 and 21.08.2018 respectively in FIR No.110/2017, PS Crime Branch under Sections 420/467/468/471/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and are stated to be on Court bail in the said case.Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 8 of 19During the further course of investigation subscribes of Mobile Numbers 8617354860, 9134757185 and 9134757186 were interrogated in present case and they were asked about the mobile numbers issued on their respective names but they were found to be unaware about the issuance of above-mentioned mobile numbers issued on their names.Further mobile number 8617092880 found to be issued on fake address.During the further course of investigation search of owner of "Lalu Telecom" Girja Para, MP Road Asansol (from where four alleged mobile numbers 8617354860, 9134757185, 9134757186 and 8617092880 were issued), was made and it came to know that owner of Lalu Telecom, accused Md. Saimul Hoda @ Lallu had already been arrested by PS Ranigang Police, on 14.09.2019, in Case Fir No. 324/2019, Dated 13.09.2019 U/S 419/420/467/ 468 IPC.During the further course of investigation on 15.11.2019, accused Saimul Hoda @ Lallu S/O Md. Nurul Hoda R/O Girjapara, PS Raniganj, Paschim Bardhman, West Bengal, Age 32 Years was arrested formally in present case in pursuance of production warrant got issued from Hon'ble Court.After detailed interrogation, disclosure statement of accused Saimul Hoda @ LaHu was recorded separately.During the interrogation accused Md. Saimul Hoda @ Lallu disclosed the name of his accomplice as Rajesh Mondal, who used to sit at his shop with him and he (Rajesh Mondal) was the retailer of some mobile companies.No.1155/2020 Page 9 of 19 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 11 of 19couldn't be 615Bail Appl.Furthermore, the applicant is also allegedly involved in relation to FIR No.48/2019 under sections 420/379 IPC PS Nagar Sahayak, District-Katihar, Bihar FIR No.110/2017 PS Crime Branch under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/201 IPC and FIR No.18082017 PS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:17.11.2020 13:21:00 This file is digitally signed by Bail Appl.No.1155/2020 Page 18 of 19 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.Bail Appl. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,923,060 | There was political rivalry between the two parties which had resulted in occasional clashes.Prior to the day of incident one member of the Muslim League had sustained a gunshot injury and was admitted in the medical college hospital at Kozhikode.ORDER R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.2. Perused the records.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the said order dated 29-10-1988 had convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indain Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for a 9 months while acquitting the other accused in the said case by name Mirza Mohammed Baig for the same offences for want of evidence against him.The accusation against the petitioner was that on or about 13-3-1987 between the 20.00 hours and 22.00 hours the petitioner came on a motorcycle on a public road in front of the B and C Rest House at Kannad and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Zaibunnisa d/o Abdul Gafoor and Azra Sultana w/o Syed Shafik by throwing an acid on their persons causing disfiguration of the face of both Zaibunnisa as well as that of Azra Sultana and loss of vision of right eye of Zaibunnisa and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 326 as well as that under 324 of the Indian Penal Code.It was also alleged that the petitioner was accompanied by another accused by name Mirza Mohammed Baig, who was riding the motor cycle.It is the case of the prosecution that on the relevant day and time Zaibunnisa, Azra and Mushirunnisa were returning to their house from that of Professor Karbhari by Tilak Road at Kannad and when they had been in front of the B and C Rest House and the building of Civil Court at Kannad on Kannad Chalisgaon Road, while they were walking parallel to each other, with the Zaibunnisa being in the centre and Mushirunnisa on her right and Azra Sul tana on her left, the traffic on the road being minimum, two persons came on a motor cycle driven from the opposite direction and as it reached near the spot close to Azra on her left side, the pillon rider all of a sudden threw some liquid, from a container which he was carrying, on the person of the girls as a result the liquid fell on the person of Zaibunnisa on her right side portion of the body as well as near the chest and on the left shoulder.Some portion of the liquid also fell on the left side of the face of Mushirunnisa as well as on her shoulder and back.Thereafter, the pillion rider applied some liquid to the face of Azra Sultana.Immediately thereupon all the three girls raised alarm and started shouting.The girls could identify the persons who had thrown acid on them as being the husband of Azra namely the accused No. 1, the petitioner herein.As a result of throwing of acid, the clothes on the person of all the 3 girls were partially burnt and spoilled.Mushirunnisa immediately narrated the incident to her father when they reached her house and thereupon proceeded to the police station.As a result of burns suffered from acid, the girls started getting restless and were shouting and, therefore, Kudrat Ali, the brother of Mushirunnisa and Zaibunnisa and some neighbours took the girls to the dispensary of a doctor by name Patil who expressed his unability to provide any medical assistance and advised them to proceed to the Medical College Hospital forthwith.Therefore, they had to return to their residence.Meanwhile the father of the girls accomanied by P.S.I. Deshmukh and C.P.I. Kannad and one Dr. Shinde, Medical Officer, came to their house and the said doctor examined all the injurd girls and directed them to be taken to the Medical College Hospital, Aurangabad for the necesasry treatment.Accordingly, the girls were referred to the Medical College Hospital Aurangabad at mid night and were admitted in the hospital.At Kannad, Mushirunnisa reported the incidence orally to the P.S.I. Deshmukh.Subsequently the investigation was carried out and the petitioner and said Mirza Mohammed Baig were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.After examining 14 witnesses, including the investigating officer, the trial Court convicted the petitioner but acquitted the said Mirza Mohd. Baig.The appeal preferred against the same was dismissed by the impugned order.Hence, the present criminal revision application.It is lastly contended that considering the conduct of the petitioner, even subsequent to the alleged incident and that he was arrested at Aurangabad and did not even make any attempt, to abscond from the date of the alleged incident, by all probability, the petitioner had no connection whatsoever with the alleged incident and, therefore, ought to have been acquitted.The Courts below having ignored the important pieces of evidence as well as the fact that the circumstantial evidence does not establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner for the offences punishabel under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, referring to the judgments of the Courts below, has submitted that the injuries suffered on the neck and left palm of the accused and certified by the medical officer on his arrest clearly disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the incident of throwing of acid on the person of the 3 girls.He has further submitted that the enmity between the petitioner and Azra has been clearly brought on record and that establishes the motive behind the offence committed by the petitioner.The contention would have been of some substance but for the fact that petitioner happened to be the husband of one of the victims.Undisputedly the petitioner is the husband of Azra Sultana.It is difficult to believe that Azra who happend to be the wife of the petitioner would have found it difficult to identify the petitioner when he tried to throw acid to her face and further applied some liquid, to her face and that too when the motor bike on which he came as a pillion rider was stopped close to her.All of them, thereafter proceeded to the house of Mushirunnisa where Mushirunnisa narrated the whole incidence to P.S.I. Deshmukh.Besides the petitioner was well known to all the three girls including Mushirunnisa.That was a case wherein the accused owe allegations to the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the complainant be-' longed to the Muslim League.On the 23-10-1988 the deceased C.P. Abdulla and three prosecution witnesses, namely, Moidu, Kannan and Kunhabdulla Haji had gone to see the injured person in the hospital.After visiting the injured, on their way, to Kakkad while going in a bus and when they reached Chelakkad they found a crowed gathered there and sensing some trouble, the bus driver refused to proceed further.Finding no other alternative, they alighted the bus and started walking.After covering some distance they found two of the accused standing on the road.Little later, when they were near the village Naripatta they heard a sound of explosion.Apprehending trouble they ran and took shelter in the nearby house of one of the prosecution witnesses.They then saw a mob armed with various