id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,920,002 | In short it has been averred in the said paragraph that the detenu had been informed that he had a right to make a representation to the State Government and if he wished to make a representation it should be addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (Preventive Detention), Home Department.Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 but with mala fide intention the said representation has been addressed to the Governor of Maharashtra.It has also been averred in the said paragraph that the said representation (telegram) dated 11.12.2000 was received by the concerned department in Mantralaya on 14.2.2001: on 15.2.2001 the remarks of the Detaining Authority were called for; from 16.2.2001 to 19.2.2001 there were holidays; the remarks from the Detaining Authority were received on 20.2.2001; thereafter the representation was scrutinized and processed through the Desk Officer, to the Deputy Secretary; the Deputy Secretary forwarded it to the Principal Secretary (Preventive Detention) on 21.2.2001, who on 23.2.2001 forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), who under the rules of business of Government of Maharashtra was empowered to consider it; and on 24.2.2001 the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) carefully considered and rejected the said representation.6A. In para 2 of Mr. M. B. Khopkar's affidavit it has also been averred that the Office of the Governor of Maharashtra receives thousands of letters/applications/telegrams and other correspondence every day and it is routinely sorted out into various categories depending on the noting on the said correspondence i.e. 'immediate, most urgent, urgent, time bound' etc. It has further been averred in the said paragraph that the detenu's representation was sorted out through routine course.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who styles herself as the wife of the detenu Pradip @ Bandya Dayal Nandoskar, has impugned the detention order dated 17.3.2000 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. R. H. Mendonca.Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under subsection 1 of Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 17.3.2000 was served on the detenu 29.3.2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the impugned order is founded on two C.Rs. viz. (i) C.R. No. 264/99 under Sertions 452 and 324 of the I.P.C. registered at R.A.K. Police Station on the basis of a complaint dated 25.9.99 filed by one Sanjay Salunke and (ii) C.R. No. 266/99 under Sections 324 and 504 of the I.P.C. registered at R.A.K. Police Station on the basis of & complaint dated 26.9.99 filed by one, Darpan Thale, one L.A.C. viz. L.A.C. No. 5082/99 under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 37(a)(I) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act registered at R.A.K. Marg Police Station and two in camera statements viz. of witnesses viz. A and B. which were recorded on 14.1.2000 and 15,1.2000 respectively.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.We may straight away mention that this is a second Writ Petition against the impugned detention order; the first having been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of G. D. Patil and R. N. Lodha, JJ.Since ground 9A was not subsisting on the date on which the first Writ Petition was dismissed we have entertained this Writ Petition.Ground 9A in short is that the Petitioner sent a representation, dated 11.12.2000, telegraphically to the State Government and so far she has not received any communication regarding the fate of the said representation and since the said representation has not been considered expeditiously the continued detention of the detenu is illegal and bad in law.Please order for inquiry to know the truth. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,920,062 | Unfortunately, according to prosecution both the parties belong to the same Family Tree and their agricultural land situate adjoining to each other.On 20-11-1985, at about 4 p.m. when Chaturi (P.W. 1) alongwith his son deceased Shivcharan were cutting and collecting bushes of Babool accused Bhassu father of appellant Ramesh and accused Manju stopped them from taking the bushes out of their field.However, deceased Shivcharan insisted to take the bushes from the same way, thereupon accused Manju, Bhassu started assaulting the deceased with lathis and appellant Ramesh armed with sickle alongwith Kishori, Brindawan, Amarsingh, Imrat, Hannu and Puniya wife of accused Bhassu, also joined them.When all the accused person exhorted to finish deceased, appellant Ramesh assaulted the deceased on his head with sickle with such a violent force that the sickle penetrated into the skull and deceased fell profusely bleeding on the ground.When Chaturi intervened, he was also assaulted by Imrat, Hannu, Puniya, Brindawan, Amarsingh and Kishori with fists and lathis.On his raising hue and cry, Kailash, Prabhu and Nanha came for their rescue.Deceased was brought unconscious by his father Chaturi at Police Station, Karera where he lodged First Information Report (Ex. P-1).On examination of base of it fracture of skull bone felt.(3) Contusion over base of right shoulder 3" x 2".Injury Nos. 1 and 3 caused due to hard, blunt object and injury No. 2 caused due to sharp object which was dangerous to life.Injuries of Chaturi were also examined and the Doctor found an abrasion over right upper arm and another abrasion over right leg and a lacerated wound over back of right upper arm.In view of precarious condition of the deceased, he was referred to District Hospital, Shivpuri for further treatment, where in his X-ray examination of the skull fracture of left fronto parietal bone was detected.Despite best effort, the deceased could not be saved and on 21-11-1985 he succumbed to his injuries.Police prepared Panchanama of the dead-body and the post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (P.W. 4) who found one stitched wound of left fronto parietal region and other on right parietal obliquely placed.On deception below left stitched wound clotted blood was present and there was fracture of left skull bone deep up to brain matter and below tear of fracture left side was found ruptured.Cause of death was due to coma and shock caused by fracture and laceration of brain.The Investigating Officer prepared spot map (Ex. P-2) and also collected blood stained soil from the spot.He also apprehended the accused person and on the basis of information received from them recovered a sickle from the appellant and lathis from other accused persons.JUDGMENT R.B. Dixit, J.Feeling aggrieved by judgment and order dated 10th October, 1986 of Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, passed in Sessions Trial No. 14/86, convicting appellant for offence under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, appellant has come up in appeal seeking redress praying for setting aside of the aforesaid sentence and conviction passed against him.Deceased was referred to medical examination of his injuries and Doctor R.S. Dixit (P.W. 12) who examined him found as follows:--(1) A lacerated wound over right fronto parietal region of scalp 3" above ear, oblique 1-1/2" x 1/3" x bone deep.(2) Incised wound over left fronto temporal region of scalp on left side oblique 1-1/2" x 1/3" x bone deep.Accused Bhassu, Kishori and Manju and the appellant had also received injuries in the same incident.However, the appellant sustained only an abrasion over back measuring l/3rd x 1/3 at the lenial of 12 vertibra, caused by some hard rough object.The learned Trial Court after recording prosecution evidence and examining the accused persons under Section 313, Cr.PC except the appellant acquitted rest of the accused person of the charge under Sections 118, 302 read with Section 149, IPC, however, found appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him, as stated hereinabove.The learned counsel of the appellant has contended before us that the injuries suffered by Bhassu, Kishori and Manju being lacerated wounds over their skull are in no way simple in nature and since the dispute had started all of a sudden on the ground of taking bushes from the field of the accused person, it was well within their right of self defence as well as in defence of property to have caused injury to deceased and his father.Since it seems that except appellant other accused persons were acquitted of all the charges on the ground of self defence, the appellant is also entitled to the same benefit as he was not expected to remain a silent spectator when his family members are being mercilessly assaulted by deceased and his father.The learned Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court.We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record.Chaturi (P.W. 1) father of the deceased had stated that his son deceased Shivcharan was cutting a Babool tree which was standing on the boundary towards his field and when the deceased was taking the cut portion of the tree from the field of the accused person, he was stopped by accused Bhassu and Manju.The deceased tried to console them by saying that he had not done any damage to the field, Bhassu and Manju caught him and Ramesh and Kishori who were working on the other side of the field also arrived there and then appellant Ramesh assaulted the deceased on his head with sickle.The sickle was assaulted with such a force that it penetrated three-fourth inch inside the skull, Kishori and Imrat also assaulted the deceased with lathi.Later on he was also caught hold by accused Bhassu and Manju and was assaulted by appellant with spade.On his raising alarm Prabhu, Kailash and Nanha arrived there and snatched lathi from Kishori and Kailash pulled out the sickle from the head of the deceased.Witness Chaturi has assigned a very funny explanation, which was not believed by the Trial Court, regarding injuries sustained by the accused person, saying that Puniya had pelted stone towards the deceased which hit the accused person.He has admitted that Ramesh, Kishori and Puniya were picking up ground nut from the field, however, he has denied that there was any crop in the field from which the deceased was taking the bushes.He further admitted that Manju has snatched axe from him and had produced the same at the police station while lodging report of the incident, He has also contradicted his police case diary statement as well as his police report wherein it has not been mentioned that Kishori or Imrat had assaulted the deceased on his head over and above the sickle already fixed by the appellant by assaulting the deceased.There is no mention in the police case diary statement about the deceased being assaulted with lathis by other accused persons, Appellant or Kishori assaulting him by spade or lathi is also conspicuously absent from his police report and police case diary statement.It shows to some extent the tendency of exaggerating the incident on the part of this witness.Prabhu (P.W. 2) has fully corroborated the statement of Chaturi.However, he has denied recovery of weapon from any of the accused person before him.According to him, the sickle was pulled out by Kailash alongwith lathis which were seized from the accused person were taken by him and produced at the police station.This witness has also seems to have exaggerated the account of incident by stating that it was accused Imrat, who had assaulted the deceased with lathi over the skull already fixed on his head as it does not find place in his police case diary statement.Nanha (P.W. 4) has stated that when accused Bhassu stopped the deceased from taking the bushes and deceased insisted to follow the way through the field, this caused further scuffle between the two.Meanwhile Bhassu and Kishori also arrived there and started beating each other.However, he separated both the parties from each other and went away towards his field.He has no knowledge as to what happened thereafter.In our opinion, it seems that this witness is deliberately avoiding to narrate the remaining part of the story when appellant had assaulted the deceased or he was not at all present on the spot. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,920,125 | Ganpat Vasant Kharat aged 19 years is resident of Saibaba nagar.Behind Himalaya Hotel, 90 Feet Road, Dharavi, Bombay.On 4.5.1997, night at 23.30 hours after playing carrom at social nagar, he was returning to his house along Macchi galli, 90 Feet Road, Dharavi.At that time, the detenu armed with a sword, and his associate Sannu Pir Mohammed armed with a sickle and Lawrence armed with a bamboo stick accosted him.The detenu and his associate started abusing Ganpat Vasant Kharat and the detenu dealt a blow with sword on his person.Ganpat Kharat sustained an injury on his right hand near the wrist.At this juncture, Shri Allauddin Abdul Sakur Shaikh, aged 19 years who was proceeding along Macchi galli witnessed incident, who asked the detenu about the assault on Ganpat Kharat, when the detenu's associate Sannu Pir Mohammed gave a blow with sickle on the wrist of the right hand of Allauddin Abdul Sakur Shaikh.The detenu dealt repeated blows with sword on the head of Allauddin and the detenu's associate Lawrence who was armed with a bamboo stick gave blows with it on the person of Allauddin.Due to the said assault, Allauddin collapsed on the ground.While he was removed to LTMG Hospital Sion, in Ward No. 16 for medical treatment, Ganpat Kharat was also treated at the hospital.In this connection, a complaint of Allauddin Abdul Sakur Shaikh was registered at Dharavi police station as C.R. No. 222/97 Under Sections 326 and 114 of IPC.The associate of the detenu by name Sannu Peer Mohammed and Lawrence Francis D'Souza were arrested on 6.5.97 and 7.5.97 respectively.He has also a factory manufacturing leather bags on the mezzanine floor of his residential place.There are two workers in his factory whose names are Kalim and Mohammed Shabbir.Hanif Mohammed knows the detenu and his associates Salavoo alias Salauddin, Lawrence and Verghese as goondas roaming in the localities armed with lethal weapons and extorting money from residents and hawkers.On 21.9.97, at about 22,00 hours, when Hanif Mohammad Shaikh was in his bag factory with his workers, when the detenu and his associates Salavoo alias Salauddin, Lawrence and Verghese went there.The detenu was armed with a knife, and his associate Lawrence was armed with a sickle, Salauddin was armed with chopper and Verghese was armed with a sword.The detenu's associate Lawrence demanded Rs. 2000/- from Hanif Shaikh.When Hanif expressed his helplessness, the detenu threatened him at the point of knife and the detenu's associate Verghese started throwing the articles in the factory.The workers got scared and ran away.The detenu and his associate Lawrence further threatened Hanif Shaikh with dire consequences.Due to fear, Hanif Shaikh handed over an amount of Rs. 1000/- to the detenu.While leaving, the detenu and his associates threatened him not to report the incident to police else the he would be killed.As the detenu was leaving, the place, brandishing the weapons no body came for his rescue, Hanif Shaikh was terribly frightened and he did not report the incident immediately to the police.On 30.9.97, he called at Dharavi police station and reported the matter.The detenu's associates were arrested on 1.10.97 and they had admitted their complicity in their statements so recorded.The detenu has spread panic and due to it, people are unwilling to complaint against him.It was further revealed that in the second week of August, 1997 at about 13.30 hours, when this witness and his servants were engaged in their work, the detenu and his associates Lawrence and two others, entered his factory armed with sword and choppers respectively.JUDGMENT N. Arumugham, J.This writ petition has been filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order of detention passed by Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, the first respondent by virtue of Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers Drug-offenders Act, 1981 as amended in 1996 as well as Section 8 of the said Act and to quash the same.The impugned order as well as the grounds of detention was served contemporaneously upon the detenu on 4.12.1997 which has been referred in Annexure A and B respectively of the petition.The detenu's associates admitted their complicity in this offence in their statements recorded by the police.On 16.5.97 at the instance of the detenu's associates Sannu Pir Mohammed Sayyed and Lawrence D'Souza the sickle and bamboo stick used by them respectively in the commission of offence were seized under a memorandum of panchanama.The detenu was arrested on 19.8.97 and that he admitted his complicity in this case in the statement recorded by the police.The detenu has also stated to the police that the detenu were arrested by the Dharavi police in the past in connection with the cases of assault, criminal intimidation and possession of lethal weapons.He was remanded to judicial custody and then he was taken to police custody and then the detenu was enlarged on bail.The weapons of offence has also been recorded on 6.10.97 and the detenu in this case was arrested on 13.10.97, and they were remanded to judicial custody.Then police took custody of the said persons and subsequently they were released on bail.Confidential enquiries were made into the detenu's criminal activities which disclosed that he had victimised number of people from the areas of Dharavi.As the detenu was a weapon wielding dangerous person, the victims and witnesses to his activities were afraid to complain and make statements against them openly due to fear of retaliation.On getting the assurance that their names and identity particulars would not be disclosed to the detenu and that they would not be called to depose against him in the Court of law or any other open forum, some of the witnesses gave their statements, depicting the atrocious acts of the detenu.The statements recorded from witness A an electrician would reveal that he knows the detenu and his associates, as goondas collecting haftas from the factory owners, residents and businessmen.The detenu and his associates have created terror due to which people live under terrorism and nobody dares to complain against him.It would further reveal that in the third week of July, 1997, one night at 22.00 hours, when this witness was returning home, the detenu's associates chased him, caught him and brought him to the detenu as per his direction.The detenu's associate Lawrence threatened him and the detenu showed a knife to terrorise him.The detenu's associates took his personal search and forcibly removed Rs. 2,400/- and further assaulted him by fist blows.Witnessing this, people who were going to the toilet got scared and ran away.The detenu and his associates further threatened and went away.Likewise Witness B is a footwear maker and seller from 90 Feet Road, Dharavi.In his statement dt. 24.10.97, he has stated that he knows the detenu and his associate Lawrence as goondas roaming in the areas of social nagar, Dharavi terrorising the public, the detenu and his associates are moving about armed with chopper, sword, knife threatening people and collecting hafta.The detenu hit the sword on the warden table in the factory and the detenu's associate brandished the choppers in the air and created terror.The servants sat on a corner out of fear.The detenu held the sword on the stomach of the witness and demanded Rs. 1000/- as hafta and threatened him to assault.The witness pleaded for mercy.The detenu's associate Lawrence attacked the witness by the blunt side of chopper and threatened him.Due to mortal fear, the witness immediately parted with an amount of Rs. 700/- the detenu and his associates then threatened him not to report the incident to police and went away.At that time, out of the detenu's fear nobody came for his rescue.Placing reliance on the above prejudicial activities, placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the first respondent the Detaining Authority had gone through each and every aspect of the same meticulously and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the prejudicial activities of the detenu and his associates would demonstrate that the detenu is a dangerous person and having taken to the life of a criminal for easy money and unleashed a reign of terror and have perpetual danger to the society at large within the jurisdiction of Dharavi police station and arrived at a conclusion that the detenu is dangerous person and therefore passed the impugned order of detention dt. 4.12.1997 against the detenu and thus clamped him In detention by passing the detention order and the detenu being aggrieved by the same, has filed this writ petition challenging the same and to quash the same.The Detaining Authority Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai filed a sworn affidavit reiterating the grounds for clamping the detention order against the detenu and by Mr. V.S. Sankhe, Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special Mantralaya, Mumbai filed a sworn affidavit in support of the affidavit filed by Mr. R.H. Mendonca.We have heard the rival submissions. | ['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,016,024 | The prosecutions story, in short, is that on 7.11.1996 the complainant Nanhe Bhai (PW-2) was going to the house of one Lakhan Singh to get some grains at Village Jhagri (Police Station Pathariya District Damoh).In front of the house of Gulab Singh, appellant No.1 Ashok Lodhi detained him and abused him with obscene words and words related to his caste and gave blow of katarna on his head.Thereafter he gave a second blow on his left wrist.In the meantime, the other appellants Chandan Singh, Deo Singh, Roop Singh and Devi Singh arrived with sticks.They also abused the complainant with obscene words and the words related to the caste of the complainant and assaulted him with sticks causing various grave injuries.Witnesses Gulab Singh (PW-5), Mulu (PW-1) and Badi Bahu (PW-3)-wife of the complainant had saved the complainant.He was sent for his medico legal examination to the Primary Health Centre, Pathariya.E. Minj (PW-10) examined the complainant Nanhe Bhai and gave his report Ex.P-15A. He found two incised wounds to the complainant, out of them one was on his head and second was on his left wrist.Three blunt wounds were found upon the complainant on his right wrist, left thigh and right knee.Complainant Nanhe Bhai was referred for his X-ray examination.Dr.O.P.Dubey (PW-6) examined the victim Nanhe Bhai radio-logically and gave his report Ex.He found a fracture of ulna bone in his left hand as well as right hand.