weapons coming towards his house.Mean while PW Kunhikannan had bolted the front door of the house from inside.The mob broke open the door and, after entering, caught hold of Abdulla and draged him to he verandah.To save their own lives PW 2 Kannan ran away and took shelter in his own house in that village and the other two, namely, Moidu and Kunhabdulla Haji went to the top of the house of Kunhikanna.Moidu thereafter climbed a tree and perched himself there.When Kunhabdulla Haji tried to escape, he was caught hold of by some miscreants.He, however, extricated himself and ran to the house of one Pokkar of that village.After about 15 minutes when the mob left, he came to the courtyard of Kunhikannan and saw Abdulla lying near the gate of his house in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on his person.While Moidu was inside the house of Kunhikannan, the police reached the spot.They took Moidu to Kuttiyadi Police Station where his statement was recorded and a case was registered.It appears that two days after the insident the Investigating Officer (PW 14) submitted a report (Ext. P14) before the local Judicial Magistrate stating that during investigation names of some of the miscreants (as mentioned therein) could be gathered.In that report initially names of 5 persons were given and thereafter a host of others.This subsequent inclusion was found to be an interpolation by the trial Court.As regards the contention of absence of motive the evidence on record and analysis thereof by the Courts below discloses that the accused petitioner had asked Azra not to move with Zaibunnisa and Mushirunnisa and had warned her that she would repent for moving in their company.The materials on record further discloses that though it was a love marriage between Azra Sultana and the petitioner, she was reluctant to reside with him on account of his misbehaviour with her.Besides though they cohabited as the husband and wife for a period of about 2 months, during that period she was illterated by the petitioner and, therefore, she did not leave his company and went to reside with his brothers wife.The materials on record also disclose that inspite of repeated efforts by the petitioner to convince Azra to join him, she had refused to cohabit with him and as a result the petitioner was annoyed.The record further discloses that though Azra started residing at Kannad and the petitioner at Aurangabad, the latter visited Azra on number of occasions to convince her to join him but without any success.Otherwise there was no reason to stop the motor cycle by her side when three girls were walking parallel to each other.If the inconsistencies noticed in the evidence of PW 3 Chhoteram and PW 1 Gendalal and the totally different version given by PW 6 Badrilal are taken note of, there is considerable room for doubt regarding the appellant being one of the two miscreants who had set fire to the hut belonging to PW 1 Gendalal and PW 3 Chhoteram and about the appellant rendering himself liable for conviction for having commtted the offences in question in pursuance of a common intention between him and the other accused.It was necessary for the prosecution to establish that he had proceeded to Kannad on 13th of March.In the course of cross-examination an attempt was made by the petitioner to say that the letter was handed over by the said witness to the petitioner on 12th night with a request to give the said letter to his father to Kannad on 13th of March stating that the witness was proceeding to Pune on the next day and would be returning by 20th of March.The evidence sought to be brought on record by the petitioner to justify the contention that the petitioner was in Aurangabad on 12th of March and, there fore, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that he had proceeded to Kannad on 13th of March.However, the petitioner himself has brought an evidence on record to show that he was to proceed to Kannad on 13th of March and this fact was even known to the brother of.Undisputedly the petitioner had dinner at the residence of Mushirunnisa on the day prior to leaving Kannad after the examination.In the first assault, the acid appeared at the right side face of Zaibunnisa causing grievous hurt, disfiguration and loss of right eye to her with substantial chemical burns at chest, back, shoulder and fore-arm by damaging her clothings and at the same time some particles of the acid appeared at the left side face, shoulder, upper chest wall and back of Mushirunnisa.It is to be noted that Mushirunnisa alone sustained burns at the left side of the body while most of the injuries on the persons of Zaibunnisa and Azra Sultana are available at the right side of the body. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,306,433 | Shri Awadesh Parashar, counsel for the complainant.Heard on I.A. No.8367/2016, an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant No.3 - Radha Charan and objection filed by the State.The appellant No.3 has been convicted and sentenced as under:-Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No.3 was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.It is true that Dr. Omhari Sharma (P.W.9) who proved the postmortem report (Exhibit P-15) had found four antimortem injuries to the deceased Pooja and she died due to strangulation.However, she died at Village of District Bhind but it could not be established as to whether the appellant visited with her to that place from Gwalior.It is accepted by Suresh Verma (P.W.4), father of the deceased and Rajwati (P.W.5) mother of the deceased that in generally the appellant was residing in his house 2 Cr.A.No.401/2015 situated at Deendayal Nagar, Gwalior and there is no evidence to connect the appellant Radha Charan that he participated in the crime of murder.Similarly, it is stated by Suresh Verma and his wife Rajwati that the appellant when came to attend a marriage he told these witnesses to provide some dowry so that their daughter would be happy.Thereafter, it is alleged that soon before her death, she informed about demand of dowry to her parents.However, the investigating officer could not give the call details of mobile phone of the deceased or the parents of the deceased to show that their claim was true.The deceased died after one year and two months of her marriage but in that period neither she lodged any FIR against her husband or the appellant, nor in her lifetime any meeting of reputed persons of the community was called to resolve the problem of dowry demand.There was no allegation of Suresh Verma and Rajwati that before the aforesaid phone call she ever said to them that she was being tortured for dowry demand.For constitution of offence under Section 304-B of IPC, there must be specific allegation that the deceased was tortured for dowry demand.No offence under Section 302 or 304-B IPC is made out against the appellant whereas remaining offences are not so grave.The appellant remained in custody for more than 18 months and, therefore, it is possible that the sentence of other minor offences 3 Cr.A.No.401/2015 may be reduced to the period for which he remained in custody.Under these circumstances, appellant No.3 prays for bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Learned counsel for the complainant also opposes the application.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to accept the application of the appellants.Consequently, application I.A.No.8367/2016 is hereby allowed.Subject to deposit of fine amount, if the appellant Radha Charan furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) along with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that he shall appear before the Office of this Court on 20.12.2016 and on subsequent dates given by the Office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeal then the appellant shall be released on bail and execution of jail sentence is suspended till the disposal of this appeal.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,311,222 | Marriage of Rizwana (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Shahzad within seven years of her death and other respondents are his family members.Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting Rizwana to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, under suspicious circumstances, Rizwana died on 28/7/09 during treatment at Hamidia Hospital having been referred from hospital at Sehore and cause of death was ascertained as cardio-respiratory failure as a result of suspected poisoning.Accordingly, morgue intimation (Ex.P/8) was recorded and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.After taking into consideration the evidence of Assistant Sub Inspector R.S.Yadav (PW1), Sainik Chaganlal (PW2), Peon Abdul Rashid (PW3), mother of the deceased Zareena Bi (PW4), Mahesh Chandravanshi (PW5), Dr. Jayanti Yadav (PW6), Nisar (PW7), Naib Tahsildar Chandrashekhar (PW8), Amir Khan (PW9), Anokhilal (PW10), Ghisulal (PW11), Jagat Singh Rajput (PW12), Satvir Singh (PW13) and other material available on record, trial Court found that marriage of deceased was solemnized within seven years of the date of incident with respondent no.1 Shahzad Khan.Trial Court also held that no injuries were found on the dead body.Though demand of Motorcycle and Gas Stove by her husband was reflected from the evidence on record, yet, there was nothing on record to suggest curelsome behaviour of her husband with the deceased in regard to the said demand.Evidence of Zareena Bi that her in-laws used to harass her on trifle matters of cooking, could not be considered sufficient so as to incriminate the respondents for the offences alleged.