(Delivered on the 4th day of August, 2015) The appellants have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 19/3/1998 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Damoh in Special Case No.452/1996 whereby each of the appellant has been convicted of offence under Sections 148, 506-B of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as Special Act) and sentenced to one year's RI, six months' RI, six months' RI and three years' RI respectively.The appellant No.1 has also been convicted of offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, whereas the remaining appellants have been convicted of offence under Sections 326/149 of IPC and the sentence similar to the appellant No.1 was passed against them.There was a fracture in femur bone.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Damoh.The appellants-accused abjured their guilt.They did not take a specific plea, however they have stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter and no defence evidence was adduced.After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Special Judge, Damoh convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.5 Devi Singh had expired, and therefore his appeal was dismissed being abated.Also IA No.12854/2015 was filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The complainant Nanhe Bhai appeared before the Court and as per the direction of this Court, he appeared before the Registrar (J-1), and as per the report of Registrar (J-1), the dispute between the parties was resolved and the application was moved by complainant Nanhe Bhai with free consent and he voluntarily agreed to do compromise.Therefore, the said application is also to be decided by the present judgment.As argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, the role of each of the appellant should be examined first and thereafter conclusion may be drawn about the offences done by them.Mulu (PW-1), Nanhe Bhai (PW-2), Badi Bahu (PW-3) and Gulab Singh (PW-5) were examined as eye-witnesses.Mulu (PW-1) and Gulab Singh (PW-5) have turned hostile.They have stated that complainant Nanhe Bhai assaulted the appellant No.1 Ashok, and therefore Ashok ran away from the spot.He jumped over a wall in following the appellant No.1 Ashok, complainant Nanhe Bhai also tried to jump the wall, but in doing so he fell down on the earth and sustained injuries, whereas Nanhe Bhai and Badi Bahu have stated that initially appellant No.1 Ashok caused two blows with katarna and injured the complainant Nanhe Bhai on his head and left hand.Some confusion was recorded in the statement of Badi Bahu and thereafter she was re-cross examined and in para 11 of her statement, she has stated that the injury of katarna was caused on the left hand of victim Nanhe Bhai.These two witnesses have categorically stated that of the appellants, Chandan Singh gave blow of a stick causing injury on the right hand of complainant Nanhe Bhai.Appellant Roop Singh gave a blow of stick causing injury on the right thigh of the victim and appellant Devi Singh gave a blow causing injury on his knee.It is true that Badi Bahu is the wife of complainant Nanhe Bhai and no independent witness is available in support of complainant Nanhe Bhai.However, the testimony of witnesses Mulu and Gulab Singh appears to be dis- believable, because their version could not be corroborated by the medical evidence.According to Dr.Minj (PW-10) victim Nanhe Bhai sustained two incised wounds, one was on the head and second was on the left wrist.Those injuries could not be caused due to fall on the ground.It appears that the witnesses Mulu and Gulab Singh have turned hostile and they are taking the side of the appellants.The incident took place at 5:30 PM and looking to the injuries of victim Nand Kishore, some time must have been consumed while reaching to the police station, and therefore looking to the time in lodging the FIR, the FIR Ex.P-2 was lodged within time.The testimony of complainant Nanhe Bhai is duly confirmed by Dr.Minj (PW-10), who found incised wounds on the head and left hand of the complainant, and contused wounds on the right hand, left thigh and right knee.Dr. Minj has stated about the places of injuries and the places of injuries were same as stated by the complainant and eye-witness Badi Bahu.Further the testimony of the complainant is duly corroborated by Dr. O.P.Dubey (PW-6), who proved his radio-logical report Ex.P-13 and found that there were three fractures upon complainant Nanhe Bhai, one was on the left hand, second was on the right hand and third was on the left femur bone.After considering the evidence given by the complainant, eye-witness Badi Bahu, timely lodged FIR, the medical evidence of Dr. Minj as well as Dr. Dubey, it is proved beyond doubt that appellant No.1 Ashok caused two incised wounds with sharp cutting weapon to complainant Nanhe Bhai, whereas the remaining appellants caused three injuries with sticks causing two fractures to complainant Nanhe Bhai.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no fracture was found below wound caused by the appellant No.1 in the left hand of complainant Nanhe Bhai, and therefore offence of the appellant No.1 may fall within the purview of Section 324 of IPC.If in connection of this contention, the MLC reports as well as radio-logical report are examined, then complainant Nanhe Bhai did not say that except of appellant No.1, any other appellant assaulted in his left hand.In the FIR Ex.P-2, it is specifically mentioned that the injury caused on the left wrist of complainant Nanhe Bhai was caused by appellant No.1 Ashok and none else had caused any injury on his left hand, and therefore Dr. Minj (PW-10) found one incised wound on the mid of left arm.P-15A. Also Dr. Dubey (PW-6) found fracture in ulna bone of his left hand at middle portion, and therefore fracture is corresponding to the incised wound caused in left hand of complainant Nanhe Bhai, and therefore the offence of appellant No.1 shall fall within the purview of Section 326 of IPC.It would be apparent that at the time of incident, complainant Nanhe Bhai was on his way and the incident was caused in front of house of Gulab Singh and at that time Nanhe Bhai did not do any act so that any right of private defence or sudden or grave provocation would have accrued to the appellants.Each of the appellant gave powerful blow with the weapon kept by them.When a person keeps a weapon and assaults with a weapon, then he should know the result of his overt-act, and therefore according to the provisions of Section 39 of IPC where all the appellants knew the result of their overt- act and assault was done without any sudden or grave provocation or any right of private defence, then voluntarily they caused grievous hurt to complainant Nanhe Bhai, out of them appellant Ashok No.1 had caused a grave injury with the help of sharp cutting weapon, whereas other appellants had caused grave injuries with the help of sticks, and therefore independently the appellant No.1 is guilty of offence under Section 326 of IPC, whereas the remaining appellants are guilty of offence under Section 325 of IPC.The trial Court has convicted the remaining appellants of offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC on the ground that all the appellants had constituted unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object they committed the crime, however if the facts of the case are examined, then it would be apparent that initially when the appellant No.1 Ashok assaulted the complainant Nanhe Bhai, other appellants were not present and when they assaulted complainant Nanhe Bhai, then the appellant No.1 did not repeat the assault.Before coming to the conclusion of sentence, an order should be passed on IA No.12854/15, an application for seeking permission to compromise.It is true that the victim has entered into a compromise with free consent.Accordingly, IA No.12854/2015 is hereby disposed off with a direction that it is allowed for the appellants No.2 to 4 relating to offence under Section 325 of IPC and in the result the appellants No.2 to 4 shall be acquitted from the charge of Section 325 of IPC in the light of the compromise, whereas the application of compromise is not accepted for the applicant No.1 Ashok.However, looking to the voluntarilyness of complainant Nanhe Bhai, the effect of compromise will be considered at the time of order of sentence.Thereafter he remained on bail during the trial and his sentence was already suspended by the trial Court at the time of passing of judgment and thereafter his execution of jail sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 17.4.1998, and therefore the appellant No.1 remained in the custody for three days only.However, the appellant has faced the trial and appeal since the year 1996 i.e. for last 19 years.Also the compromise took place between the complainant Nanhe Bhai and the appellant No.1 Ashok.The appellant No.1 Ashok was the first offender and after taking these facts into consideration, it would be proper to reduce the jail sentence of appellant No.1 Ashok to the period for which he remained in the custody, but a heavy fine should be imposed upon him.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed.Each of the appellant is acquitted from the charge of Sections 148, 506-B of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) & 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants No.2 to 4 are also acquitted from the charge of Section 326/149 of IPC.They cannot be convicted of offence under Section 325 of IPC in the light of the compromise.Hence the appellants No.2 to 4 are acquitted from all the charges.They would be entitled to get the fine amount back, if they have deposited the same before the trial Court.The appellant No.1 is acquitted from all the charges except the charge under Section 326 of IPC.However, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, his sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody by enhancing the fine amount from a sum of Rs.1000/- to a sum of Rs.10,000/-.The appellant No.1 is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which he shall undergo for one year's RI.Though compromise took place between the parties, and therefore compensation is not required to be granted to the complainant, however as per the provisions of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. (Madhya Pradesh amendment) compensation is required to be granted, because the complainant of the present case belongs to a scheduled caste.Hence, it is directed that if fine is deposited, then a sum of Rs.2000/- be given to complainant Nanhe Bhai S/o Shri Kadorilal resident of Jhagri, Police Station Pathariya District Damoh by way of compensation. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,020,425 | The case of the prosecution against the applicants, in short, is 2 Cr.R. No. 2508/2019 that victim-Chandan (PW-1) was standing in front of shop of Chamar Singh in village Davatia.(06.09.2019) The applicants have filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment and finding dated 08.05.2019 passed by the learned appellate Court First Additional Session Judge, Burhanpur in Criminal Appeal No.160/2017, whereby dismissed the appeal while affirming the conviction and sentence passed against the applicants vide judgment dated 28.08.2017 passed by Court of JMFC, Burhanpur convicting the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months.The applicants came over there with common intention armed with stick and started abusing in filthy words and also started beating victim Chandan Singh, who sustained grievous injury in his hand.Learned trial Court framed a charge for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323/34 and 506-II of IPC.The applicants have abjured guilty.The Court of JMFC recorded the statement of injured Chandan (PW-1), Sanjay (PW-2), eye witness- Manorama Bai (PW-3), who reached on the spot just after the incidence, eye witnesses Dashrath (PW-4), Sunil (PW-5), Rana (PW-6), witness of Seizure and arrest Muneem (PW-7), Jawan Singh (PW-8), witness of seizure and arrest Dr. S.N. Bhaskar (PW-9), who examined the injuries of victim, Dr. Y.B. Shashtri (PW-10), who conducted x-ray, Mehfooz Ali (PW-11), who wrote the FIR (Ex.P-1) registered as Crime No.72/22016 and Investigating Officer Sohan Singh (PW-12).2 Cr. R. No. 2508/20193. Learned Court of JMFC, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, has delivered judgment on 28.08.2017 and acquitted the applicants of the charges framed under Section 294 and 506-II of IPC and convicted each applicants for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced as aforementioned.Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, each 3 Cr.After hearing both the parties, first Additional Session Judge, Burhanpur delivered a judgment on 06.05.2019 and dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Court of JMFC, Burhanpur.3 Cr. R. No. 2508/2019Being aggrieved by judgment dated 06.05.2019 of Appellate Court, applicants filed this criminal revision on the ground that appellate Court has not considered the evidence in proper perspective.Independent eye witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.There are lots of contradictions, omissions and improvements in the testimony of witnesses.No implicit reliance could be placed on such kind of testimony.The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the applicant beyond reasonable doubt.Learned appellate Court erred in affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Court of JMFC, Burhanpur and prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below and applicants be acquitted of the charge.Keeping in mind that proposition again perused the statement of 4 Cr.R. No. 2508/2019 witnesses.Victim-Chandan (PW-1) has categorically stated that all the applicants started beating him by sticks and Gorelal inflicted injuries on his hand.Grievous injuries were found in the hand of Chandan, this fact was supported by Dr. S.N. Bhaskar (PW-9) and Dr. Y.B. Shashtri (PW-10).Eye-witness Sanjay (PW-2) supported that statement of victim Chandan (PW-1).Other independent witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.They stated that they were not present on the spot at the time of incident.4 Cr.R. No. 2508/2019Considering the evidence of these independent witnesses, it neither helped to prosecution nor to the defence, there are sufficient materials available on record to prove that the applicants with common intention started beating victim-Chandan and Gorelal inflicted grievous injuries on him.Conviction under Section 325 of IPC against Gorelal and under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC against the rest of applicants is not having any mis-appreciation of the evidence.This Court while invoking revisional jurisdiction not inclined to interfere in the conviction imposed against the applicants.So far as the sentence is concerned, learned both the Courts have sentenced the applicants to undergo R.I. for 1 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each.No previous criminal antecedents were found against the applicants.The applicants are the first offender.Considering this fact, this Court finds that sentence of imprisonment of one year seems to be harsh.It needs some modification.Hence, on the point of sentence, this revision 5 Cr.R. No. 2508/2019 is partly allowed.The sentence of R.I. for one year imposed against the applicants is modified to undergo R.I. for three months along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulations as directed by the trial Court.5 Cr.R. No. 2508/2019A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary actions.No order as to costs.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.09.06 16:04:43 +05'30' | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,030,007 | Heard on I.A. No.5034/2018, an application under Sec- tion 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court as under: - | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,036,677 | Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,658,555 | Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.378/2018 registered at Police Station GRP (BG), District Gwalior, for the offence punishable under section 354 of the IPC.Prosecution story, in short, is that applicant is TC in Railways.On 26/9/18, complainant was travellng in Train No. 12121 namely Sampark Kranti Express at Berth No.43 in S6 coach, while her sister had been allotted berth no. 38 in S1 coach.Since the coaches were different, complainant approached the applicant and requested him to allot berth no.37 in S1 coach which was vacant and some other person be adjusted in their place.It is alleged that applicant told her sister to go and occupy berth no.50 in B2 coach and gave berth no.13 to the complainant in A1 coach.It is alleged that thereafter the applicant occupied the berth opposite to berth no.13 in A1 and at about 2.40 a.m. when the train was crossing Datia, applicant tried to touch her with his legs.When the complainant objected, he ran away.On the basis of the aforesaid, crime has been registered.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.In fact the tickets of complainant and her sister, who were travelling from Katni to Gwalior had been booked at Morena on the same day at about 2.15 p.m. when they were to travel and in no way the physical tickets could have reached from Morena to Katni prior to departure of the train from Katni.This itself reveals that the complainant and her sister were travelling without ticket.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,711,619 | i) P.W.1 Muthuselvi was residing along with her mother, P.W.2 inSubramaniapuram 2nd Street at Kovilpatti.During the time of occurrence, shewas working as Nurse in Padma Prabha Hospital, Kovilpatti.A1, who is theappellant herein is known to her.A2 and A3 are his parents.One Mariammal,who is the sister of A1 and P.W.1 went for police selection and A1accompanied them.When they gone for physical examination, the saidMariammal introduced A1 to P.W.1 and they exchanged their phone numbers andthey used to talk through phone.After sometime, A1 decided to marry P.W.1and had gone for duty.At 09.15 a.m., A1 took her to Moorthy Mani Iyer Lodge andstayed in room No.108, where, without P.W.1's consent, A1 forcibly hadintercourse with her and told that he would not cheat her and they returnedhome and A1 used to see her at hospital often.On 09.02.2009 also, A1 tookP.W.1 for the Church festival to Puliampatti and on 15.02.2009, she left hishouse.On 17.02.2009, A1 came to her house and told her mother that since hewould get a job for P.W.1 asked a sum of Rs.50,000/- for expenses.Hermother also gave Rs.50,000/-.After receiving the same, there was no phonecall from A1 and when she met A1 in his house and questioned him as to why hehad not contacted her, he replied that he would not marry her because hisparents are demanding Rs.5 lakhs for marriage.Thereafter, she was unable tomeet A1 and hence, she went to Kovilpatti police station and gave a complaintEx.(ii)P.W.12 Rajapandi, Head Constable, Kovilpatti All Women PoliceStation had received Ex.The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction andsentence passed against the appellant/A1 for the offence under Section 376 ofI.P.C., dated 04.07.2011 rendered in S.C.No.68 of 2011 by the AdditionalSessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi, wherein, the appellant/A1was convicted and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment andto pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the prosecutrix/P.W.1 under Section357(3) of Cr.P.C. in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.P1 and registered a case in crime No.1 of 2009 forthe offences under Sections 417 of I.P.c. and Section 4 of Tamil NaduProhibition of Women Harassment Act and prepared Ex.P3, first informationreport.Since the place of occurrence would come within the jurisdiction ofTiruchendur, he sent the same to the All Women Police Station, Tiruchendur.(iii)P.W.15 Sona Vimala Rani, Sub Inspector of Police, received Ex.P3and again, he registered a case in crime No.2 of 2009 for the same offenceand prepared Ex.P8, first information report.She gave requisition Ex.(iv)On 11.03.2009, P.W.14 Dr.Sumathy examined P.W.1, where P.W.1 hasstated that she had sexual intercourse with known person on 02.02.2009 in thelodge and till 10.02.2009 she had intercourse with him and thereafter, hecheated her.After examining P.W.1, she issued Ex.P7 A.R.Copy.(v)P.W.15, Sona Vimala Rani, Sub Inspector of Police visited the placeof occurrence and examined the witnesses and on 07.02.2010 arrested A1 andproduced him before the Court along with requisition Ex.P10 to sent him formedical examination.(vi)On 10.02.2010, the accused was produced at Government Hospital,Tiruchendur for medical examination under Ex.P4, letter of the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur and P.W.13 Dr.Pertline Rose examined him andissued Ex.P5, A.R.Copy stating that there is no reason to say that theaccused is impotent.3.The learned trial Judge, after following the procedures, framednecessary charges against the accused.Since the accused denied the same intoto and pleaded not guilty, to prove the charges, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examinedand Exs.P.1 to 10 were marked on the side of the prosecution.On completionof the examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, the accusedwas questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hedenied them as false.No witness was examined on the side of the defence.4.On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi found A1 not guilty forthe offences under Section 417 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil NaduProhibition of Harassment of Women Act and found A2 and A3 not guilty for theoffences under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted them,However, she found A1 guilty for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C andconvicted and sentenced him as stated above.Aggrieved over the judgment ofconviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.6.He further submitted that P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1 and no motherwill send her unmarried daughter along with unknown male person and hence,the conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 would show that they had given consent for sexualintercourse.He further submitted that P.Ws.3 to 8 were turned hostile andhence, he prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentenceand acquitting the appellant.7.Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side)would submit that the character of the victim girl/prosecutrix is immaterialand to substantiate her argument, she relied upon the decision of Apex Court,consisting of three Judges reported in 1990 AIR 538 and submit that merelybecause P.W.2, who is the mother of P.W.1 has permitted to go along with theappellant is not a ground that he has given voluntary consent for sexualintercourse.8.She would further submit that since the appellant is an army man, whohas given promise to marry her, P.W.1 thought it that the promise is validand P.W.1 and the accused are belonging to same community and there is nohurdle to marry him and hence, the accused intended to marry her and madefalse promise of marriage only to induce prosecutrix to give consent, whichamount to rape and hence, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.9.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and on perusalof the typed sets of papers would show that the trial Court has framed chargeagainst A1 for the offence under Sections 417, 376 of I.P.C. and Section 4 ofTamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, he was convicted andsentenced only for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C.10,Now, the point to be decided is as to whether the conviction passedby the trial Court for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. is sustainableor not? To prove the charge for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C.there is no eye witness.But, those P.Ws.3 to 8were turned hostile.Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 8 will not assistneither prosecution nor defence.Now, the point to be decided is as towhether the evidence of P.W.1 is reliable or not?.11.It is true, P.W.1 was 22 years old lady at the time of occurrence.P.W.9 Ramachandran was examined to show that on 02.02.2009, the accusedbooked a room at Moorthy Mani Iyer hotel and he produced Ex.Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1, sinceP.W.9 has deposed that Balamurugan, who is the appellant herein wasaccompanying one girl and there is no reason or discarding her evidence andthe same is reliable.12.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant wouldmainly focussing with P.W.1/prosecutrix was 22 years old and she was willingand participating in that action and hence, the offence under Section 376 ofI.P.C. is not made out.But, she has given the complaint as soon as, the appellantrefused to marry her.The bail bonds, if any executed by the appellant/accused, shall standcancelled.2.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi.3.The Public prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.A.(MD)No.199 of 201111.12.2014.12.2014 | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,808,436 | offence punishable under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and respondent nos. 2 & 3 namely Smt. Usha Singh and Jagannath have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A, but convicted respondent no.1 under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine stipulation.Marriage of Seema (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 and other respondents are his family members.Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting Seema to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, under suspicious circumstances on 03/03/2010, her dead body was found hanging in her matrimonial home only.Morgue intimation No.14/10 and Crime No.101/10 were registered and 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.Marriage of deceased was solemnized within seven years from the date of incident.After appreciation of evidence of Akshay (PW1), Champadevi (PW5), Indramani Singh (PW2), Urmila Singh (PW6), the trial Court held that demand of dowry was never made by the respondents from the deceased or from her parents.From the evidence on record, trial Court found that probable cause of suicide was illicit relationship of her husband viz. respondent no.1 with respondent no.2, her sister-in-law.Therefore, in absence of cruelsome behaviour for demand of dowry, the impugned judgment was passed by the trial Court.Charge under Section 306 of the IPC was not framed against the respondents and the prosecution has not challenged the same.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
192,943,940 | 1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.25812/2019 (Sunil s/o Babulal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 08.07.2019 Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sohani, learned counsel for the applicant.After arguing for some time on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the bail application.Prayer allowed.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.25812/2019 is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.07.08 17:25:28 +05'30' | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,016,997 | ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:01:56 :::counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned APP appearingfor Respondent No.4/State.The said complaint was filed in the Court ofChief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad at Alibag.The grievance raised in the saidcomplaint against accused No.1 who is the real brother of the complainant andother two accused was that accused No.1 has produced document, on which heforged the signature of the complainant and then produced the same in SpecialCivil Suit No.12 of 2002 pending before the learned Civil Judge, SeniorDivision, Raigad-Alibag.3 The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad at Alibag by itsorder dated 01/12/2003 issued process against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 underSections 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, 470, 471 r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code.4 Being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, RespondentNos.1 to 3 herein filed Criminal Revision Application No.198 of 2003 beforelgc 2 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:01:56 ::: (905) wp-1847.04.docthe learned IVth Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge Riagad, at Alibag.Thelearned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated03/07/2004 allowed the said Revision Application and set aside the order ofthe trial court issuing process against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein.It isthe said order dated 03/07/2004 passed by the learned IVth Ad hoc AssistantSessions Judge, Raigad Alibag which is taken exception to by way of this WritPetition.::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:01:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:01:56 :::was the assertion of the complainant that his brother i.e. Accused No.1 forgedthe document prior to tendering the said document in the evidence in SpecialCivil Suit No.12 of 2002, and Accused Nos. 2 and 3 assisted Accused No.1 inforging the said document.Therefore from the perusal of the averments madein the complaint it is abundantly clear that the document which was producedby Accused No.1 before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division in Special CivilSuit No.12 of 2002 was already alleged to have been forged before tendering/filing in the said Special Civil Suit.No order as to costs.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the Complaint bearingNo.155 of 2003 on its own merits and in accordance with law.::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:01:56 ::: | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,102,511 | The knife and countrymade pistol were seized.Accused persons were arrested.A.1610-2013 Page 4 of 17 complainant.In the initial complaint Ex.PW1/A made by him to the police at the earliest available opportunity he has unfurled that he is resident of Hoshiarpur, Punjab where he is running a shop of hardware.On 21.12.2010 he had came from Punjab for some personal work.On 22.12.2010 he was going to ISBT via Old Delhi on foot.At about 10.15 pm when he reached near a liquor shop, Kashmere Gate Ritz building four boys gheroed him from back and threatened him to give whatever he has failing which, they will kill him.When he tried to raise alarm, one of them put a pistol on his right side, the other boy put a knife on left side, the third person caught hold of his hands from back while the fourth snatched his bag and removed his purse.His bag was containing clothes and purse was containing Rs.2000/- and some papers.When they tried to run away with the looted articles, some public persons had stopped and they apprehended three boys while the fourth person managed to escape with his bag and purse.In the meanwhile, police officials also came.Thereafter PCR van also came.On enquiry, name of the three apprehended boys were revealed as Abrar who put pistol, Riyasat Ali who threatened him with knife and the third person as Shankar who caught his hand from behind.He also gave description of the fourth boy as aged about 30-35 years, wheatish complexion having height of 5'7" whom he could identify, if shown to him.When the witness appeared in the Court, he reiterated the incident and also identified all the three accused and specified the role played by them.He proved the statement Ex.PW1/A made to the police.He further deposed that from the possession of accused Abrar one countrymade pistol and two live cartridges Ex.P-3 was recovered which were seized vide memo Ex.PW-1/D. Knife was recovered from Riyasat Ali which was seized vide memo Ex.PW-1/E.A.1610-2013 Page 4 of 17A.1610-2013 Page 5 of 17PW-7 Head Constable Yogender No.341/N alongwith Head Constable Yogender No.766/N was on duty in search of proclaimed offenders in the area of police station Kashmere Gate.On hearing the cries of one person from the side of wine shop Kashmere Gate, they went towards the wine shop and found Ashok Kumar crying in loud voice and exhorting the words "Use Loot Liya Hai".Someone informed PCR at 100 number as such, PW-5 Head Constable Jagelu Ram, incharge of PCR Van Sugar-8 reached the spot where he met Ashok who informed him about his being robbed of Rs.2000/- cash at the point of Katta and knife.He further deposed that public persons were also present and the three persons apprehended by the public who had committed the offence were also present there.He was also informed by Ashok that one person with his bag and cash had run away from the spot.The three accused Crl.A.1610-2013 Page 6 of 17 persons were taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital for their medical examination in the same PCR Van and they were dropped there and thereafter he came back.Trial Court record be sent back along with the copy of the judgment.Appellant be informed through Superintendent Jail.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE MAY 7, 2015 mb Crl.A.1610-2013 Page 17 of 17A.1610-2013 Page 17 of 17: SUNITA GUPTA, J.The appellant Abrar in the instant appeal has challenged his conviction under Section 392/34 and 397 IPC and sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 392 IPC and imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment of three months under Section 397 IPC awarded in sessions case No. 16/11 arising out of FIR No. 249/10 Police Station Kashmere Gate imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.Succinctly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 22.12.2010 complainant Ashok Kumar was going from Old Delhi Railway Station to Crl.A.1610-2013 Page 1 of 17 ISBT Kashmere Gate and when he reached near wine shop Kashmere Gate four persons robbed him of his purse and bag on the point of knife and countrymade pistol.When he raised alarm, public persons gathered there and apprehended three accused with the help of police officials.From the possession of accused Abrar one countrymade pistol and two live cartridges were recovered while knife was recovered from accused Riyasat Ali.On receipt of information regarding quarrel, DD No. 29-A was recorded which was assigned to SI Ravinder (PW-10) who reached the spot and recorded the statement of complainant and got the FIR registered.Fourth accused could not be apprehended.As such, chargesheet was submitted against accused Abrar, Riyasat Ali and Shankar.All the three accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 392/397/34 IPC.Accused Abrar and Riyasat Ali were further charged for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution relied upon as many as 10 witnesses.The case of accused was one of denial simplicitor and it was alleged that they were falsely implicated in this case.Challenging the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been preferred by accused Abrar.A.1610-2013 Page 1 of 17The Crl.A.1610-2013 Page 2 of 17 complainant was an old person and in fact one of the accused has been acquitted because the complainant could not identify him.Reliance was placed on Dana Yadav alias Dahu & Ors.vs. State of Bihar (2002) 7 SCC 295 and Kanan & Ors.vs. State of Kerala (1979) 3 SCC 319;A.1610-2013 Page 2 of 17(ii) No public persons were joined despite the fact that the public had apprehended the accused and had informed the police persons.Therefore, non-joining of independent witnesses is fatal to the case of prosecution.Reliance was placed on Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar & Ors.vs. State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255 .(iii) No finger prints were taken from the pistol as admitted by PW-8, PW- 9 and PW-10 which cast a doubt on prosecution version.(v) No daily diary entry has been proved regarding departure or arrival entry of any of the police officials.(vi) The bag and stolen money was not recovered.(vii) Recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C is not a mere formality.The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C disclosed the reasons for his false implication in the case.Reliance was placed on Chander Dev Rai vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2009 (107) DRJ 305 Crl.A.1610-2013 Page 3 of 17 (DB).A.1610-2013 Page 3 of 17(viii) In case the conviction of the appellant is upheld then the appellant be released on the period already undergone as he is suffering from last stage of AIDS.His conduct in jail is satisfactory.Reliance was placed on Crl.A.No.785/2004 Kishan @ Bablu vs. The State of N.C.T of Delhi and Crl.A.No.848/2004 Shiv Raj @ Swaraj @ Suraj vs. State of Delhi.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that all the submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellant were raised before the learned Trial Court and were duly considered.Since the accused were apprehended at the spot there was no requirement of law for conducting their Test Identification Parade.Non-joining of public witnesses is not fatal as besides the police officials there is the testimony of the complainant who had no axe to grind to falsely implicate the accused in this case.The case property could not be recovered since one of the accused managed to flee away from the spot alongwith the robbed articles however mere non-recovery is of no consequence.The appellant has been convicted by a well reasoned judgment which does not call for interference.Furthermore, since the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 397 IPC is 7 years, it cannot be reduced to the period already undergone as such, appeal is liable to be dismissed.I have given my considerable thoughts to the respective submissions of learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.Before considering the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties, it will be in fitness of things to have a narration of the material witnesses examined by the prosecution.The most material witness is PW-1 Sh.Ashok Kumar, the Crl.Some public persons also gathered.On the pointing of Ashok Kumar they ran towards the persons who were running after committing the incident and after chasing them upto a small distance, they apprehended three persons with the help of public persons.In the meantime, PW-8 Constable Sachin who was the Incharge of beat also reached there.He overpowered accused Abrar while Head Constable Yogender No.766/N overpowered accused Riyasat Ali and accused Shankar was apprehended by Constable Sachin with the help of public and complainant Ashok Kumar.However, their fourth associate whose name was revealed as Charanjeet alias Daboo managed to flee away from the spot alongwith the purse containing cash amount and bag of the complainant.On formal search of accused Abrar, one countrymade pistol and one live round was recovered while from search of accused Riyasat Ali, one dagger was recovered.Nothing was recovered in the formal search of accused Shankar.A.1610-2013 Page 6 of 17On receipt of DD No.29-A regarding some quarrel near Tikona Park, PW-10 SI Ravinder Singh alongwith Head Constable Shailesh reached near Tikona Park in front of wine shop where he found a crowd of people alongwith few police officials and three persons had been apprehended by the police with the help of public persons.Thereafter he carried out the investigation and recorded the statement of the complainant, seized the countrymade pistol and knife, prepared the site plan and arrested the accused persons.But in the instant case, the testimony of the police officers find substantial corroboration from the complainant himself who is a totally independent witness and is rather the victim and had no axe to grind to falsely implicate the accused persons in this case.A.1610-2013 Page 13 of 17 not only the fact that the accused were apprehended at the spot, even the countrymade pistol and live cartridges were recovered from them which were seized at the spot and proceedings were conducted.A.1610-2013 Page 13 of 17PW-7 and PW- 9 were on duty in search of proclaimed offenders in the area of police station Kashmere Gate while PW-8 was a beat constable of the area who had also reached at the spot whereas PW-5, Incharge of PCR Van reached the spot on receipt of call regarding quarrel.Similarly PW-10 Investigating Officer also reached the spot on receipt of DD No.29-A.Non-recovery of bag and stolen money belonging to the complainant cannot come to the aid of this appellant in as much as it is the consistent case of prosecution that although three accused were apprehended at the spot but the fourth accused had managed to escape alongwith the bag and purse of the complainant.He could not be apprehended at that time.It seems that he was arrested later on.That being so, non-recovery of bag and stolen money is not fatal to the prosecution case.As regards recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, although it is true as held in Chander Dev Rai (supra) that examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is not a mere formality and the answers given by the accused have a practical utility.The statement under Section 313 Cr.The only plea taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that he was brought in the morning of 22.12.2010 from his house and no pistol and cartridges were recovered from his possession.However, except for taking such a bald plea no evidence has been led by him to prove that he was brought in the morning of 22.12.2010 from his house.On the other hand, there is voluminous evidence available on record to show that he was apprehended at the spot after he alongwith his associates robbed the complainant of his purse and bag on the point of pistol which was recovered from his possession.Testimony of the complainant was sufficient to establish the case of prosecution against the accused however, in the instant case, the same find corroboration from the testimony of the police officials.As such, the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 392/34 IPC and 397 IPC.A.1610-2013 Page 14 of 17Coming to the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is suffering from AIDS as such, he be released on the period already undergone.Reliance was placed on Kishan @ Bablu and Shiv Raj @ Swaraj @ Suraj where the appellants did not contest the appeal on merits but prayed for a lenient view for releasing them on the period already undergone which was allowed.The appellant has been convicted under Section 392/34 IPC and 397 IPC.For the sake of convenience, Section 392 and 397 IPC are reproduced as under:-392.Punishment for robbery.-Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.A.1610-2013 Page 15 of 17Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.