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,311,817 | % (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.190/2008, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at police station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement Deed of 21st October, 2011 arrived at Delhi Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-2). | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,314,309 | Since both the afore-captioned appeals have been filed against the same judgement and in same case crime convicting the accused, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by means of this common order.The facts, as unfolded by the prosecution, in brief, are that a written report was lodged by the first informant of the case, Manoj, son of Hari Kishan Dhimar, resident of Khandiya Belatal, police station Kulpahad, district Mahoba on 27.9.2012 to the effect that on 26.9.2012 his sister, the victim (name withheld), aged about 18 years had gone to market to fetch vegetable where Dashrath, son of Murlidhar Brahman and Sandeep Pateriya, son of Ram Swaroop met her, who enticed her away to the fort (Qila) and committed rape on her forcibly and did not allow her to come back by threatening.When his sister did not return back, he started searching her.At about 10.00 PM in the night near Dak Bangla Qila, he met his sister, who was accompanied with Sandeep and Dashrath.His sister was very much fearful.It is further mentioned in the FIR that when the complainant and others tried to caught hold of the accused, they ran away.Thereafter, the complainant along with his sister came back home and in spite of his best efforts to go to the police station, he could not get any conveyance.On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered at case crime No. 975 of 2012, under section 376(2)(g) IPC, police station Kulpahad, district Mahoba.The investigating officer also collected one pair of sleeper, part of Samosa, sheera of Rasgulla (sweet) and Gutka and prepared their recovery memos.PW 1, Manoj is the complainant of the case.He deposed that at the time of incident, the age of the victim was 16 years.On the date of incident his sister had gone to the Belatal market to fetch the vegetable along with her mother Usha Devi in the evening at 4.00 PM.After purchasing vegetables his mother had returned, but his sister stayed in the market to purchase certain other articles.When she did not return till 7.00 P.M., he started searching her.During search, his sister met him on the fort (Qila).Along with his sister, both the accused were also there.It is further stated by this witness that on enquiry as to how she reached here, the victim told him that while she was returning from the market, both the accused met her and enticed her to this place.He further deposed that the victim told him that both the accused Sandeep Pateriya and Dashrath have forcibly committed rape on her.This witness also got the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded.Thereafter the investigation of the case was taken up by SO Narain Tripathi and after completion of remaining investigation, charge sheet Ext. Ka-12 was submitted against the appellants.As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 Mahoba vide order dated 25.10.2013 framed the charges against the appellants under sections 376 IPC.Thereafter, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mahoba vide order dated 20.2.2016 modified the charge to one under Section 376(2)(g) IPC.To prove the prosecution case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses.On resistance by the victim, accused threatened her and did not allow her to go home.He also deposed that he along with others caught hold of both the accused, but they fled away.PW-2 is the victim and complainant of the case.She deposed that on the date of incident she had gone to the vegetable market along with her mother.Her mother had returned home, but she was left back.As soon as she reached near Qila, both the accused persons have forcibly took her to Qila and after threatening her committed rape with her.She further deposed that when she raised alarm, being lonely place, no body has heard his shriek.Both the accused kept her in confinement for about 3-4 hours and did not allow her to go home.When her maternal uncle Charan and brother Manoj and Vinod reached there searching her, then accused Sandeep was lying on her and was committing rape on her.Two police personnel also followed her maternal uncle and brother.Her maternal uncle and brother caught hold of both the accused, but they fled away.On being told by the police personnel that it was night, she along with her parents, maternal uncle and brother went to the police station on the next date to lodge the report.After the FIR was lodged, her medical examination was conducted.PW-3, Dr. Rashmi Sharma, who has conducted the medical examination of the victim, has deposed that on 27.092012 she was posted as Medical Officer in the District Women Hospital, Mahoba.On that date at about 1.30 PM she has medically examined the victim, who was brought by lady Constable Neelam Yadav, of police station Kulpahad, district Mahoba.Her height was 5'1" and weight was 42 Kgs.Axillary and pubic hair were developing.Breast was developing.Hymen was found intact.The evidence of PW-4 SI Chanchal Yadav, the first investigating officer and SO Narain Tripathi, the second investigating officer has already discussed above.PW-5 Hira Lal Niranjan has been examined to prove the documents and the charge sheet submitted by SO Narain Tripathi.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused-appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which they denied the charges and stated that they have falsely been implicated in this case and they are innocent.Heard Mrs. Abida Sayeed, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant in Jail Appeal No. 3982 of 2017 and Shri Nand Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the accused-appellant in connected Criminal Appeal No. 2192 of 2015 and learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case.Further on cross-examination, the investigating officer has stated that he has not collected any evidence about the age of the victim.Axillary and pubic hair were developing.The victim is required to repeat again and again the details of the rape incident not so much as to bring out the facts on record or to test her credibility but to test her story for inconsistencies with a view to attempt to twist the interpretation of events given by her so as to make them appear inconsistent with her allegations.The Court, therefore, should not sit as a silent spectator while the victim of crime i being cross-examined by the defence.It must effectively control the recording of evidence in the Court.A rapist not only violates the victim personal integrity, but leaves indelible marks on the very soul of the helpless female.In this case a minor girl had been raped by the two accused.In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has fully established its case beyond reasonable doubt.The impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.3.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahoba in ST No. 83 of 2013, which has been sought to be assailed, calls for no interference.Accordingly, both the appeals are hereby dismissed. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,923,146 | Such investigation was done in this case and normally, one would expect the special police to file the charge sheet in this case. | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,314,677 | have been effected and the weapon of offence recovered.There shall be no order for costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.( Dipankar Datta, J. ) | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,320,916 | This is an application u/s 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of substantive sentence pending the Criminal Revision Application and release on bail.2. Heard Shri.M. P. Kale, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs Geeta L. Deshpande, learned APP for respondent/State.::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 :::After conducting the trial, the learned Asst.Sessions Judge, Parbhani, vide judgment and order dated 24.06.2015, held all the accused including the applicant guilty for the offences punishable u/s 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced all the five accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, they should suffer further simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable u/s 498-A r/w 34 of the IPC and applicant and co-accused Kamlaji @ Balasaheb Shesherao Shelke sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the term of five years each and pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they should suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.Whereas; rest of the accused sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the term of one year each and further to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they should suffer further simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence u/s 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.In a Criminal Appeal against the aforesaid judgment bearing No. 55 of 2015 preferred by all the five accused::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 ::: 3 925APPLN1048.2020.doc including the applicant, learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Parbhani vide judgment and order dated 10.02.2020, maintained conviction, however, modified the sentence awarded to co-accused Kamlaji @ Balasaheb Shesherao Shelke only.::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 :::Applicant/accused no. 1 is a husband whereas co- accused are the relatives of the husband of deceased.Admittedly, deceased -Laxmi died by drowning into the well along with her tender age son within seven years of marriage.According to the prosecution, all the accused including applicant subjected her to cruelty and driven her to commit suicide.While taking me through the record, Shri.M. P. Kale, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that, case is based on evidence of child witness i.e. real younger sister of the deceased.Her evidence is not worthy of credence as it is not corroborated by other cogent evidence.Allegations of cruelty are vague and omnibus allegations.Evidence adduced by the prosecution is neither sufficient to prove cruelty as contemplated u/s 498-A of the IPC nor sufficient to prove suicidal death of deceased - Laxmi.Learned Asst.Sessions Judge and Addl.::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 :::4 925APPLN1048.2020.doc Sessions Judge, both have convicted the accused relying on testimony of child witness and presumption provided u/s 113-A of the Evidence Act. When evidence of cruelty as contemplated u/s 498A of the IPC was not worthy of credence, presumption provided in Section 113-A loses its importance.According to Shri.Kale, counsel for the applicant, learned Addl.Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the same.Impugned judgment suffer from many factual and legal aspects.He was on bail during trial.He never jumped the bail.Sentence awarded to him is short- term sentence.He has every hope of success in Revision.Therefore, applicant/appellant deserves to be released on bail after suspending the sentence pending the Criminal Revision Application.Per contra, Mrs. Geeta L. Deshpande, learned APP for the respondent/State, vehemently argued that, deceased Laxmi committed suicide along with her tender age son within seven years of marriage.The evidence of cruelty meted out to deceased Laxmi by all accused, more particularly, the applicant, who was her husband, is clear, cogent and convincing.There is no reason to discard the evidence of younger sister of Laxmi and::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 ::: 5 925APPLN1048.2020.doc eye witness of cruelty meted out to deceased Laxmi.Evidence adduced by the prosecution is quite sufficient to prove the guilt of all the accused including the applicant.In such circumstances, it would not be proper to release the applicant/accused on bail by suspending the sentence during the pendency of revision application.::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 :::In the light of the aforesaid submissions made at bar by Shri.M. P. Kale, learned advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Geeta L. Deshpande, learned APP for respondent/State, I have carefully gone through the record.It is pertinent to note that, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are kith and kin of deceased Laxmi.Unless and until revision application is heard finally, it cannot be decided whether the evidence of ill-treatment is sufficient to prove cruelty contemplated in either clause A or clause B or both the clauses of explanation to Section 498 of the IPC.Secondly, the eye-witness on whom the prosecution heavily relied is a seven years old child witness.Her evidence appears to be not consistent with the evidence of other witnesses.This material aspect also needs o be scrutinized minutely.There is no dispute that, deceased Laxmi died along with her tender age son by drowning into the well, however, in view of the defence taken by the accused, evidence needs o be scrutinized minutely for::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 ::: 6 925APPLN1048.2020.doc deciding the aspect of nature of death.Admittedly, co-accused have been released on bail pending the revision application after suspending the sentence.::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 :::In the matter of Kiran Kumar Versus State of M.P. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 211, the Hon'ble supreme Court while interpreting the scope and ambit of Section 389 and 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, held that, "when a person is convicted and sentenced to a short- term imprisonment, the normal rule is that when his appeal is pending the sentence should be suspended and rejection is only by way of exception and be put forward for such rejection.In such case also every endeavour should be made to have the appeal posted for early hearing and disposal.If the short-term sentence is allowed to run out during the pendency of appeal, the appeal itself will become, for all practical purposes, infructuous so far as the appellant is concerned.No exceptional reason has been shown for not suspending the substantive sentence.Thus, having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances an the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, applicant/appellant deserves to be::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 ::: 7 925APPLN1048.2020.doc released on bail by suspending the substantive sentence till conclusion of the revision application.Hence, I pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 :::(ii) The substantive sentence awarded to the applicant / appellant by Assistant Sessions Judge, Parbhani vide Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 2013, which is confirmed by Addl.(iii) The applicant/appellant be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with solvent surety of the like amount.(iv) The applicant is directed not to commit any offence especially as regards the prosecution witnesses are concerned.::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2020 02:24:40 ::: | ['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,919,808 | JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.Appellant Ramkumar has been convicted under Sections 498A and 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and three years respectively.He has also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the first offence and Rs. 5,000/- for the second offence.After hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides and after careful scrutiny of the evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences is not sustainable.Bundabai (P.W. 2) is wife of the appellant.She has three children from him.The marriage took place about 14 years ago.She has deposed that she was sleeping and at about 1 a.m. the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire as he suspected her fidelity.She reported the matter to the police after six months of the incident.The accused was getting her burn injuries treated by a doctor.Ralli (P.W. 3) is her father.He has deposed that his daughter Bundabai (P.W. 2) did not tell him that her husband has caused burn injuries to her.Ganeshia (P.W. 4) is mother of Bundabai (P.W. 2).She has.deposed that Bundabai (P.W. 2) told her that her husband has caused these injuries to her, and this was revealed by her in the presence of her father Ralli (P.W. 3).It is not probable that the father of the victim would not support her testimony.The evidence of both the parents is contradictory.Hira Singh Yadav (P.W. 5) has deposed that a Panchayat was convened in which Bundabai (P.W. 2) disclosed that she herself set on fire out of anger.Though this witness has been declared hostile his version finds support from the testimony of the father of Bundabai.Therefore, a reasonable doubt is created whether the accused caused burn injuries to his wife or she herself poured kerosene of her body and ignited the match stick.The medical evidence of Dr. B.P. Mishra (P.W. 1) shows that this woman had sustained burn injuries as per his report Ex. P-2 but he could not throw light on the point whether the burns were self-inflicted or caused by someone else.Bundabai (P.W. 2) has submitted an application before this Court for permission to compound the offence.As both the offences are non-compoundable the application is rejected.But the charges against the appellant are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, he must be acquitted of those charges.The appeal is allowed. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,981,390 | -2- Cr.A. No.1116/2005 No.694/2003; whereby they have been convicted under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to RI for life with fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of fine to undergo RI for one month each.The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.7.2003 at around 2:00 O'Clock in the afternoon, deceased along with her daughter Fulabai (P.W.6) was going to answer the call of nature.The appellants had been erecting fence (Barga) on a government land, adjacent to their land.The deceased objected about the same and told them not to erect fence because there would be trouble in passing on the land.On this, the appellants abused her.When she told them not to abuse her, appellant Sunti had inflicted a blow on her head by an axe and appellant Pappu inflicted a blow by axe on her left hand.The daughter of deceased Fulabai (P.W.6) informed the aforesaid act to her family members including father.The report of incident was lodged at the police station.