-- If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.That being so, the request of learned counsel for the appellant was rejected.Under Section 397 IPC also, there is no enabling provision for reduction of sentence by Crl.A.1610-2013 Page 16 of 17 giving special or adequate reasons.That being so, the request of learned counsel for the appellant for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected.A.1610-2013 Page 16 of 17 | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,280,581 | (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu,J.) The appellants are accused 1 to 5 in S.C.No.89 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Sessions Court, Erode.A-1 stood charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 302 and 307 IPC. A-2 to A-4 stood charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 120-B and 302 IPC and A-5 stood charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 120-B and 302 read with 34 IPC.The deceased in this case was one Mr.Venkaktesh @ Rohit Venkatesh.The first accused is Mr.Raja @ Fire Service Raja.The deceased and the first accused were the associates and co-accused in many criminal cases.They were imprisoned together on many occasions.On account of some event, they parted away with each other.Thereafter, they were not in talking terms and there was lingering enmity between them.The accused 2 to 5 are the friends and associates of the first accused.The deceased was frequently interfering with the rowdyism of the first accused.On one occasion, the first accused called the deceased and told him not to interfere in his activities.The deceased promised to do so.But, he continued to interfere with the affairs of the first accused.Therefore, the first accused got wild and decided to do away with the deceased.In this regard, according to the prosecution, all the five accused, on 14.07.2013 around 06.30 p.m., in a vacant site near old Nataraja Theatre at Erode, had conspired.On 15.07.2013, the deceased had gone to a bar attached to a Tasmac shop at Marappalam in Erode.Noting the same, all the five accused went to the said bar.The accused 1 to 4 were all armed with one knife each.The fifth accused was not armed with any weapon, but he was in possession of a motorcycle.The accused 1 to 4 entered into the bar, where the deceased was sitting and drinking.On reaching the bar, it is alleged, that the accused 1 to 4, one after another, in quick succession, indiscriminately cut the deceased.The fifth accused was waiting outside with the motorcycle.After the occurrence was over, the accused 1 to 4 rushed out of the bar and with the help of the fifth accused, the accused 2 and 3 fled away from the scene of occurrence in the motorcycle driven by the fifth accused.The accused 1 and 4 also ran away from the scene of occurrence.Vignesh was also present in the bar at that time.When he tried to rescue the deceased, the first accused stabbed the deceased with a knife on his head.Therefore, P.W.1 could not do anything further to rescue the deceased.Then, P.W.1, with the help of other people, who gathered there, took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Erode.But, despite treatment, on 15.07.2013, at 08.30 p.m., the deceased succumbed to injuries in the hospital.P-30 is the F.I.R. He forwarded both the complaint Ex.P-1 and the F.I.R. Ex.P.W.23 took up the case for investigation.He went to the place of occurrence at 01.00 a.m. and prepared an observation mahazar and a rouch sketch in the presence of P.W.17 and another witness.He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.He examined many witnesses at the place of occurrence.On going to the hospital on 15.07.2013 between 06.30 and 09.00 a.m., he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased.7.A laceration with singular merger over right thumb 1x1x1 cm.8.Abrasion over back of neck on right shoulder merger 3x1 cm.P-9 is the post-mortem certificate.The doctor gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries found on the body of the deceased.He further opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased would have been caused by knives.P.W.23 recovered the bloodstained clothes from the body of the deceased and also forwarded the same to the Court.P.W.23 recovered the same under a mahazar.The fourth accused gave a voluntary statement, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the knife, pant and T-Shirt.By judgment, dated 13.07.2015, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them as detailed below :Accused Section of lawSentenceA.1 to A.5147 IPCRigorous imprisonment for two years each.A.1 to A.5148 IPCRigorous imprisonment for three years each.A.1 to A.5120-B IPCRigorous imprisonment for ten years each.A.1 to A.4302 IPCLife imprisonment and to pay of Rs.10,000/- each; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each.A.1307 IPCImprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.A.5302 r/w 34 IPCLife imprisonment and to pay of Rs.10,000/-; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals.P.W.1 cried for help.He examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement.Then, he forwarded the dead body to the doctor, for post-mortem. P.W.6, Dr.Ravichandar, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 16.07.2013 at 09.50 a.m. He found the following injuries :1.Clear cut incised wound above left side of chest nipple measuring 4x2x2 cm transversely till depth of left lung at the end of 3rd to 4th ICS.2.Clear cut incised wound with sharp edges near right side of perietal area of scalp mesuring 7x2x2 cm at right tempero perietal bone.3.Clear incised wound over right side chest at level of 5th - 6th ICS transverse 4x3x2 cm, extending towards left lung.4.Lacerated wound with singular merger over vental aspect of right wrist 6x3x3 cm.5.Clear cut incised wound from angle of right mouth extending internal cheek measuring 9x3x3 cm extending jaw.6.Abrasion between eyebrows 4x1/2 cm.When the investigation was in progress, all the accused surrendered before the Court.On the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, P.W.23 took police custody of all the accused.While in custody, on 28.07.2013, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the knife with steel handle and also bloodstained clothes.In pursuance of the same, he produced M.Os.1 and 5 to 7 from the place of hideout.P.W.23 recovered the same under a mahazar.The second accused produced a bloodstained knife (M.O.2) and a polythene cover (M.O.10).The third accused made a disclosure statement, out of which he produced a polythene carry bag, bloodstained knife, jeans pant and a T-Shirt.Accordingly, he produced M.O.4 knife and M.Os.14 to 16, which were recovered by P.W.16 under a mahazar.The fifth accused also gave a voluntary statement, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the motorcycle, bearing registration No.TN-33-AE-1198, which was recovered under a mahazar.Then, on returning to the police station, P.W.23 forwarded the material objects to the Court.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination.The report revealed that there were bloodstains on all the material objects, except knives.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges against the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and the accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of prosecution, 23 witnesses were examined, 40 documents and 26 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the injured eye witness, who has spoken vividly about the entire occurrence.P.W.2, Dr.Kogila, has stated that on 15.07.2013, at 07.45 p.m., P.W.1 was brought to her private hospital, where she found that there was a cut injury on his head.At that time, he told P.W.2 that he was attacked by four known persons.P.W.4, Dr.Karthikeyan, has stated that on 15.07.2013, at 08.10 p.m., the deceased was brought to the Government Hospital, Erode, for treatment.He found as many as eight injuries on the body of the deceased.He admitted the deceased as in-patient.Ex.P-5 is the Accident Register.According to him, he gave intimation to the police.P.W.5 Dr.P-7 is the intimation given by him to the police.P.W.6, Dr.Ravichandar, has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and his final opinion, regarding the cause of death.P.Ws.7 to 10 have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case in any manner.P.W.11 is the brother of the deceased.He has stated that he heard about the occurrence later and went to the hospital.P.W.12 has turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case in any manner.P.W.13 has spoken about the conspiracy.According to him, on 14.07.2013, at 05.30 p.m., all the five accused were found near Nataraja Theatre in a vacant site and they were talking among themselves that they should do away with the deceased.He has further stated that the third accused told them to kill the deceased and the fourth accused told that they could kill the deceased in wine shop.The second accused told that they could kill the deceased in a different wine shop.The first accused told that the other accused to be ready on the next day with one knife each.P.W.14 has spoken only on the hearsay information.P.W.15 has also not stated anything incriminating against the accused, as he has spoken only on the hearsay information.P.W.16 has spoken about the disclosure statement made by the accused to the police while in custody and the consequential recovery of the material objects.P.W.17 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch and also the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.19 has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted on the material objects.P.W.21 has stated that he handed over the dead body to the doctor, for post-mortem.P.W.23 has spoken about the investigation done and the filing of the final report.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness or to mark any document on their side.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.That is how, they are before this Court with these appeals.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the materials carefully.As we have already narrated, in this case, the prosecution relies only on the eye witness account of P.W.1, who happened to be the injured witness.He has stated that the accused 1 to 4 entered into the bar and attacked the decesed indiscriminately.When P.W.1 intervened, according to him, he was also attacked.But, in the complaint, Ex.P-1, which was given at 11.30 p.m., on 15.07.2013, he has mentioned the name of the first accused alone and two other persons.Had it been true that these accused 2 to 5 had come to the place of occurrence and participated in the occurrence, certainly, P.W.1 would not have omitted to mention about the presence and participation of the accused 2 to 5 in the F.I.R. When he was confronted with the same, he has got no explanation to offer.This would clearly go to show that the presence and participation of the accused 2 to 5 in the occurrence is highly doubtful.The learned counsel for the first accused would submit that since P.W.1 is only partly believable, in the absence of any corroboration, this Court should not act upon his evidence alone and convict the first accused.Though attractive, we find no force in the said argument.If the evidence of solitary witness inspires the confidence of the Court, there can be no iegal impediment to act upon his evidence to convict the accused.In a case where the Court is able to separate the grain from the chaff, absolutely, there is no difficulty for the Court to act upon the grain and convict the accused.Here, in this case, P.W.1, at the earliest point of time, in his complaint, has stated that the number of assailants were only three, out of whom, two were not known earlier.But, in the F.I.R., he specifically mentioned about the presence and participation of the first accused.But, at the same time, so far as the first accused is concerned, the evidence of P.W.1 is consistent.In other words, we are able to separate the grain from the chaff and we also find that the evidence of P.W.1 as against the first accused is so convincing.Therefore, we are inclined to act upon the solitary evidence of P.W.1 to convict the first accused.Now, turning to the evidence of P.W.13, in our considered view, he cannot be believed for more than one reason.According to him, on 14.07.2013, around 05.30 p.m., near Nataraja theatre in Erode, he found all these five accused speaking together in a vacant site and conspiring.He has further stated that the first accused told others that they should do something against the deceased.The third accused told that they could kill the deceased.The fourth accused asked others as to where to kill the deceased.The second accused replied that they could kill him in the wine shop near Manapparai.The first accused asked all the other occused to come with one knife each on the next day.Then, all the five accused went from the place of occurrence.Had it been true that the above conspiracy had taken place, P.W.13 would have told the deceased about the same, because the deceased was a co-accused with P.W.13 in many cases.In a case where one Shajahan was abducted, the deceased and P.W.13 were the accused.When the deceased was so close to him, had it been true that such conspiracy was hatched by these accused, certainly, P.W.l3 would have informed the same to the deceased.The very fact that he did not do so, which is an unnatural conduct, would go to show that the version of conspiracy spoken by him is not true.There is no other evidence to prove the conspiracy.Therefore, the accused 2 to 5 are entitled for acquittal.Turning to the case against the first accused, the learned counsel would submit that in the wine shop, the occurrence was preceded by a wordy quarrel between the first accused and the deceased.It is in evidence of P.W.1 that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the first accused on one side and the first accused and his associates on the other side and it was only in the said quarrel, the first accused took out a knife and stabbed the deceased.Therefore, the first accused is liable to be punished under Section 304-I IPC.So far as the causing of single injury on P.W.1 is concerned, the first accused is liable to be punished under Section 308 IPC, as his attempt was only to commit culpable homicide.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, having regard to the aggravating as well as the mitigating circumstances, and also going by the antecedents of the first accused, we are of the view that sentincing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks for the offence under Section 304-I IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks for the offence under Section 308 IPC would meet the ends of justice.In the result, Criminal Appeal Nos.600 and 627 of 2015 are allowed and Criminal Appeal No.512 of 2015 is partly allowed in the following terms : | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,242,519 | Shri Brajesh Choubey, learned counsel for the objector.Present petition has been preferred for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C to petitioner for offence registered under Sections 195-A, 214, 506-B and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Crime No. 142/2014 registered at Police Station Hatta District Damoh.According to prosecution, on 22.6.2014, a case has been registered against the petitioner and six other co-accused persons under Sections 195, 214, 506-B and 120-B of the IPC making allegations that they threatened Jageshwar Garg for changing the statements in the matter of kidnapping of his daughter.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 2.2.2014 minor daughter of the complainant Jageshwar Garg was kidnapped and raped by one Rajesh Patel and Police Hatta registered a case at crime no. 25/2014 against Rajesh Patel.Learned counsel submits that this Court granted anticipatory bail to one of the co-accused Narayan in M.Cr.9918/2014 by order dated 9.7.2014 and claiming parity prays for bail of the present petitioner also.In response, learned counsel for the objector submits that the aforesaid bail was granted to co-accused because he was Deputy Manager in the Bank, whereas petitioner is the main accused, who made phone call to the complainant and with the help of other accused persons they threatened him.Learned counsel further submits that petitioner and other co- accused persons are politically strong and they have been managed the police also but some how it could be initiated at the intervention of the Court that too by order dated 8.5.2014 in W.P.No.Learned counsel for the State submits that allegations are same against all the accused persons.Rivalry parties made allegations against each other that there had been some offer/demand of money for compromise of the matter.Considering the statement of Jageshwar Garg under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it has specifically come on record that on 6.2.2014, it was the petitioner who gave phone call to him and called at his place and the incident took place at his residence, his case appears to be distinguishable from the other accused persons.No parity can be claimed with co- accused persons.Considering him to be the main accused person, it does not appear to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,425,906 | It is stated that petitioner No.1 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in all to the complainant towards full and final settlement of all her claims and dues.It is further stated that after the aforesaid settlement, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were duly withdrawn.CRL.M.C. 5464/2014 Page 2 of 7The complainant approbates the aforesaid settlement and states that she has no further grievance in the matter; and with the aforesaid payment, nothing further remains due to her from the petitioners.Through: Mr. P.K. Mishra, APP for the State with SI Ram Manohar, PS Keshav Puram.Mr. Gaurav Kaushik, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. 18645/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed off.This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 333/2011 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Keshav Puram on 30th October, 2011 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.Issue notice.Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Gaurav CRL.M.C. 5464/2014 Page 1 of 7 Kaushik, Advocate enter appearance and accept notice on behalf of the State/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant, respectively.CRL.M.C. 5464/2014 Page 1 of 73. Petitioners as well as complainant/respondent No.2-Moma Gaur are present in person and are identified by the Investigating Officer/ SI Ram Manohar, Police Station Keshav Puram.At the same time, complainant had also instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners.During the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the matter was referred for counselling and ultimately on 19th June, 2013 a joint statement of the complainant and petitioner No.1 was recorded before the Counsellor settling their disputes on terms.A copy of the joint statement has also been annexed to this petition.It is stated that pursuant to the said agreement a joint petition under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.The remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been handed over to the complainant CRL.M.C. 5464/2014 Page 2 of 7 in the Court today by way of four demand drafts bearing Nos. 159188, 159189, 159191 and 159194 drawn on UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, all dated 1st December, 2014 for Rs.49,000/- each favouring the complainant; and the balance of Rs.4,000/- has been handed over in cash.CRL.M.C. 5464/2014 Page 6 of 7I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus at this stage itself, since the parties have resolved their differences and have obtained divorce by mutual consent; and since the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, because of which, its chances of success in the matter are in any case greatly diminished.Consequently, FIR No. 333/2011 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Keshav Puram on 30th October, 2011 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed off. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,924,272 | So they went to the police station where they saw Murugan in custody.The respondent told them that the investigation of the case was not yet over and that he would send their son back after investigation.It is thereafter stated in the affidavit."Believing his words I came away.Thereafter since my boy had not returned home even after four days.Thereafter, I was put in Sub-Jail, Dindigul and later taken to Madurai Court.The juvenile is present in Court.On 5-3-1991 at 4 p.m. Murugan was produced before him from Sub-Jail, Dindigul.He is entitled to be compensated for the same.Since the State Government have undertaken to keep him in the Observation Home for Boys and Girls at Madurai, and to impart vocational training to him, we hope after attaining majority he would properly rehabilitate himself.Any compensation that may be awarded to him, if utilised in his rehabilitation, would help him to show up as a proud citizen of India.The petitioner has stated that Murugan is aged about 15 years.He appears, as we have already observed, less than that age.It will be necessary, therefore, to determine his correct age with the aid of such Medical examination that may be required.JUDGMENT Mishra, J.Lakshmi, the detenu's mother, has moved this Court for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus alleging that her son Murugan, aged 15 years, has been illegally detained by the respondent.It appears that one Venkatesan of Thuvariman Agraharam made a complaint to the respondent Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai South, that while he and his wife were away therefrom.Someone entered into the house through the ventilator and committed theft of cash and jewels.Petitioner's son Murugan was taken in custody on suspicion in connection with the said case on 8-2-1991 by the respondent who, according to the petitioner, told her that he would send back her son immediately after interrogation.She has, however, alleged that she and her husband waited till the next morning but the boy (their son) did not return.I again went to the police station and found my son there suffering from severe pain.I noticed some swellings over his forearm and legs.My son Murugan told me that the police was administering him 3rd degree methods in order to make him confess to the guilt."I came and complained to the villagers and none could interfere on my behalf fearing for their own safety.Again I visited the police station about three days back and found my son in a very bad shape and he was practically unable to move about.When I implored the police to release my son they threatened to take me into custody and that I would meet the same fate as my minor son.Fearing that I came to Madurai and consulted the lawyer as to what I should do.I was advised to go to Madras and move the High Court for the release of my minor son Murugan."In the counter-affidavit filed by K. Mohan Duraisamy, Inspector of Police, Thirunagar, Madurai Rural District, on behalf of the respondent, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai South, the allegation that one Venkatesan of Thuvariman Agraharam had made a complaint to him (respondent) has not been denied but it is stated that the complaint was filed on 7-2-1991 at about 22.30 hrs.stating that there was a house breaking in his house in which he lost jewels and cash worth Rs. 50,000/-.It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that during the investigation he arranged for the finger prints expert to detect the finger prints at the scene of Crime and interrogated about 15 persons and added."On 9-2-91 the petitioner's son Murugan was also interrogated by me; during the course of interrogation his finger prints were taken according to the procedure laid down by the Police Standing Order.The petitioner's son Murugan was sent away after interrogation and after obtaining his specimen finger prints.I state that on 11-2-91 I was informed by the finger print expert that two chance prints developed from the scene of occurrence tallied with the specimen finger print of the petitioner's son Murugan.I state that immediately after receipt of the message from the finger print expert on 11-2-91 I searched for the petitioner's son.The case was, however, listed on 20-3-1991 on which date the Court was informed that petitioner's son Murugan was lodged in Central Prison, Madurai.Murugan, however, was produced by the petitioner herself on 27-3-1991 since it so happened that a petition for bail was moved on his behalf in the meanwhile and he was ordered to be released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai.It, however, transpired that Murugan purportedly surrendered in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, No. IV, Dindigul, who ordered for the custody of Murugan until he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai and accordingly, when he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai, a petition for bail was moved before him and Murugan was released on bail.The Court ordered as follows :The case has accordingly been listed today before us.The English translation of Murugan's statement in Tamil recorded on 27-3-1991 by Ms. S. Sujatha, Interpreter.runs as follows :On the night of 8-2-1991 the Sub-Inspector of Pudukottai Police Station interrogated me with regard to a theft of jewels.During the interrogation they tortured me, removed my nails and applied chilly (sic-chilli) powder over the eyes and made me to consume Ganja, arrack and also motion (humanwaste) diluted in water.Later the Pudukottai Police left me with a counsel in Dindigul Court with instruction that I must give a statement that I was surrendering on my own.Since I was 15 I was denied remand.Then I was taken to a lodge where a certificate stating that I was 18, was taken from somebody there, for which certain amount was paid.In Madurai Court I was remanded and lodged in the Central Jail, Madurai.Finally I was released on bail in the Madurai Court."He looks younger than his age.No one has suggested that he could by any stretch of imagination be above the age of 18 years."Accused is produced before me at 7.00 p.m. Ordered to be produced before Judicial Magistrate VII at Madurai on or before 5-3-91."This order is recorded on a so called surrender petition signed by one advocate named B. J. S. Mahendra Singh in which it is stated, "Surrender Petition It is submitted that the above complainant has registered a case for the alleged offence u/Ss. 454 and 380, I.P.C.The above minor accused, voluntarily surrenders before this Honourable Court.A perusal of the said petition, however, reveals that the words "petitioner/accused is aged about 18/19" have been interpolated in the petition which originally was made to appear that a minor and had come to voluntarily surrender before the Judicial Magistrate No. IV Dindigul.Murugan has stated before this Court that Pudukottai Police left him with a Counsel in Dindigul Court with instruction that he (Murugan) must give a statement that he was surrendering on his own.But since he was 15 years old he was denied remand.The order of the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul dated 1-3-1991 as stated above is :"Accused is produced before me at 7 p.m. Ordered to be produced before the Judicial Magistrate VIII at Madurai on or before 5-3-91."This clearly evidences that Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul was aware that a minor was produced and that he did not surrender.The Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai has, however, stated that Murugan had been produced before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul on 1-3-1991 in connection with Cri.According to him, when on 11-2-1991 he was informed by the finger prints expert that two chance prints developed from the scene of crime tallied with the specimen finger prints of Murugan, he started searching for him.According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Murugan was evading arrest and had been absconding until he surrendered voluntarily before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul, a story which is obviously improbable, if there is any evidence on the record, that shows that there had been a clear interpolation in the so-called surrender petition.The above, however, shall only be meeting the injury caused to Murugan by the illegal detention and not in any manner the allegations against the respondent and his men that they tortured Murugan, removed his nails, applied chilli powder over his eyes and made him to consume ganja, arrack and human-waste diluted in water.This shall also not meet the circumstance how the interpolation was made in the surrender petition filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul and who manipulated the so-called surrender although Murugan was produced before the Magistrate in Police custody.The State Government shall invest a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) is any one of the approved schemes within one month from to-day which shall be delivered to Murugan with accumulated interest after maturity and invested in his rehabilitation in the vocation in which he shall be trained in the Home.Kamaraja Road, Madurai.The petitioner undertakes to deliver Murugan to the Observation Home within One Week from to-day.We direct the District Medical Officer, Madurai, to constitute a Board and get Murugan examined medically for determination of his age, so that such record is maintained in the Observation Home to produce Murugan before the District Medical Officer, Madurai whenever required.The Observation Home shall report to the Juvenile Court of Madurai District or the Court acting in lieu of the Juvenile Court at Madurai.The Juvenile Court concerned shall determine such conditions as may be found necessary for the stay of Murugan in the Observation Home concerned.Let the records received from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai be remitted to the Sessions Judge, Dindigul (Quaid-E. Milleth District) in a sealed cover, who shall not allow the records to be handled by any person except the Presiding Officer of the Court holding the inquiry u/S. 340, Criminal Procedure Code.The reports of the inquiries as ordered above must be submitted to this court after completion.The writ petition is ordered accordingly.This order shall not affect the investigation of Crime No. 51 of 1991 on the file of Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station. | ['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,429,473 | The prosecution story in brief is that the appellant was living in a rented house along with his wife Leela Singh (since deceased).On the date of incident, one tenant told the landlord Thakur Ram 2 CRA No. 2349/2014 Rai that a quarrel was going on between the appellant and his wife in the room.Then, the landlord Thakur Ram Rai went to the room of appellant.He witnessed that there was a quarrel between the appellant and his wife.Both were quarreling and abusing each other.He tried to pacify them.Thereafter, he went to his house.On the next day morning, he noticed that the motor bike of appellant was not in the house.When he went to the room of the appellant, it was open and the deceased-wife was lying dead.There was an injury on her stomach.He called the neighbour Mr. Jaiswal and informed the police on telephone.The Station House Officer Incharge reached at the place of incident and registered Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) and report was registered on the basis of Dehati Nalishi.Police conducted investigation.The appellant was arrested.Thakur Ram Rai (PW-1) is the landlord.He is the star witness of the case.He deposed that, the appellant was working in a warehouse.He was living at my house on rent.He was living alone.Before two months of the incident, the wife of the appellant came to live with him along with her two children.On 11.03.2012, at around 9:00 pm at night, another tenant Babita Chouksey who was living adjacent to the appellant informed me that a quarrel was going on between the appellant and his wife.I went to the house of the appellant and I witnessed that a quarrel was going on between 4 CRA No. 2349/2014 the appellant and his wife.Both were abusing each other.I tried to pacify them.Thereafter, I returned back to my house.On the next day in the morning, I witnessed that the motor bike of the appellant was not at the house.I went to the house of the appellant and noticed that the wife of appellant was lying on a takhat (wooden bench).Appellant was not in the house.I called the neighbour Shri Jaiswal.Thereafter, I telephoned police.Shri Vijendra Parihar, Constable came on the spot.He told me that Leela Bai has died.There was an injury on her stomach.4 CRA No. 2349/2014Anil Sahu (PW-4) was also living as tenant in the house of Thakur Ram Rai (PW-1).He deposed that at about 10:30 pm on the date of incident, I heard sounds of quarrel taking place in front of my house between a male and a female.When I went outside my house, I noticed that a male and female were quarreling and abusing each other.One other person was also present there.5 CRA No. 2349/2014Thakur Ram Rai (PW-1) and Anil Sahu (PW-4) are the material witnesses of the incident.Naresh Pathak (PW-2) is the witness of memorandum and seizure.He turned hostile.Mahendra Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) is also witness of seizure and memorandum.He also turned hostile.Dilip Singh (PW-5) Patwari deposed.that I prepared spot map (Ex. P/10) and I signed the same.Laxman Mishra (PW-6) deposed that I was posted as Asst.Sub Inspector at Police Station Seoni on 12.03.2012 and Mr. Sanjay had given me Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1).Thereafter, I registered crime No. 163/2012 against Nagendra Singh and registered FIR (Ex. P/11) and signed the same.Amit Rathor (PW-9) deposed that I identified the dead body of the deceased.He is the relative of the deceased and he signed the Panchanama of the dead body (Ex. P/15).Dr. R.M.Vasnik (PW-7) deposed that, on 12.03.2012 I was posted as Sr.Medical Officer at District Hospital, Seoni.(iv) One stab wound on 12th thoracic rib of size 3.5 cm x 2 cm.It was caused by hard and sharp edged penetrating weapon.It was ante-mortem in nature.The deceased died due to asphyxia.The stab wound which was on stomach was also sufficient to cause death.14. D.M.Thakur (PW-10) deposed that on 12.03.2012, I was posted as Station House Officer Incharge.After receiving telephonic information that a dead body was lying in a house at Rajput Colony I went to the spot and noticed a dead body on the second floor of the house.The house was taken by the appellant on rent from the landlord.Thereafter, on the basis of information supplied by landlord, I recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) and signed the same.Marg Intimation (Ex. P/2) was also recorded and I signed the name.I also prepared Mauka Panchanama (Ex. P/3) and spot map (Ex. P/4).He was absconding.(12/02/2018) Per : S.K.Gangele, J :-The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30.07.2014 passed by the First Addl.Sessions Judge, Seoni in Session Trial No. 69/2012 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.2 CRA No. 2349/2014Learned trial Court held the appellant guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded sentence of life.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of Thakur Ram Rai (PW-1) and Anil Sahu (PW-4).Both the witnesses are not reliable.The appellant produced defence evidence that has been overlooked by the learned Trial Court.The prosecution failed to 3 CRA No. 2349/2014 prove the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.In alternate, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that there were heated exchange of words between the appellant and deceased hence, the offence committed by the appellant would cover under Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC.3 CRA No. 2349/2014Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that this fact has been established from the evidence of Thakur Ram Rai (PW-1) landlord and Anil Sahu (PW-4) that there was quarrel.The appellant was absent in the next morning from his house.The Trial Court has appreciated the evidence properly.The deceased was strangulated and injury was also caused to her.Hence, the appellant had committed murder of the deceased who was his wife.On the place of incident, broken pieces of bangles, three bottles of liquor and one rope was lying.Thereafter, Station House Officer came to the spot.I lodged the report and Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) and I signed the same.I also lodged Marg Intimation (Ex. P/2) and I signed the same.Police prepared Panchnama (Ex. P/3) and spot map (Ex. P/4) and I signed the same.There is a lengthy cross-examination of this witness.In his cross-examination, he deposed the same facts and his evidence is unshakable.5 CRA No. 2349/2014 Thereafter, I went to my house and in the morning, I noticed that the lady who was quarreling was lying dead in the room.Blood was also there.Police came there and recorded my statement.I performed the post-mortem of the deceased.I noticed the following injuries on the person of the deceased : 6 CRA No. 2349/20146 CRA No. 2349/2014(i) Ligature mark and abrasion of 22 cm x cm on the neck below 7 cm from the chin.(ii) Abrasion mark below mandibular angle 5 cm.(iii) Abrasion mark on the neck below mandibular angle of 7 cm and 9.5 cm.Ligature mark and abrasions were caused by strangulation and the injuries were ante-mortem in nature.I noticed that there was injury on the stomach and neck of the deceased.I sent the dead body for post- mortem.Thereafter, the case was handed over to Mr. N.L.Dhurve (ASI) for further investigation.7 CRA No. 2349/2014N.L.Dhurve (PW-13), ASI deposed that I was posted as Sub Inspector and conducted investigation of the case.I recorded statement of Vatsala Bai, Shanno Bi, Babita Bai, Anil Sahu, Kishan Singh, Nitu Kelkar, Thakur Ram Rai, Amit Singh Rathor and Vineeta Jacob.I signed both the documents.Thereafter, charge- sheet was filed.It is mentioned in the merg intimation that the landlord noticed that appellant and his wife were quarreling.He was beating the deceased.Thereafter, he returned back to his house and on the next morning, he noticed that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the room.Appellant was absent.The evidence of Thakur Ram Rai (PW-1) is important.He specifically deposed that he witnessed that appellant and his wife were quarreling with each other in the night.There were heated exchange of words between both of them and thereafter, in the morning, the dead body of the deceased was found.Appellant was not present in the house.His motor bike was also not there.Anil Sahu (PW-4) corroborated the fact that a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the appellant.From the evidence of both the witnesses, this fact has been proved that the appellant was 8 CRA No. 2349/2014 present at the house in the night and quarrel had taken place between the appellant and deceased.The appellant produced defence witness to substantiate the fact that he had stayed in a lodge on the date of incident.However, this fact has been discarded by the Trial Court.In our opinion, this defence evidence is not reliable.8 CRA No. 2349/2014The appellant was arrested on 16.03.2012 i.e. after four days of the incident.The deceased was his wife.If the appellant was not involved in the offence, why he was absconded for a period of 4 days.There was a dispute between him and Thakur Ram Rai who is working as constable in the Police department.The deceased was keep of Thakur Ram Rai and he has been falsely implicated by Thakur Ram Rai.He further denied the fact that he was living as tenant in the house of Thakur Ram Rai.This fact is contrary to the evidence of other witnesses.Hence, the appellant has not offered sufficient 9 CRA No. 2349/2014 explanation.9 CRA No. 2349/2014He had strangulated the deceased.The nature of injuries as deposed by the doctor on the person of the deceased indicate that the appellant had acted in a cruel and barbaric manner.16 CRA No. 2349/2014 | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,429,676 | (i).P.W.1 is a minor victim girl.P.W.2 is the mother of the minor victim girl.On 08.02.2004, at about 06.00 p.m., the accused came to P.W.1's house and took P.W.1 in his cycle and made her to lie in the pit and removed the dress and committed rape on her.P.W.1- the victim, weeping in pain, bite his cheek and threw mud on the eyes of the accused and escaped from the place of occurrence, which was witnessed by one shepherd (P.W.3), who rescued her and handed over to P.W.12-Jesper, who, in turn, handed over her to P.W.2 in her house.P.W.1 informed about the incident.Thereafter, P.W.2, with the help of her brother viz., Ramakrishnan, took P.W.1 to the Police station.(ii).P.W16- the Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P.1-complaint, recorded the statement of P.W.2 and registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2004 under Sections 366 (A) and 376 I.P.C under Ex.P.17-First Ifnormation Report and forwarded the same to the Magistrate concerned and copies to the superior officers.(iii).P.W.14-Manokaran, the Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation and on 09.02.2004, he visited the place of occurrence and preparedhttp://www.judis.nic.in Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.2 in the presence of witnesses and 3 Ex.P.13-Rough Sketch and also sent the victim to the hospital for medical examination and recorded her statement.Thereafter, P.W.14 arrested the accused and seized the material objects, viz., M.O.4 to M.O.6 and also collected the dress from the victim and sent to the Forensic Lab.Subsequently, he handed over the case file to P.W.17, the Deputy Superintendent of Police.(iv).On receipt of case file, P.W.17 visited the place of occurrence on 21.02.2004, prepared observation Mahazar-Ex.P.5 and also Ex.P.18-rough sketch and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.On 25.08.2004, P.W.15 took the victim girl for medical examination and completed the investigation on 27.08.2004 and finally, laid final report against the accused.(v).Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed as many as four charges under Sections 366(A), 376 IPC, 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(PA) Act against the accused.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.17 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and M.O.1 to M.O.6 were marked.(vi).When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution, he denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.However, he neitherhttp://www.judis.nic.in choose to examine any witnesses not to mark any document.(vii).The Trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has found the appellant guilty and accordingly, convicted him for the offences under Sections 363 and 376 r/w 511 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 363 I.P.C. and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 376 r/w 511 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the appellant / sole accused has come up with the present Criminal Appeal.3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.He would further submit that the accused was no way connected with the crime and he had never visited the house of P.W.1 and he neverhttp://www.judis.nic.in took P.W.1 in his cycle, as alleged by the prosecution.Adding further, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in this case, one of the witnesses viz., Ramakrishnan had tried to give his daughter in marriage to the accused for several times.The accused refused to marry her.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that a combined reading of the evidence of P.W.2 shows the strong motive for false implication of the accused in the case at hand.P.1 was given before the Police, after deliberation of the said Ramakrishnan.Besides Ex.P.1, there is no whisper about any attempt or alleged rape on the victim girl.The alleged occurrence was taken place in the pit.The medical evidence shows that there was no injury on the body of P.W.1 and there was no symptom of rape.Thus, the entire prosecution is highly doubtful in this case.The sister of P.W.1, who was allegedly present at the time of occurrence, was also not examined before the trial Court.Then, he prayed for acquittal of the accused.Whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that P.W.1 is a minor girl and there was no necessary for giving a false complaint and nobody will take such kind of risk.The evidence of P.W.1 clearly proves the attempt of the accused person to commit rape on her.It is settled law that when the medical evidence does not corroborate by the evidence of the prosecutrix, the conviction can be based only on the oral testimonyhttp://www.judis.nic.in of the prosecutrix, if found to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. 6Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.In the light of the above submission, now it has to be analysed whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?.Admittedly, P.W.3 is the witness, who was said to have taken P.W.1 from the place of occurrence and handed over to P.W.12 and one Charles.P.W.6 Chandran is the owner of M.O.4-cycle and he had deposed that the accused was known to him and he did not know anything about the occurrence and he was treated as hostile witness.Furthermore, P.W.15, the Medical Officer deposed that there was no external injury on breast or the private parts of the victim and there is no evidence of sexual intercourse.Of course, the offence of rape is a heinous one.Such offence is required to be proved.It is the onus of the prosecution to prove charge beyond all reasonable doubt.It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused.Each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.It is the specific version of the prosecution that P.W.1, who was aged about 10 years, was taken out from her house by the accused in a cycle and she was raped.It is the specific version of P.W.1 that she was taken in the cycle to the place of occurrence and the accused undressed and penetrated his penis in her private part and forcibly committed rape on her.It washttp://www.judis.nic.in the evidence of P.W.1 that the crime took place in a rough terrain.She was forced to lie and thereafter, the accused committed rape.The occurrence was seen by one shepherd.It is curious to note that P.W.1 was only a minor girl aged about 10 years at the time of occurrence.But, no such injury whatsoever was found on her body.The Medical Officer's evidence clearly proved the said fact.The Court has to see as to whether the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence to accept her evidence to base the conviction even without any medical evidence and only when the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, the corroboration is not at all required.It is the specific contention of the accused in this case that he has denied the marriage with the daughter of one Ramakrishnan.The said Ramakrishnan is none other than P.W.2's brother.In this regard, the evidence of P.W.1, when carefully seen, she has also admitted that Ramakrishnan is her uncle.P.W.2 is the mother and in her evidence, it is clearly stated that with the help of Ramakrishnan, she went to the Police station and filed Ex.It is curious to note that Ex.P.1 was filed at the instance of the said Ramakrishnan.These facts probabilized the defence theory.The said Ramakrishnan has not beenhttp://www.judis.nic.in examined before the Court.The Medical Officer also found that 8 there was no sign of any sexual intercourse, as spoken to by P.W.1 in her evidence.It is further to be noted that while lodging the complaint-Ex.P.1, there was no whisper as to forcibly committing rape on her.Whereas, for the first time, P.W.1, in her evidence, has given evidence as if she was forcibly raped.That apart, her evidence also indicates that on the way to the place of occurrence, there were many people and also a Bazaar is situated.If really any such incident occurred, some person would be to react immediately to question the accused then and there.But, nobody has come forward.That is also one of the reasons to doubt the version of the prosecution.It is also to be noted that it is the specific version of the prosecution that while the accused taking P.W.1 from her house, P.W.2's elder daughter was very much present in the house, but she has not been examined by the Police.All these facts create serious doubt about the entire prosecution.Ramakrishnan has also not been examined.There is no symptom of sexual intercourse found by the Medicalhttp://www.judis.nic.in Officer at the time of examination of the victim.She was 9 examined on the next day itself.It is further to be noted that the specific version of P.W.1 was that she bite the accused four times, which is also found to be false.If it had happened, there must be some bite marks on the body of the accused, which are not available.All these facts create serious doubt about the entire prosecution.In fact, the same probabilised the defence theory of false implication of the accused in the case on hand.Without any corroboration of medical evidence, when the evidence of the prosecutrix suffers from infirmities, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is certainly entitled to get the benefit of doubt.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, by judgment dated 17.09.2008, made in S.C.No.83 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges.Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.Bail bond executed by the appellant and the sureties shall stand terminated.1.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District .2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kangaikondan Police Station, Tirunelveli Rural.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 11 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.tsg Judgment made in CRL.A(MD)No.443 of 2008 04.10.2018http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,434,609 | Heard learned counsel for the parties.The sole appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."] and sentenced toundergo imprisonment for life.On appeal being preferred, the High Court confirmedthe conviction.Hence, this appeal by special leave.The appellant, who is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if notrequired in connection with any other case.[B.N. AGRAWAL] ...................... | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,444,746 | According to the prosecution story, the prosecutrix was taken by the present appellant Imran and co-accused Shrikant.It is alleged that after covering some distance, the co-accused came there with a motorcycle and further journey was performed by the co-accused Shrikant and the prosecutrix on his motorcycle.He further submits that there is no overtact available except facilitating the main accused for some time.The case of the present appellant stands on parity with that of the co-accused Jitendra Bhabar.Learned counsel for the complainant/objector opposes the appeal on the ground that after the incident, the prosecutrix was again abducted by these accused persons.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA) | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,448,634 | In Gian Singh Vs.% (ORAL) Quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 62/1/2012 titled as Sapan Preet Singh and Another v. Jagjeet Singh and Ors.Respondents No.1 & 2, present in the Court, submit that the family dispute which led to lodging of complaint in question, now stands cleared between the parties in terms of aforesaid Settlement Agreement whose terms have been fully acted upon and they affirm the contents of their affidavits of 10th August, 2015 supporting this petition and submit that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are relatives, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of affidavit of respondents No.1 & 2 and the fact that the family dispute, which led to lodging of the complaint in question, now stands cleared between the parties, who are relatives, I find that in order to restore cordiality between them, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question deserve to be put to an end.Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `30,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Ministers Relief Fund within a week from today.This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.Dasti to both sides. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,451,132 | Hence I allow CAN No.8691 of 2018, recall the order dated October 5, 2018 and restore the writ petition to its original file and number.The petitioner is a retired employee of the South- Eastern Railway.She claims to have lodged a complaint with the Uluberia police station on June 2, 2017 inter alia complaining that one Mukesh Sari also known as Mukesh Sharma, the sixth respondent herein, has fraudulently obtained some cheque leaves of her official bank account and has misappropriated money of about Rs.3 lakh.W.P.No.1434(W) of 2018 Chhabi GhoshThe State of West Bengal & Ors. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,452,592 | C.R.M. 9670 of 2014 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12.8.2014 in connection with G.R. Case No. 451 of 2014 arising out of Dhupguri P.S. Case No. 34 of 2014 dated 27.01.2014 under Sections 417/376/323/ 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Leave is granted to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to amend the cause title of the application for anticipatory bail as the said learned Counsel submits that wrong Section of the Indian Penal Code is mentioned in the cause title.Hence it is ordered that in the event of arrest the petitioners ( Rajib Alam @ Rajibul Islam ) shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri on conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioner will meet the Investigating Officer once in a week till completion of the investigation.2 The application for anticipatory bail is disposed of.( Tapan Kumar Dutt, J. ) ( R. K. Bag, J. ) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,453,201 | On29.03.2017, the informant lady came to the police station along withminor victim and lodged report (Exh.31).It is the contention of theinformant that she was living with her parents-in-law and a daughter[victim], aged 16 years.At the relevant time the victim had left herschooling after completing 9th standard education and was staying at ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 ::: Judgment apeal147.20 3home.On 26.03.2017, the victim was not seen in the house,however, the informant received a victim's phone call informing thatshe is alongwith the accused.Then on 28.03.2017 in the evening thevictim returned to the house.On enquiry, the victim disclosed thatshe was having love affair with the accused.She stated that theaccused assured her for marriage, and they had physical relations.Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::Judgment apeal147.20 22. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by thelearned Extra Joint Additional District Judge, Nagpur in SessionsTrial (Special Child Protection) Case No. 39/2018 dated 31.01.2020,thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable underSection 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act" for short) andunder Section 376 [2][n] of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencinghim to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine ofRs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorousimprisonment for 2 months, the appellant has approached this Court.The prosecution story as could be gathered from thematerial placed on record is thus -The informant was working on a construction site, where theaccused was also doing centering work.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::Victim detailed that in the earlier month also the accused had sexualintercourse with her in the building where they were working.On the basis of said report, police registered crime videC.R.No.173/2017 and carried investigation.Panchnama of the sceneof offence was drawn, clothes of victim were seized, necessarysamples were collected, victim was got medically examined and oncompletion of investigation, final report came to be filed in theSpecial Court constituted under POCSO Act. Since accused deniedthe charge, prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses tobring home the guilt of the accused.The prosecution evidenceconsists of victim, informant, medical officer and police persons.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::medical examination report and documents relating to date of birthof victim girl.On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court held thatthe prosecution succeeded in proving that the victim was a "child"within the meaning of Section 2[d] of the POCSO Act. Further it isheld that the prosecution succeeded in proving that the accusedcommitted repetitive penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl andaccordingly, convicted him for the offence under Section 5[l] i.e.aggravated penetrative sexual assault, punishable under Section 6 ofthe POCSO Act, and for the offence punishable under Section 376[2][n] of the Indian Penal Code.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellant/accused submitted that the learned trial Judge has grosslyerred in passing the order of conviction and sentence.He submitsthat there is an inordinate delay in lodging the first informationreport (FIR).He further submitted that the perusal of evidence ofP.W.1 victim and P.W.2 Informant would reveal that there werematerial inconsistencies and omissions.It is his submission thatthe prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the victim wasbelow 18 years of age i.e. a child, within the meaning of Section 2[d] ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 ::: Judgment apeal147.20 5of the POCSO Act. According to him, at the most it is a case ofconsensual sex with a major girl.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::Per contra, the learned A.P.P. appearing for State hassubmitted that in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the POCSOAct, there is statutory presumption against the accused.It issubmitted that the appellant grossly failed to rebut the presumption.According to him, the prosecution has successfully proved bydocumentary evidence that the victim was minor at the relevanttime.It is her submission that the evidence of victim as well asinformant is trustworthy and reliable.According to the learnedA.P.P., the prosecution has duly explained the delay in lodgment ofFIR and as such, the order of conviction calls for no interference.While appreciating the rival submissions, it will benecessary to bear in mind that the term "child", has been definedunder Section 2[d] of the POCSO Act, as it means any person belowthe age of 18 years.While appreciating evidence, one should alsobear in mind that Section 29 of the POCSO Act, provides apresumption in favour of the prosecution regarding commission ofoffence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the POCSO Act. No doubt the ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 ::: Judgment apeal147.20 6presumption can be lifted by adducing contrary evidence.It is theduty of the prosecution firstly to establish beyond reasonable doubtthat the victim was a child.Unless the prosecution proves that sheis a child, a person cannot be convicted under the provisions ofPOCSO Act. Since the presumption is running against the accused,the evidence requires minor scrutiny.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::The victim deposed that her date of birth is 04.11.2001,meaning thereby on the date of occurrence she was 15 years 5months of age.Moreover, she has produced a copy of hospitalcertificate (Exh.15) showing the date of birth of victim and copy ofschool transfer certificate to support that victim is a minor.Thelearned counsel for accused straneously argued that the prosecutionhas miserably failed to prove that the victim was minor at therelevant time.He has strongly criticized two documents tendered bythe prosecution during the course of evidence.It is also submittedthat those two documents does not form part of charge sheet, but, atthe time of recording evidence, they were tendered.It is his ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 ::: Judgment apeal147.20 7submission that without looking to the authenticity of thesedocuments or without examining the author of those documents, thelearned trial Judge has wrongly relied on them.He would submitthat the prosecution has not produced birth date certificate issued bythe Corporation or Local Authority, nor school leaving certificate offirst school attended.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::Since the age of victim is a vital aspect in this case, itneeds serious consideration.Undoubtedly, the prosecution has notexamined any witness to prove either certificate issued by theHospital or School leaving certificate.Careful examination of recordindicates that both documents were not part of the charge sheet.Itreveals that victim girl was examined on 08.03.2019, whilst bothdocuments were tendered later on 26.03.2019, when the informantP.W.2 was examined.On perusal of the evidence of P.W. 2victim's mother, it reveals that, at the time of giving evidence she hasreferred to a certificate issued by the Hospital (Exh.15), and schoolleaving certificate (Ex.16), which are exhibited.The trial Courtwhile evaluating both the documents (paragraph no.8) observed thatthe accused has not challenged these documents.To my mindwithout any material the trial Court has proceeded by presuming ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 ::: Judgment apeal147.20 8that these two documents are not challenged.Pertinent to note thatduring cross examination of P.W.1 [paragraph no.6], it wassuggested that the victim was about 18 years of age at the time ofoccurrence.Likewise, in paragraph no.3 suggestion was given to theinformant [P.W.2] that both the certificates, Exhs.15 and 16, arewrong.Inasmuch as during statement under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, the accused never admitted thegenuineness of these documents.Therefore, on the legal touchstoneit requires consideration whether both these documents are provedin accordance with law, whether the contents of the documents areproved and further whether they are reliable.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::The learned Counsel for the appellant while criticizingthe said evidence has relied on various decisions of this Court, incases of :-(1) Ravi Anandrao Gurpude .vrs.State of Maharashtra -(2) Raju Sukhdeo Dabhade .vrs.The State of Maharashtra -(3) Dilip s/o Bhaiyyasingh Tekan .vrs.State of Maharashtra -::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::Close reading of these decision postulates that heavyburden lies on the prosecution to prove that the victim was a "child"on the date of incident.It is the duty of the investigating officer tocollect the evidence about the age of victim.Production ofdocuments relating to age of the victim must be at the earliestpossible opportunity.The school leaving certificate issued by thesecond school attended by the victim is not a primary evidence.Lastly, it is observe that the evidentiary value of the school recordwould depend on proof of primary evidence or source of informationon the basis of which entry is recorded.In the light of these settledpropositions, the evidence about age of victim requires scrutiny.Asnoted above, the prosecution has not tendered both documentsalong with the charge sheet.Pertinent to note that at the time ofexamination of P.W.2 (victim's mother), the documents weretendered.At this juncture a profitable reference can be made to thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jarnail Singh .vrs.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::ruled that, while determining the age of the prosecutrix, rulesframed under the Juvenile Justice Rules should be the basis for suchdetermination.The new enactmenti.e.Here the prosecution has neither collected the date ofbirth certificate from the local authority, nor the certificate Exh.15, isissued by such authority.Pertinent to note that the certificate issuedby the Jan Seva Hospital, Itarsi has been styled as 'Birth Certificate'.Neither the person who has issued the said certificate nor thecustodian of said record, has been examined.The original record onthe basis of which said certificate is issued, has not been produced.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::Judgment apeal147.20 11In absence of certificate from the Corporation or the Local Authority,such certificate issued by the hospital without any basis cannot berelied.To the next, the prosecution has relied on the schooltransfer certificate [Exh.16], of the victim.The certificate Exh.16, disclosesthat the student [victim] attended the school from 30.06.2015 to30.09.2016 and has left the school since failed in 9 th standard.Therefore, it is apparent that the victim has studied there only in 9 thstandard, meaning thereby this is not a certificate issued by the firstschool attended.The prosecution has not examined the custodianof the original record on the basis of which the certificate was issued.Always evidentiary value of the school record would depend on theprimary evidence or on the source of information on the basis ofwhich the entry is recorded.In this regard, I may refer to theobservations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Birad MalSinghvi .vrs.The relevant ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 ::: Judgment apeal147.20 12observations recorded in paragraph no.14 of the said judgment readsas under :::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::"The date of birth mentioned in the scholars' register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined.The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar's register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of person concerned.If the entry in the scholar's register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but, if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value."In view of that, for more than one reason, the school transfercertificate [Exh.16] cannot be relied.The reasons are not far to seek,as apparently, the person who has carried said entry has not beenexamined.It is not disclosed that, at whose instance the date ofbirth has been recorded.Notably it is not the school first attendedby the child.Moreover, the certificate is silent about the source ofinformation on the basis of which the entry was taken.Theevidence of investigating officer is totally silent on the aspect of ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 ::: Judgment apeal147.20 13collection of evidence regarding date of birth of victim.There is noevidence to suggest that the said document is collected or verified bythe concerned authority.In that view of thematter, the prosecution has utterly failed to discharge its boundenduty to prove the age of victim that she was a child within themeaning of Section 2[d] of the POCSO Act, and therefore, benefitwill have to be extended in that behalf to the appellant / accused.Inconsequence, charge of commission of offence punishable underSection 6 of the POCSO Act would fail.