-4- Cr.A. No.1116/2005The statement of Fulabai (P.W.6) is duly corroborated by Nanhi Bai (P.W.4), who is her sister.Pooran (P.W.2) is the husband of deceased and father of Fulabai (P.W.6).He deposed that his daughter Fulabai came to my house and told me that appellants had abused the deceased and beaten her.Thereafter I reached at the place of incident along with other family members.I had taken the deceased to my house and thereafter we had taken the deceased to police station where the report of incident, Ex.P.1, was lodged.The deceased was admitted at District Hospital, Sagar.She was died on the next day.I had seen the appellants running away from the place of incident.(9.11.2017) The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 31.3.2005 passed in Special Sessions TrialDeceased was died on the next day.Police conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the appellants before the trial court.The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.The trial court, after completion of the trial, found the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced, as aforesaid.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that if the entire prosecution evidence be taken as it is, then the offence committed by the appellant Sunti would be made out under section 304-3- Cr.A. No.1116/2005 Part-I of IPC and against appellant Pappu an offence under section 324 of IPC would be made out.Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants may be partly allowed.Heard arguments.Perused the record.She was accompanying the deceased at the time of incident.She deposed that on the date of incident, she along with her mother was going to answer the call of nature, both the appellants had been erecting fence (Barga) on government land, then my mother told them that why they were erecting fence.On this appellant Sunti inflicted a blow on the head of my mother by an axe and appellant Pappu inflicted a blow on the left hand by an axe.When I cried, the appellants had given a blow of lathi to me also.I received injuries on my both the hands.Then I went to my house and told the incident to my father and other family members.They had taken the deceased to my house and thereafter the family members had gone to Rahatgarh and report was lodged at the police station.In para 6 of her cross-examination, she admitted the fact that where the quarrel had been taken place, there is a passage to go to the river and there are lands of Sunti, Puran and Laldas.The accused persons were erecting fence adjacent to their land so anyone would not enter into the field and their land was also nearby the fields of accused persons.My mother objected to the same.The accused persons told my mother why she is objecting as we are erecting fence on government land and thereafter abused my mother and beaten her.She deposed that at the time of incident she was present in her house.She heard the cry of Fulabai, who was shouting that Sunti had killed her mother.Nanhi Bai arrived on the spot and saw the appellants Pappu and Sunti running away from the spot and her mother was lying on the ground in injured condition.Her mother Moti Bai told that appellants had assaulted her by axe.Fulabai and Nanhi Bai brought Moti Bai in the house and thereafter she was taken to Rahatgarh.In cross-examination this witness had further deposed that there was a quarrel on account of erection of fence on the way by appellants.When Moti Bai raised objection, appellants had beaten her.They were armed with axe.Laldas (P.W.1) deposed that before him on the memorandum, an axe was seized from the house of Moti Singh and I signed the seizure memo.-5- Cr.A. No.1116/2005Balchand (P.W.8) deposed that at the time of incident he was present in his house Fulabai came there and told him that appellants had beaten her mother Moti Bai and Sunti had inflicted a blow of axe on her head.Balchand and his brother Imrat arrived on the spot and brought Moti Bai to home.Prosecution has examined Imrat (P.W.10) also but he did not support the prosecution story and has been declared hostile.A.K.Saraf (P.W.5) deposed that on 21.7.2003 I was posted as Medical Officer at District Hospital, Sagar and I performed the postmortem of the deceased.I noticed following injuries on the person of the body of deceased:-"1. Lacerated wound on the fronto- parietal region 14 cm X 3 cm bone deep on exploration fracture of frontal bone was found presentLacerated wound of 3 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep over wrist of left handOn internal examination, fracture of left frontal bone and rupture of brain membrane and part of brain was found below.It is opined by the doctor that the injuries were antemortem and cause of death is shock due to head injuries.The statement of doctor is corroborated by postmortem report, Ex.P.5, given by him.This shows the death of deceased was homicidal.-6- Cr.A. No.1116/2005Thus, the statement of eyewitness Fulabai (P.W.6) is duly corroborated by statement of her sister Nanhi Bai (P.W.4), father Pooran (P.W.2) and Balchand (P.W.8).Nanhi Bai had seen the appellants running away from the spot after the incident.They also deposed that the deceased had told them about the incident and against the appellants, who had caused injuries to her.Fulabai informed about the incident to witness Balchand (P.W.8) also.The statement of Pooran (P.W.2) is duly corroborated by FIR, Ex.P.1, which is lodged soon after the incident.Thus, the prosecution witnesses corroborate each other on all material facts and their statements appear to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy.There is only one discrepancy found in the case regarding medical and ocular evidence.Although, the prosecution witness Fulabai deposed that the appellants had assaulted her mother by axe, but in postmortem report, Ex.P.5, the doctor had not noticed any injury caused by hard and sharp object on the head and hand of the deceased.Normally, when the witness says that an axe is used, there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that blunt side of weapon was used.If that be the implication, it is the duty of prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp-edged instrument was used as a blunt weapon.The witness Fulabai is an illiterate rustic woman, whose presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted.She had categorically deposed that appellant Sunti had inflicted a blow of axe on head of deceased;-7- Cr.A. No.1116/2005 whereas appellant Pappu had assaulted the deceased by axe on her hand.Doctor had found two injuries one on the head and another on the hand of the deceased.This corroborates the statement of Fulabai.This witness was subjected to searching cross-examination.Nothing material could be elicited from her which may cast a doubt on her credibility, therefore, it is quite possible that the injuries found on the head and hand of the deceased were caused by a blow of blunt side of the axe.This is negligence on part of the prosecution in not seeking clarification from the witness about the weapon used by the appellants.Thus, only on account of above discrepancy from medical evidence, the statement of eyewitness Fulabai cannot be disbelieved.This is settled law that evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased.Normally close relations of the deceased are not likely to falsely implicate a person in the incident leading to the death of the relation unless there are very strong and cogent reasons to accept such criticism.In view of aforesaid, the testimony of eyewitness Fulabai can be relied on.It is proved that there was a quarrel between deceased and appellants on account of raising a fence on the government land.In this quarrel, appellant Sunti inflicted single blow on the head of deceased by an axe; whereas another appellant Pappu inflicted simple injury by an axe on hand of the deceased.The injuries are caused in sudden quarrel in spur of moment without meditation.Therefore, it cannot be inferred that appellants had assaulted the deceased with common intention to commit her murder.Therefore, appellant-8- Cr.A. No.1116/2005 Pappu, who had caused a simple injury on hand of the deceased, cannot be held guilty for causing death of deceased, along with main accused Sunti with the aid of section 34 of IPC.In a case of sudden fight each accused shall be liable for his individual act.The trial court had wrongly held appellant Pappu guilty under section 302/34 of IPC.He is held guilty for causing simple injury to deceased under section 324 of IPC.As far as appellant Sunti is concerned, there is no evidence available on record to show that appellant wanted to kill the deceased.He had inflicted a single blow of axe on the head of deceased in sudden fight in a spur of moment.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,983,472 | F.I.R. lodged by Complainant is to above effect and on perusal of the same, it is worth to mention that though she claims ill- treatment within one week of her marriage with applicant no.1, the allegations are made against her husband only.So far as allegations against applicant nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, general statement is made involving her in-laws as well as applicant nos. 4 and 5 that they too provided her ill-treatment during the period from 7.12.2016 to 8.4.2016, which contents of report so far as applicant nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, does not appear to be true since, admittedly, they got married in the year 2004 i.e. much prior to Complainant's marriage with applicant no.1 and since then she is residing separately at::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 ::: 7 apl46.19.odt Thane.Heard finally by consent.This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of F.I.R. No.370 of 2017, dt.17.6.2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings arising out of the same being Regular Criminal Case No.678 of 2018 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.7, Nagpur.3. Heard Mr.Rajnish Vyas, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr.S.A.Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecution for respondent no.1/State.Respondent no.2 though served, in-spite of granting opportunity to defend the application, she did not choose to defend the same.Rajnish Vyas, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the averments made in the F.I.R. and final report would clearly reveal that the same are omnibus and without any reference to date and time.The allegations are exaggerated, which fail to disclose commission of any cognizable offence.That being so, the F.I.R. and final report are liable to be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 :::It is submitted that Criminal prosecution is striking example of arm twisting tactics.Though applicant nos. 4 and 5 are residing separately as a married couple since 2004, they have been joined as accused only with a view to pressurize the applicants to pay huge amount of maintenance.Thus, criminal law was set in motion not with a view to punish the guilty, but to pressurize the innocent.It is, therefore, prayed that the material collected during the course of investigation since fail to attract ingredients of offence registered against the applicants, wherefrom no involvement of any of the::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 ::: 5 apl46.19.odt applicants is established even prima facie, the proceedings initiated as aforesaid against the applicants are liable to be quashed and set aside and thus, the application be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 :::As against this, Mr.S.A.Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that involvement of all the applicants in present crime is established from the report as well as the additional statements of respondent no.2 wherefrom it is established that she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment immediately after her marriage with applicant no.1, whose statements are further corroborated by her parents and other relatives.It is, therefore, submitted that since there is ample evidence against the applicants to frame charge, the application be rejected.While considering this application, brief facts involved therein are required to be placed which are that marriage between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 25.11.2016 at Nagpur and thereafter, respondent no.2 started residing with applicant nos. 2 and 3 and her husband at Mumbai.Marriage of applicant no.4, sister of applicant no.1, is admittedly solemnized much prior to marriage of Complainant and since her marriage with::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 ::: 6 apl46.19.odt applicant no.5 in the year 2004, she is residing at Thane.It is case of the applicants that, as respondent no.2, after her marriage, could not adjust with her husband and in-laws, she lodged report on 17.6.2017 alleging that, within one week from her marriage with applicant no.1, she was subjected to ill-treatment on the count of monetary demand and on non-payment of the same, was subjected to abuses and that, from 7.12.2016 till 8.4.2016, was provided mental harassment, due to which she returned back to Nagpur and stayed at her parental home till 9.6.2017, during which period she was telephonically contacted by applicants and was provided mental harassment.Moreover, the allegations against said respondent nos.4 and 5 as well as against Complainant's in-laws are general in nature and vague as what is stated is that, during stay of Complainant at Mumbai, all the applicants caused mental ill-treatment to her and thereafter, when she left Mumbai and came to Nagpur on 8.4.2017 and was at Nagpur till 9.6.2017, was provided ill-treatment telephonically, which contents of report also does not attract ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 :::We have perused the charge-sheet.Additional statement of Complainant recorded eight days after lodging of report also reveals the allegations against respondent nos. 2 and 3 of providing her ill-treatment on the say of applicant no.1, her husband and vague allegations against applicant no.5 alleging that, on one occasion when Complainant returned from her job at 9.30 in the night, said applicant by calling her on phone insisted her to meet him.Further contents of additional statement also mainly revolve against applicant no.1/husband.Apart from report and additional statements of Complainant, other statements recorded during the course of::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 ::: 8 apl46.19.odt investigation are of parents of Complainant, her cousin brother and sister.However, none of these statements establish involvement of any of the applicants to have provided ill-treatment to Complainant as contemplated within the meaning of ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.Moreover, statements of witnesses appears to be contrary to the events stated therein with regard to Complainant's request to her relations to accompany her to meet applicant nos. 2 and 3 on their coming to Complainant's relative at Manewada, where Complainant's parents were called.When her father was unable to go due to ill-health and thus, her cousin brothers and her sister stated that they were requested by her mother to accompany her to Manewada.Said contents from statements are not found corroborated by mother of Complainant.Though she refers to such visit of applicant nos. 2, 3 and 5 to Manewada, her statement is silent about her requesting to Complainant's brother or sister to accompany her.Having considering the available material against the applicants, it clearly reveals that the applicants have made out a case for quashing of proceedings initiated against them.::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 :::Where allegations made in First Information Report/complaint or outcome of investigation as found in charge sheet, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out case against accused; or where allegations do not disclose ingredients of offence alleged; or where uncontroverted allegations are made in F.I.R. or complaint and materials collected in support of same do not disclose commission of offence alleged and make out case against accused; or where criminal proceedings is found maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or Section 482 of Code may be exercised.::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 :::In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 ::: 12 apl46.19.odt defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 :::(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 ::: 13 apl46.19.odt that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 :::The proceedings initiated are, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 :::Accordingly, we allow the application qua applicant nos. 2 to 5 in terms of prayer clause (2) thereof.::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 22:37:02 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,919,861 | 2. Facts, which led to prosecution of the appellant, are as under:The parties resided initially at Belora and since about two years before the incident, shifted to Balaji Ward, Chandrapur, where Kusum's family was also residing.The accused stopped maintaining Kusum and used to beat her.On 5.4.1992, Kusum set herself on fire.She was admitted to General Hospital, Chandrapur, where she succumbed to her burn injuries.JUDGMENT R.C. Chavan, J.By this appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 1,000 imposed upon him.On the report, an offence was registered and investigation commenced.The police recorded statements of witnesses.Before her death, Kusum had also made a statement to the police in presence of Panchas that she had poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire.She had stated that her husband had extinguished the fire and taken her to the hospital.On completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet.Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge charged the appellant of offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code.The accused pleaded not guilty and hence was put on trial.In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses before the learned Sessions Judge.It seems that thereafter arguments in the case were heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was made over and who pronounced the judgment convicting the appellant of offence punishable under Section 498-A and acquitting him of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code.Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been filed.The appellant, who was on bail, was represented by Adv.However, Advocate Mr. Nawab did not appear in this case and, therefore, a notice was ordered to be issued to the appellant to make arrangement to have his matter heard.On 25.1.2006, Advocate Mr. Nawab filed a pursis stating therein that the appellant wanted to engage some other Advocate and, therefore, he expressed his inability to argue the appeal for want of instructions.When the matter came up for hearing on 20.2.2006, none appeared for the appellant.In this case, the appellant had engaged a Pleader of his choice and since the Pleader was not available the appeal had to be heard in absence of the Pleader.In Parasuram Patel and Anr.v. State of Orissa reported at the Supreme Court held that the appeal cannot be dismissed on the ground of default of appearance and that the Court has to go through the record of the case even in absence of the appellants or their Counsel and decide the matter on merit.In view of this, with the help of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I have gone through the entire record in order to examine whether the conviction of the appellant was justified.PW 1 Madhao is victim's brother.He stated that his son-in-law Manohar came to Village Jena and informed him that Kusum was admitted in General Hospital, Chandrapur.He therefore, went to the General Hospital, where, on inquiry, Kusum told him that the accused always used to consume liquor and quarrel with her and also beat her and, therefore, because of the ill-treatment meted out to her, she burnt herself.PW 2 Nandkishor, another brother of the victim, stated that the accused had stopped maintaining Kusum and used to beat and ill-treat her.He too claimed that he learned that Kusum had sustained bum injuries and, therefore, went to the Hospital and his inquiries with Kusum also yielded the same replies.He admitted in cross-examination that it may be true that because the accused was not getting job for some time and, therefore, Kusum and her husband had to live without food.He also stated that Kusum had told him that the accused had tried to extinguish the fire and admitted her in the hospital.PW 3 Shantabai, Kusum's sister, however, had another story to tell.She stated that Kusum told her that the accused used to harass her to bring money from the parents.Now this is not the story of Kusum's own brother PW 2 Nandkishor.PW 5 Vanita, a neighbour, stated in her cross-examination by the APP that she had heard accused and Kusum quarrelling and also admitted in her statement to police that accused used to consume liquor and quarrel with Kusum.In cross-examination for the accused, she admitted that the quarrel in the house of the accused could not be heard from her house.It does not, however, follow that she would stay indoor only and not listen to anything, happening in the neighbouring house.The evidence of PW 6 Chhabutai, another neighbour, is of the same type.11..PW7 Vasant, another neighbour, also stated in cross-examination by the APP that he had stated to the police that the accused used to consume liquor and Kusum used to quarrel with him.In this statement, Kusum had categorically stated that on the day of incident, she and her husband had a fight and on getting fed up with the harassment at the hands of her husband, she poured kerosene from the plastic can in the house on her person and set herself ablaze.She further stated that her husband extinguished the fire and took her to the hospital.She had also stated that the accused used to come under the influence of liquor and upon her questioning, he used to tell that it was his own earning and not her father's money.The cross-examination of this witness does not reveal that the statement was not correctly recorded.PW 8 Dr. Gandhi stated that he performed post-mortem examination on the body of the victim on 8.4.1992 and found that the victim had died on account of 61% ante-mortem injuries.In view of this evidence, it is clear that the victim had set herself on fire on being driven to commit suicide due to the ill-treatment meted out to her, though the angle of unlawful demands is not there.In fact, in the light of this evidence, the appellant ought to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code.However, since there is no appeal by the State on this count, there is no need to set aside the acquittal of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code.Since the prosecution had proved that the victim was driven to commit suicide on account of ill-treatment by the appellant no fault can be found with the conviction for offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC recorded by the Trial Judge.The sentence imposed on the appellant namely rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 1,000, is lenient beyond imagination and calls for no reduction.In view of this, the appeal is dismissed. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,992,494 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned P.L. opposes the application. | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,999,494 | Order on the Exemption Application.Order on the Bail Application.In view of the guidelines laid down by this Court, the urgent bail applications have been directed to be heard through Video Conferencing.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. through video Conferencing.The co-accused, Kalu, has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.3.2020 in Criminal Misc.The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.Order Date :- 12.6.2020 Atul kr. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,999,754 | 2] The prosecution story in brief as could be gathered fromthe material placed on record is thus :-The deceased Salim Shaikh was residing with his familyBGP.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc. 6in Lane No.14, Rabodi-2, Thane.He was having inimical terms withAccused No.10 - Jafar Qureshi @ Jafar Mendha.It is theprosecution case that prior to the incident in question, Accused No.7- Shahnawaz Shaikh had come to the wife of deceased Salim Shaikhand had told her that Accused No.10 - Jafar Qureshi @ JafarMendha had directed him to ask her to convince her husbandotherwise they would kill him.It is further the prosecution case thaton 29th May 2009, it was Friday.At round 12:00 p.m., Accused No.5- Niyaz Ahmed @ Babu Kalya was near his horse cart (Tanga)parked in the lane.However, the deceased Salim Shaikh had askedthe Accused No.5 - Niyaz Ahmed @ Babu Kalya to remove Tangafrom the lane, since it was obstructing people proceeding in thelane.On this point, there was quarrel between deceased SalimShaikh on one hand and the Accused No.5 - Niyaz Ahmed @ BabuKalya, Accused No.8 - Laloo Shaikh, Accused No.3 - Gulam Ali,Accused No.7 - Shahnawaz Shaikh, Accused No.6 - Nasir, AccusedNo.2 - Irfan and Accused No.4 - Nawab.Accused No.5 - NiyazAhmed @ Babu Kalya had uttered that the deceased would be killedby evening.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc.73] It is further the prosecution case that in the eveninghours the deceased was about to go to mosque to offer prayers.Their daughter namely Sana came from outside and informed thatthe Accused No.5 - Niyaz Ahmed @ Babu Kalya alongwith hisfriends were at Kranti Nagar and told PW-1 - Mumtaz not to senddeceased through Kranti Nagar Lane.It is further the prosecutioncase that therefore PW-1 - Mumtaz told the deceased not to gothrough Kranti Nagar Lane and thereafter he went throughAkashganga road.When the deceased reached at Hajimulla Chawl,all the accused came there.PW-1 - Mumtaz was following herhusband.She saw that all the accused were chasing her husbandand in Hajimulla Chawl, near Fatima School, all the accusedassaulted her husband.Accused No.5 - Niyaz Ahmed @ Babu Kalyaassaulted with sword on the chest of the deceased, Accused No.3 -Gulam Ali assaulted with sickle on the back of the deceased,Accused No.4 assaulted with iron bar on the head of deceased andAccused No.7 - Shahnawaz Shaikh dealt blow of Sura above the leftside of ear of the deceased.Accused No.5 - Niyaz Ahmed @ BabuBGP.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc.8Kalya again dealt blow of sword on the right side of face of thedeceased, due to which, his right ear was cut and rest of the accusedassaulted the deceased with Suris and Koytas.When she tried tocatch her husband, his cut off ear came in her hand and he felldown.Thereafter within five minutes her son-in-law Rais and herdaughter Sana came on the spot.DATE : 18th JULY, 2018ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J)1] Criminal Appeal No.636 of 2012 is filed by originalAccused Nos.3 and 5 and Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2012 is filed byoriginal Accused No.7, being aggrieved by the judgment and orderdated 29th February 2012 passed by the learned Ad-hoc AdditionalSessions Judge-3, Thane in Sessions Case No.437 of 2009, therebyconvicting them for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148,BGP.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc.5302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) andsentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine ofRs.5000/- each and in default of payment to suffer further rigorousimprisonment for six months.The said Accused Nos.3, 5 and 7 have also beenconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC andsentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to payfine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer furtherrigorous imprisonment for three months.By Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013 the State has alsochallenged the order of acquittal of Accused Nos.2, 4, 6, 8, 9 andSince the Accused No.1 has died during pendency of theAppeal, Appeal against him stands abated.Thereafter Police also came on thespot.PW-1 - Mumtaz, her son-in-law PW-2 - Rais and her daughterPW-3 - Sana lifted her husband and carried him in the hospital inpolice jeep.Doctor declared him to be dead.Uponcompletion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed in theCourt of learned JMFC.Since the case was exclusively triable by thelearned Sessions Judge, the same came to be committed to thelearned Sessions Judge.All theaccused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.For the samecase, a separate trial case was registered against Accused - JafarBGP.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc.The said accused also denied the charges and claimedto be tried.It was the defence of the Accused No.10 - Jafar Qureshithat he was under trial prisoner lodged in the Thane Central Jail.Hewas released on bail from the jail at about 8.00 p.m. on 29.5.2009.Thereafter he had been to his house late in the night.The learnedTrial Judge at the conclusion of the trial, passed an order ofconviction and sentence as aforesaid and rest of the accused wereacquitted of the charges, charged with.6] Mr. Marwadi and Mr. Apte learned counsels for theAppellants/Accused submit that the conviction is based only on theevidence of PW-1 - Mumtaz, PW-2 - Rais the alleged eye witnesses.It is submitted that insofar as the evidence of PW-28 - Salma isconcerned, the same has been rightly disbelieved by the learnedTrial Judge.It is submitted that both the witnesses are interestedwitnesses.The conviction on the basis of such interested witnesseswould not be sustainable.It is submitted that though even accordingto the prosecution the incident had taken place in crowded locality,BGP.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc.10not a single independent witness has been examined.7] In so far as the Appeal against acquittal is concerned,learned counsel Ms. Tahera Qureshi appearing on behalf ofacquitted accused submits that there is no merit in the Appeal filedby the State.8] Mr. Gangurde, learned APP appearing on behalf of Statesubmits that merely because the witnesses are interested witnesses,cannot be a ground for discarding their testimony.He submits thatin view of evidence of both the witnesses PW-1 - Mumtaz and PW-2He submits that however in so far asthe acquittal of the accused is concerned, the learned Trial Judgehas erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of the sameevidence, on which he has convicted the accused.It is thereforesubmitted that the Appeal against acquittal deserves to be allowedand the order of acquittal be set aside.9] With the assistance of the learned APP and the learnedcounsels for the Appellants, we have scrutinized the evidence onBGP.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc.10] Undisputedly, the prosecution has examined PW-1 -Mumtaz, PW-2 - Rais and PW-28 - Salma.The prosecution has alsorelied on the evidence of PW-3 - Sana, daughter of PW-1 - Mumtazand the deceased.Insofar as the evidence of PW-28 - Salma isconcerned, the learned Trial Judge has disbelieved her testimony.Perusal of material placed on record would reveal that thestatement of the said witness was recorded on 14 th June 2009 i.e.about 15 days from the date of incident.The learned Trial Judgehas further found that the version given by her was totally inconflict with the version given by PW-1 - Mumtaz and PW-2 - Rais.In that view of the matter, we find that the learned Trial Judge hasrightly disbelieved her testimony.11] That leaves us with the testimony of PW-1 - Mumtazand PW-2 - Rais.From the perusal of the evidence, it would revealthat PW-2 - Rais as well as PW-3 - Sana came on the spot after theincident was over.The testimony of PW-2 - Rais would reveal thatBGP.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc.12after his father-in-law left house to observe Namaz, his mother-in-law also went behind the back of his father-in-law.Thereafter afteran hour one small boy came and informed that quarrel was goingon with his father-in-law near Fatima High School.Thereafter hewent on the spot to the Rabodi Lane and he found there was crowd.There he saw all the accused were assaulting the deceased.Theperusal of paragraph 12 of the evidence of PW-1 - Mumtaz wouldreveal that walkable distance between her house and Jumma Masjidis five minutes.It could be seen that according to PW-1 - Mumtaz,the incident has taken place when the deceased was going tomosque from his house.If the distance between her house andJumma Masjid is five minutes and the incident has taken place priorto reaching mosque, then the incident must have occurred withinfive minutes, after the deceased left the house.However, accordingto PW-2 - Rais after an hour when he rushed to the spot, theincident was still going on.Therefore, it is difficult to believe thatPW-2 - Rais has really witnessed the incident.In that view of thematter, we find that the learned Trial Judge has rightly observedthat his testimony cannot be used to corroborate testimony of PW-1- Mumtaz.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc. 1312] As such that leaves us only with the testimony of PW-1Mumtaz.13] It appears that the learned Trial Judge has foundevidence of PW-1 - Mumtaz to be falling in the 3 rd category.On thebasis of the said evidence, the learned Trial Judge has convictedthree accused and acquitted seven.We will have to scrutinize theBGP.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc.She states that the AccusedNo.5 - Niyaz Ahmed @ Babu Kalya told all the other accused thattill night he will finish her husband.She further states that onhearing noise, she had gone on the spot and tried to convince herhusband and asked him to leave the spot.She has further statedthat prior to two days she was following her husband as AccusedNo.7 - Shahnawaz had told her that Jafarbhai had asked him toconvince to her husband otherwise he would finish him after hisrelease from jail.She has further stated that Jafar was suspectingthat her husband has told his name to the police and he had statedthat after release from jail he will finish her husband.She hasfurther stated that Jafar had quarreled with her husband in jail.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc.1714] However, in her cross-examination she admits thatthough she had lodged various complaints against the accusedpersons, she had not lodged any complaint in respect of quarrelwhich took place in the afternoon.She states that she did not thinkit proper to lodge complaint in respect of such petty quarrel.The reasonas to why PW-1 - Mumtaz followed her husband, when he went tooffer Namaz at around 8:30 p.m. appears to be that when herdaughter brought milk in the house, she told her that Babu Kalyaand his friends were at Krantinagar and told her not to send thedeceased through Krantinagar.However, perusal of paragraph 22 ofher cross-examination would reveal that this is an omission in herstatement before the Police and this has been stated by her for thefirst time in the Court.It is further to be noted that her version inBGP.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc.18examination-in-chief that Jafar was suspecting that her husband hastold his name to the police and he had stated that after release fromjail he will finish her husband and that he had also quarreled withher husband in jail, is also an omission in Police statement and hasbeen stated for the first time in the Court.Her version in theexamination-in-chief that prior to two days of the incident,Shahnawz had told her that Jafarbhai had asked him to convince toher husband otherwise he would finish him after his release fromjail, is also an omission in the Police statement and stated for thefirst time in the Court.She hassubstantially improved her version before the Court.However, when the conviction is based on solitary testimony andthat too of an interested witnesses, we find that it would not be safeto sustain an order of conviction without there being corroboration.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc.1916] Insofar as the recoveries on the basis of memorandumunder Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are concerned, they aremade from a place in open nallah, accessible to one and all, as suchno credence could be given to such recoveries.17] It is further to be noted that in the present case, theprosecution has not examined a single independent witness.However, in the present case, we find that non-examination ofindependent witness would create doubt in the truthfulness of theprosecution case.(211)-Judg-Apeal-636-12 & group matters.doc.2018] In the result, we find that it would not be safe to rest onsolitary testimony of PW-1 - Mumtaz.Accused are entitled to thebenefit of doubt.(i) Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2012 are allowed. | ['Section 148 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.