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::This leaves me to see whether the conviction underSection 376 [2][n] of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable.In viewof the finding recorded above, the prosecution has failed to establishthat the victim was below 18 years of age.On failure of prosecution to establish that the victim wasbelow 18 years of age, the prosecution has to establish that thesexual intercourse was against the will and without the consent ofthe prosecutrix.The evidence of prosecutrix discloses that she had ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 ::: Judgment apeal147.20 14sexual relations firstly in the month of January and then in thefollowing month.Admittedly at that time, she has not put anygrievance to anybody.It is the evidence of victim that on26.03.2017, she went along with the accused to his native place andstayed in the house of sister-in-law of accused, where they hadphysical relations.It emerges from record that both were residingadjacent to each other and there happened to be a love affair inbetween them.The victim not only submitted her body to theaccused only once, but, repeatedly.They had enjoyed the sexualpleasures during the period of three months.In the circumstances, itcannot be said that the accused has forcibly maintained sexualrelations with the victim girl.There is no material to suggest that thevictim has submitted herself on misconception of fact.It revealsthat the victim and accused who was barely 18 years of age, wereneighbours and were in love.The evidence no where indicates thatsince inception the accused was carrying deceptive intention or heknows that consent was given by the victim on his assurance tomarry.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::The appellant /accused is acquitted from the aforesaid offences and he be set atliberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.Fine amountdeposited by the appellant/accused (if any), be refunded to him.Muddemal property be dealt as per law.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:13:38 ::: | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,462,044 | M.C. 5104/2015 Page 1 of 9The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on 13.02.2005 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi.Since the date of the marriage, the behavior of the husband and the in-laws of the complainant was cruel towards her.They used to torture and beat the complainant on several occasions and kept on demanding money.The complainant was also given some medicines without prescription and due to the same her health deteriorated.The accused persons later destroyed all the documents relating to the medicines.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh.Jeetu Sharma and Smt.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by Inspector Rajni Chopra.Every now and then the mother-in-law of the complainant used to insult the complainant for not bringing adequate dowry and used to humiliate her for not bringing a motorcycle, car etc. Thereafter, the respondent no.2/complainant lodged a complaint in the CAW Cell, Nanakpura which later resulted into the registration of the FIR in question against the petitioners.During the pendency of the same, both the parties to the petition mutually settled all their matrimonial disputes amicably.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved.It is agreed that the amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be payable at the time of recording of the first motion statement before the concerned Family Court.It is also agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs shall be paid to respondent no.2 at the time of the quashing petition before this Court.It is also agreed that custody of the child, namely, Ishank shall remain with respondent no.2 forever and that the petitioner no.1 shall never claim the custody in future.In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.M.C. 5104/2015 Page 8 of 9Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.165/2012 dated 03.12.2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Crime (Women) Cell and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.This petition is accordingly disposed of. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,472,860 | This Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused No.1 in S.C.No.97 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram, wherein, the appellant was tried along with two others for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 IPC.P.W.5 is Page 2 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009 the father of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and P.Ws.1 and 2 are the sisters of the accused Nos.1 and 2. P.W.3 is the husband of P.W.1 and he was running a cement dealer shop.Page 2 of 172.2.P.W.5 was having vacant land in Gandhi Nagar, Devipattinam, and he gave some pieces of land to the appellant as well as to P.W.1 and the accused No.2 and apart from that, he was having a vacant house site in the same place.The accused Nos.1 and 2 and the other deceased accused insisted that the vacant land must be settled in their favour, but, P.W.3 insisted for a share to P.W.5 also.P.W.3 insisted that some property must be given to P.W.5 and his wife, but the accused Nos.1 and 2 objected to the same.The accused No.1/appellant shouted at P.W.3 for intervening in their panchayat and also intimidated him that if he comes out, his chest bone would be broken.The panchayat was held on 04.11.2007 at 08.00 a.m. in the Jamath and after returning from the panchayat, P.W.3 informed his wife P.W.1 and his Page 3 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009 sister-in-law P.W.2 regarding the quarrel that took place in the panchayat.The deceased, the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 3, advised her father to ignore the same and to open his shop and therefore, he went to his shop.Page 3 of 172.4.On 04.11.2007, around 10.00 a.m., P.Ws.1 and 2 were sitting in front of P.W.1's house and were discussing about the issue.At that time, all the accused came to P.W.1's house and questioned P.W.1 as to under what authority, P.W.3 is intervening in their property dispute.P.W.1, by replying that let it be decided in the panchayat, entered into her house, but, she was intercepted by the accused No.1/appellant, who assaulted her and by that time, the deceased intervened and advised her mother to go inside the house.This appellant/accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with a wooden slab (M.O.1) meant for centring purposes.The deceased fell down and became unconscious.2.5.On receipt of this information, P.W.3 came with an omni van, took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram.Dhanalakshmi (P.W.8), Government Doctor at Ramanathapuram Government Hospital, admitted the deceased on 04.11.2007 at about 11.15 a.m. Page 4 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009 and issued the Accident Register (Ex.P3).She mentioned in the Accident Register (Ex.P3) that the patient (deceased) was assaulted by four known persons at her house at 10.30 a.m. with a stick on her head and the patient was unconscious.She also mentioned that the patient was brought by her parents.Page 4 of 172.7.The Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.17), Devipattinam Police Station, received an intimation from the Outpost, Ramanathapuram Government Hospital, on 04.11.2007 at about 12.00 noon, proceeded to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 (Ex.P1), returned to the Devipattinam Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.197 of 2007 as against this appellant and others for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 307 IPC.The printed F.I.R. is marked as Ex.The printed F.I.R. was also referred to the concerned Judicial Magistrate and was received by the Judicial Magistrate's Court on 05.11.2007 at about 04.30 p.m.3.On receipt of information about the case registered, Mr.Mahendran (P.W.18), Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police Station, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) on 04.11.2007 at about 06.00 p.m. in the presence of P.W.4 and another, prepared Rough Sketch Page 5 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009 (Ex.P12), recorded the statement of the persons who were present at the place of occurrence and thereafter, arrested the accused No.1/appellant on 05.11.2007 at 07.00 a.m. at Gandhi Nagar Bus Stop.He also recorded the confession statement of the accused No.1/appellant, pursuant to which, he recovered the wooden slab (M.O.1) from a bush.After the death intimation, he made a request to the concerned Judicial Magistrate to alter the offence into 302 IPC.The alteration report is marked as Ex.He conducted an inquest in the presence of the panchayatars at Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital on 10.11.2007 from 09.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and the inquest report is marked as Ex.Page 5 of 17P.W.5 admits in his evidence that there was a vacant site in his name and there was a dispute in sharing the vacant site.P.W.5 admits the panchayat held in the Jamath and the issue raised by his son-in-law P.W.3 for a share for them for having taken care of P.W.5 and his wife.However, he denied that he was not taken care by anyone else.Similarly, P.W.6, Vice President of Devipattinam Jamath, though treated as hostile, admits the panchayat held in their Jamath with regard to the property dispute between the accused and P.W.3, but they denied to intervene in their dispute.P.W.7, an independent witness, who participated in the panchayat, has also stated in similar lines.From the advice of his daughter Page 11 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009 (deceased), P.W.3 went to his shop to open the shop.Even in the Accident Register (Ex.P3), it is noted that the deceased sustained the injury on 04.11.2007 at 10.30 a.m. in her house and by four known persons.The panchayat held on 04.11.2007 in the Jamath is also established.22.Registry is directed to send back the original records to the trial Court, forthwith.Page 16 of 17Page 17 of 17The accused Nos.2 and 3 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 302 r/w. 34 IPC.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, by its judgment dated 16.12.2008, found this appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The other accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted of the charges for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 302 r/w. 34 IPC.As against the conviction and sentence imposed against this appellant, this appellant preferred the above Criminal Appeal.2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows : 2.1.The accused Nos.1 and 2 and one Kumar (died before trial) are brothers.Alaga Venkatasan (P.W.16), Government Doctor at Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, conducted autopsy on 10.11.2007 from 10.45 a.m. and noted down a sutured lacerated injury of 5 x 1 cm x bone deep on the left fronto parietal region.He also noticed a contusion of 10 x 7 cm on the scalp on the left Page 6 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009 fronto parieto temporal region and a fracture of skull 6 cm in length on the left temporal bone.After collecting the biological report, Dr.Alaga Venkatasan (P.W.Page 6 of 1716) gave his final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of cranio cerebral injuries.Raja (P.W.19), Inspector of Police (i/c), Devipattinam Police Station, took over the further investigation in Crime No.197 of 2007 from P.W.18 and examined P.Ws.11 and 12 and all the doctors who treated the deceased at Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, Meenakshi Mission Hospital and filed a final report as against this appellant and others before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.7.The case was committed to the Court of Session and was tried in S.C.No.97 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, and during trial, 19 witnesses were examined and 16 Page 7 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009 documents were marked as exhibits on the side of the prosecution.No witness was examined, nor any document was marked on the side of the accused.Page 7 of 178.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found this appellant/accused No. 1 guilty and convicted and sentenced as stated supra.The trial Court extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the other accused and acquitted them of the charges framed against them.9.As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the accused No.1/appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal.Sulthan Basha for M/s.Ajmal Associates, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), for the respondent.11.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the place of occurrence as well as the time of occurrence has not been proved by the Page 8 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009 prosecution.According to P.W.1, her daughter, the deceased, sustained the injury in the street, but the sketch (Ex.Similarly, when the deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, the time of occurrence is shown as 04.11.2007 at 10.30 a.m., whereas, in the Accident Register (Ex.P7), recorded at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, the time of occurrence is shown as 11.30 a.m. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined as eye-witnesses in this case, P.W.2 turned hostile and the entire case of the prosecution rests only upon the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.1 is also not trustworthy and in this case, there is no independent witness.The deceased in this case died after five days from the date of occurrence and there was no attempt to record any dying declaration.The recovery witnesses as well as the witnesses for Panchayat, the Jamathars (P.Ws.6 and 7) did not support the case of the prosecution.Similarly, the arrest and recovery were also not established in this case, since, the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.9), a witness to the recovery, did not support the case of the prosecution and was treated as hostile.The Village Assistant (P.W.Page 8 of 1710) also turned hostile.The motive in this case is a double edged weapon.P.W. 1, who intended to have a share in the property, has foisted this false case as against this appellant and others and the trial Court has rightly found the Page 9 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009 evidence of P.W.1 as not trustworthy and acquitted the other accused, but, found this appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC.Page 9 of 1712.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the prosecution had established their case through the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 19 and though the witnesses to recovery turned hostile, they have admitted their signature in the Recovery Mahazar.Similarly, the panchayatars (P.Ws.6 and 7) have also admitted the dispute pending with regard to the sharing of property and the Doctor (P.W.8) who provided First Aid to the deceased as well as the other Doctors have substantiated the case of the prosecution that the injury sustained by the deceased is possible through the weapon (M.O.1) recovered from the appellant/accused No.1 and therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate, there is no infirmity in the case of the prosecution, warranting an order of acquittal in favour of the appellant.13.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the available records.Page 10 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009Page 10 of 17At that time, the deceased daughter of P.W.1 intervened to pacify them, but the accused No. 1/appellant gave a blow on the deceased with a wooden slab and caused an injury on the forehead of the deceased.This occurrence took place at about 10.00 a.m. The deceased fell down and became unconscious.On receipt of information, P.W.3, the father of the deceased, arranged an omni van for hire, took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, and the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 04.11.2007 at about 11.15 a.m. P.W. 8, the Doctor who admitted the deceased in the Government Hospital, noted down in the Accident Register (Ex.P3) that the patient (deceased) sustained an injury on the forehead and also recorded that the injury was caused at the patient's residence on 04.11.2007 at about 10.30 a.m. On the intimation from the Government Hospital, the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.17), Devipattinam Police Station, went to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, and recorded the statement of P.W.1 (Ex.P1) and registered a case in Crime No.197 of 2007 on 04.11.2007 at about 04.00 p.m. Page 12 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009Page 11 of 17Page 12 of 17P.W.2, sister of P.W.1 and accused Nos.1 and 2, also admits the panchayat that took place on the date of occurrence; the wordy quarrel that took place on the date of occurrence; the intimidation made by the accused No. 1/appellant in the panchayat; her presence in the house of P.W.1 at 10.00 a.m. and the arrival of this appellant/accused No.1 to the place of occurrence.However, she did not refer that, it was this appellant/ accused No.1, who assaulted the deceased.Therefore, P.W.2 was also treated as hostile.But, her evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 with regard to the motive between the accused and P.W.3 in sharing of the property of P.W.5 and the panchayat held before the Jamath and the presence of the accused in the place of P.W.1's house at about 10.00 a.m. Page 13 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009Page 13 of 1717.This appellant was arrested by the Inspector of Police (P.W.18) on 05.11.2007 at about 07.00 a.m. near Gandhi Nagar Bus Stop and the wooden log (M.O.1) was recovered pursuant to his confession, in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.9) and his Assistant (P.W.10).But, P.W.9 as well as P.W.10 did not support the case of the prosecution and were treated as hostile.However, they accept their signature in the Recovery Mahazar and they have not stated that the Investigation Officer had forcibly obtained their signature from them.18.This appellant and P.W.1 are close relatives.Even the blood relatives have deposed before the Court about the earlier motive between the accused No.1 and P.W.3 with regard to the sharing of the vacant site and the panchayat held on the date of occurrence and the subsequent incident, wherein, the deceased sustained injury.The deceased was taken to the hospital immediate to the occurrence and the complaint was also lodged without any loss of time and therefore, the prosecution has established the occurrence beyond any reasonable doubt.However, the appellant/accused No.1 was not having any motive as against the deceased, but, when he attempted to assault P.W.1, the deceased Page 14 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009 intervened and sustained injury.No doubt, the other accused, who accompanied the accused No.1/appellant, were rightly acquitted by the trial Court, since, there was no specific overt act as against the other accused and this appellant was also rightly convicted of the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC, though he was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC.Page 14 of 17Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.However, considering the circumstances under which the occurrence had taken place and the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is the only bread winner of his family and is having sons and daughters depending on him, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to 4 years rigorous imprisonment.20.In fine, the conviction of the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC in S.C.No.97 of 2008 is confirmed, but the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years is reduced to 4 years.Page 15 of 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.35 of 2009Page 15 of 1721.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/accused No.1 and commit him to prison for undergoing the sentence imposed on him. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,476,600 | C. C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE e sh ad pb Pr a Digitally signed by PRASHANT hy BAGJILEWALE ad Date: 2018.05.08 03:36:37 -07'00' M of rt ou C h ig HTHE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-17035-2018 (MOHAN LAL BORASI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 1 Jabalpur, Dated : 04-05-2018 Shri R.K. Sanghi, counsel for the applicant.Shri B.P. Pandey, Govt. Adv.for the State.Shri Amit Jain, counsel for the objector.This is first application under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for e ad grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.60/2017, Pr registered at Police Station Timarni District Harda for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and a 120-B of IPC.hy Earlier the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the ad trial Court vide order dated 27.03.2017 for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC.Subsequently, M Section 409 of IPC has been added by the prosecution hence, the of applicant filed another application for grant of anticipatory bail before the trial Court.ou During the period 2011-12 to 2015-16 Societies purchased wheat from farmers on support price fixed by the Government.C Audit of the Society was conducted and no irregularity was found.h Subsequently, complaints were made that a loss to the different ig Societies was caused.Thereafter, special audit was conducted H and an offence under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC was registered.Accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court.Subsequently, Section 409 of IPC has been added.Prima facie, the offence of Criminal breach of trust appears to be suspicious.Applicant was granted anticipatory bail.It is directed that at the event of arrest of the applicant in respect of the aforesaid crime, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating officer, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.The applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency.He will further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of Cr. P. C. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,247,763 | This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.265/2014 registered at P.S. Jatara, District Tikamgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(ka), 376, 506-B, 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.As per prosecution, it is alleged that this applicant and co-accused Satyendra took away the prosecutrix to some places, where this applicant said to have gave Rs.5,000/- to co-accused Satyendra.Co-accused Satyendra further took the complainant to Jatara and Bhopal.Thereafter he committed rape on her. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,924,788 | S.C. Agarwala, R. K. Garg and D. P. Singh, for theappellants.K. L. Hathi and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered bySarkar J. This appeal arises out of a conviction for bigamyand for the abetment of it under ss. 194 and 109 of theIndian Penal Code.The trial Court acquitted the accusedpersons but on appeal the Judicial Commissioner of HimachalPradesh convicted them.Hence this appeal.Originally four persons were charged, namely, Kubja thebride, Kanwal Ram the bride-room, Hira Nand and Seesia bothrelations of the bride, the latter two having been chargedunder s. 494 read with s. 109 for abetment of the offence ofbigamy committed by the two first mentioned accused.Thecharges were framed on the complaint of Sadh Ram to whomKubja had been earlier married.The complainant had alsoimplicated Hiroo, the mother of Kubja but she was dischargedby the magistrate.Hira Nand died pending the appeal inthis Court.By this time theHindu Marriage Act, 1955 had come into force and itprohibited the marriage of a Hindu during the lifetime ofhis or her spouse.The parties belong to a village inHimachal Pradesh among whom a customary form of marriagecalled Praina, is recognised.Both the marriages wereperformed according to that form.The marriage of Kubjawith Sadh Ram though originally challenged is now accepted.The only question is whether the second marriage of Kubja,that is to say, between Kubja and Kanwal Ram, has beenproved.The evidence would show that for a marriage in this form thefollowing ceremonies are essential.First some agnaticrelation of the bridegroom goes to the bride's house andoffers her " suhag".Thereafter, a relation of the bridewho is called Prainu, brings her to the house of thebridegroom.There at the door of the house of thebridegroom coins are put in a pot and then Puja and Katha(reading of holy scriputues) are held.The, bride thennicks up the pot and takes that to the family hearth andbows there.Then she makes obeisance to the father-in-lawand the mother-in-law and other elders in the family.It was contended for the appellants that this evidence wasnot enough to show that the marriage of Kubja and Kanwal Ramcan be said to have been performed.In Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. TheState of Maharashtra(1) this Court held that a marriage isnot proved unless the essential ceremonies required for itssolemnisation are proved to have been performed.Theevidence of the witness called to prove the marriageceremonies, showed that the essential ceremonies had notbeen performed.The trial Court also took the same view.The learnedjudicial Commissioner does not seem to have taken adifferent view.The learned Judicial Commissioner, however, thought thatapart from the evidence about the marriage ceremoniesearlier mentioned there was other evidence which would provethe second marriage.He first referred to a statement bythe appellant Kanwal Rain that he had sexual relationshipwith Kubja.We are entirely unable to agree that this, evenif true, would at all prove his marriage with Kubja.Thenthe learned Judicial Commissioner relied on a statementfiled by Kubja, Hira Nand and Hiroo in answer to anapplication for restitution of conjugal rights filed by SadhRam against Kubja and others, in which it was stated thatKubja married Kanwal Ram after her marriage with Sadh Ramhad been dissolved. | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,488 | After marriage she was residing with her husband and in-laws in village Birsinghpur.Relations between Meena on one side and the accused persons on the other side were not cordial.On 19.4.1995, at about 6-6.30 in the morning, in the house of her husband, Meena got burnt and died.It is said that though the door latch of the room, in which her dead body was found, was bolted from inside.Accused Ramadhar, elder brother of Subhash, lodged the report about the incident in police station at about 7.25 a.m. Police registered Murg and proceeded for enquiry.Family members of the deceased were informed.Dead body of deceased was then sent for postmortem examination to Community Health Centre, Amarpatan, where Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW-8) conducted autopsy and found that deceased had died due to burn injuries.The postmortem examination report is Ex.On 21.4.1995, Jeevanlal Agrawal, the maternal grand father of the deceased, submitted a written report (Ex.P/4) to Station Officer of Police Station, Amarpatan, alleging that after marriage when deceased had come back to her parents' house, she had disclosed to her parents and other family members that her husband and other accused persons were angry because of not giving sufficient dowry in the marriage and they used to extend taunts to 4 her about that.She had also disclosed that her husband used to say that he did not marry her out of his own wish, he had married under the influence of his elder brother.Deceased was made to understand that everything would be alright with the passage of time, but her husband used to manhandle and insult her.When she conceived, he asked her to go to her uncle's house and get her pregnancy aborted.She was also intimidated for not doing so.However, she delivered a female child.Even thereafter, the relations between them could not be improved.On 13.3.1995, when her brother Sanjay went to her house to invite her for some family function, she complained to him about her harassment.According to Jeevanlal, on 19.4.1995, at about 8.30 a.m., a police constable informed him that her grand daughter had died.All the family members went to the house of accused persons and saw that deceased was burnt to death by them.According to him, police did not record their statements.Deceased was residing at Amarpatan in joint family house.She insisted Subhash to keep her also at Maihar, but since she was suffering with disease of hiccups, he did not yield to her demand.She did not want to live in joint family.She was frustrated because her cousin Sanjay, though invited them in some function, but he did not took her with him.According to him, smell of kerosene was present on the body.Deep burns were present over scalp, hair were singed, face was dark, it was charred and deformed, tung was protruding out.Whole of the chest including breast and upper 2/3rd of abdomen was deeply burnt, charred and black.Back of trunk was burnt deeply up to hips and continued over the 6 back of thighs.He also admitted that Meena used to write letters to him regarding his agony in her nuptial home, but he did not keep any letter safe.Similarly, deceased's mother Janak Dulari (PW-15) admitted that in her police statement (Ex.D/2) she did not disclose that accused persons demanded gold, VCR and TV.She also did not disclose that Subhash used to beat her and others harassed her.According to her, she had not given the statement (Ex.Per: Rakesh Saksena, J Since the aforesaid revisions and the appeal arise out of common judgment, this judgment shall govern the disposal of all the above revisions and appeal.Appellant Subhash has filed Criminal Appeal No.1188/1995 against the judgment dated 26.8.1995, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, district Satna, in Sessions Trial No.71/1995, convicting him under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.No 3 separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.Complainant R.K. Ragrawal has filed Criminal Revision No.821/1995 against the same impugned judgment whereby accused Smt. Meena, Ramadhar, Premchandra and Smt. Droupadi have been acquitted.He has also filed Criminal Revision No.820/1995 against accused/respondent Subhash for enhancement of his sentence.Therefore, the written report was submitted.After investigation, police filed charge sheet against five accused persons.In the morning, she went to take bath in their other house, which was situated in front of a residential house.When she did not return, other persons went there and found her lying 5 burnt in the room, which was bolted from inside.She was already dead.Family members of deceased came and attended the inquest and the funeral, they did not make any complaint to anybody, but, subsequently, Jeevanlal lodged report with the police making false allegation of demand of dowry.Parents of deceased also took away his daughter.In order to bring home the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined 15 witnesses.Accused also examined 3 witnesses to substantiate their defence.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted accused Ramadhar, Premchandra, Smt. Droupadi and Smt. Meena of all the charges, however, finding appellant Subhash, the husband of deceased, guilty of the offence under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code convicted and sentenced him, as mentioned above.Appellant Subhash has challenged the impugned judgment of his conviction in his appeal, whereas complainant has challenged the acquittal of other accused persons in revision.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record.Arms were also burnt.The areas of umbilical abdomen and perineum interiorly were escaped from burns.Burns were ante-mortem in nature.No other mark of injury was found on the body.In the opinion of doctors, cause of death was shock due to extensive ante-mortem burns.Her postmortem report (Ex.P/5) written and signed by Dr. P.K. Sharma, R.K. Jain and A.K. Awadhiya is placed on record.Investigating Officer K. Mahendra Singh (PW-11) deposed that on receiving information about the death of deceased, he had recorded Murg report (Ex.P/9) and conducted inquest proceedings.He had recorded inquest memo (Ex.P/1) and sent the dead body for postmortem examination.It was thus clearly evident that deceased Meena died of burn injuries.This fact was not disputed by the appellant.Thus, it stood established that the death of deceased was caused by burns otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage.Now the question before this Court is whether soon before her death deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused persons for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry.Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of family members and relatives of deceased.Their evidence was general and vague in nature.Trial Court itself found that their evidence in respect of demand of VCR, TV and ten Tolas of gold was not reliable.It failed to consider that by the prosecution evidence it was not established that deceased was subjected to 7 any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death.The death of deceased took place after about four and half years of her marriage.She had also delivered a female child.Accused persons were falsely implicated.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant.Other accused persons in the case were elder brothers of Subhash and their wives.They all lived jointly in Amarpatan.After marriage, the behaviour of accused persons with deceased was not proper.Deceased used to tell that they passed comments and taunted her that her father had given insufficient dowry.Subhash used to maltreat her.She disclosed these matters to him last time about 4-5 months before her death.Jeevanlal further deposed that cash, gold and silver etc. to be given in dowry was negotiated before marriage and that was given.All these articles were given by them out of their own wish.He, however, clarified that all the talks and negotiations about dowry were done by accused Ramadhar, elder brother of Subash.After about two years of marriage, deceased had delivered a female child.Subhash had asked deceased to get the pregnancy aborted, but since the deceased had given birth to a child, Subhash got annoyed.He, however, admitted that he did not disclose this fact in the written report (Ex.P/4) submitted by him to police and also in his police statement (Ex.D/1).Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since this witness admitted that the deceased had complained him about the taunting made by accused persons only 2-3 times and, at the last, about six months before her death, it cannot be held that she was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death.Before expressing our opinion in this regard, it is also necessary to examine the evidence of other witnesses.Kishore Kumar (PW-4), brother of deceased, stated that about 5 months before her death deceased had come to his house and told to family members that her in-laws used to make demand of dowry and maltreat her.She had made this complaint against Ramadhar, Premchandra, Meena, Droupadi and her husband Subhash.However, in para-8 of his statement he did not disclose this fact to anybody and also did not mention these facts in his statement before the police.According to him, deceased had complained about the said misbehaviour and demand after about 15 days of marriage, after about one years thereafter and about five months before her death.Kishore Kumar further deposed that his cousin Sanjay Agrawal had gone to the house of deceased to invite her and her in-laws, but they did not send her and made demand of dowry saying that if their demand would not be not fulfilled, they would not be able to see the face of deceased.Though Sanjay Agrawal (PW-6) before the court reiterated the same things, but these facts were found missing in his police statement (Ex.D/32).Kishore Kumar (PW-4) admitted that the fact of demand of ten Tolas of gold, colour TV and VCR by the accused persons was not disclosed by him to police.Kamla Devi (PW-5) stated that Meena used to go to her parents' house every 2-3 months.She also used to stay at her house.She used to tell her that her in-laws used to harass her.They used to taunt her that nothing was given in dowry.Even TV, VCR and ten Tolas of gold was not given.Subhash used to beat her.According to her, when deceased became pregnant, her husband Subhash asked her to get the pregnancy terminated because he did not want child.Kamla Devi (PW-5) admitted that everything whatever was to be given in dowry was already given and nothing remained to be given in dowry.Kamla Devi also disclosed that husband of deceased was lecturer in Maihar and used to up and down daily.Meena wanted to live with him at Maihar, but Subhash did not agree for that.9 When Meena asked him to live at Obra, Subhash did not agree for it too and insisted her to live in joint family.Similar types of statements were given by Sanjay Agrawal (PW-6), cousin, Naryan Prasad (PW-12), uncle, Dr. Aditya Vansh Mishra (PW-13) and Anita Mishra (PW-14), neighbours of deceased's family.Rajkumar Agrawal (PW-7), father of deceased, deposed that whenever his daughter came to his house, she told that she was married in a wrong family.Their demand of dowry remained ever existing and they used to harass her.Her husband used to abuse and beat her.Other in-laws used to make demand of TV, VCR and ten Tolas of gold.Her husband wanted her pregnancy terminated because he did not want a child.However, when confronted with his police statement (Ex.D/33), he could not explain as to why these facts were not mentioned by him there.His statement was recorded twice.2) to police.Police had obtained her signatures on the blank paper.Janak Dulari (PW-15) stated that she had met the deceased last time about 5-6 months before her death.She also admitted that she had written letter (Ex.D/35) on 1.2.1995 to deceased.Learned counsel for the appellant referring to said letter and also to letters (Ex.D/5 to D/28), proved by Sanjay Agrawal (PW-6), written by Raj Kumar, father of deceased, and post cards (Ex.D/29, D/30 and Ex.D/31) written by uncle of deceased Mukut Bihari to the 10 in-laws of deceased, submitted that in none of these letters any resentment or complaint was expressed by parents and the uncle of deceased about the harassment or any cruelty, if meted out to deceased by them.Anita Mishra (PW-15), a neighbour of father of deceased, though deposed that deceased told to her that her husband and the in-laws used to harass and subject her to cruelty, but these facts were also found missing in her police statement (Ex.D/37).She, however, deposed that husband of deceased insisted her for miscarriage of pregnancy.She admitted that she had talked to deceased only about 5-6 months before her death.After scanning and critically scrutinizing the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, we find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not enough to compel us to hold that appellant Subhash had made demand of gold, VCR, TV or any other thing in dowry.The evidence in respect of dowry was discrepant and contradictory besides the improvements in the evidence of almost all the prosecution witnesses.We find that on the basis of vague and general kind of evidence no fact can be held proved.In this span of time, number of letters were written by parents and other relatives of deceased to her and her in-laws, but not even a single time any resentment or anguish was expressed about the alleged demand of dowry made by or cruelty done by the accused persons to deceased.It is also noteworthy that Rajkumar (PW-7), father of deceased did not produce any letter written by deceased to him.There appeared not much difference between the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses against all the accused persons including appellant Subhash, but trial Court, in our opinion, without any valid reason assumed that except appellant there was no evidence against others that they taunted or harassed the deceased contributing to her suicide.There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned.If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to 13 disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."On examining the facts and circumstances of the instant case in the light of the above legal proposition, we find that it was not established that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty for, or in connection with, demand of dowry.Apart from it, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses it appears that they heard about the harassment or cruelty at the hands of accused persons to deceased only about 5-6 months before the death of deceased.According to Narayan Prasad (PW-12), it was only the appellant who compelled her for abortion.Dr. Aditya Mishra (PW-13) deposed that his wife Anita had told to him that deceased had informed her that appellant threatened her that if she would not terminate her pregnancy, he would do away with her.This fact was corroborated by the evidence of Anita Mishra (PW-14) also, who deposed that she told to her husband about the above facts, which were disclosed to her by the deceased.Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: 14"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."A bare perusal of explanation (a) to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code provides that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman would also amount to cruelty.In view of the facts and circumstances established in the case against the appellant, we find that appellant was liable to be convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.In view of the above discussion, conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.He is acquitted of that charge, instead he is convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.As far as the question of sentence of appellant is concerned, Shri S.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for R.K. Agrawal, the petitioner of Criminal Revision No.820/1995 and Criminal Revision No.821/1995, submitted that respondent/accused Subhash is son in-law of Raj Kumar Agrawal.Though initially he had filed Criminal Revision No.820/1995 for enhancement of sentence of accused Subhash, but due to understanding developed between the two families, he decided to withdraw the said revisions.Shri Dwivedi submitted that he had also moved applications for withdrawal of both the revisions, but such permission was not granted.However, in the interest of daughter of accused Subhash, who has attained the age of about 16 years now, he again seeks to withdraw the aforesaid revisions.The complainant and appellant have again 15 filed a joint application indicating that they have compounded the matter.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is a lecturer in Government Higher Secondary School.He has already suffered incarceration for a period of about five and half months.If he is sent back to jail again, it would adversely affect his career as well as future of his daughter.We find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.Fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within two months.Appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1188/1995) partly allowed.In view of the submissions made by Shri S.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner Rajkumar Agrawal, Criminal Revision No.820/1995 and Criminal Revision No.821/1995 are dismissed as withdrawn. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,489,849 | (4-10-2018)This order shall govern the disposal of I.A. No.16919/2018 an application for intervention dated 26.9.2018 filed on behalf of one Vishal Khatri.It has been submitted hereby that this misc.criminal case has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioner Hemant Katare for quashing the first information report lodged by objector Prinshu Singh for offences punishable under Sections 344, 376 (1) (n), 376(2) (n) and 506 of the I.P.C.. After lodging aforesaid first information report, objector Prinshu Singh recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 5.2.2018 supporting allegations of rape against petitioner Hemant Katare.She also appeared in a press conference, wherein she reiterated her charges.Thereafter, she wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 2.4.2018; wherein, charges of rape against petitioner Hemant Katare were repeated.However, after all that, the objector Prinshu Singh took a somersault and filed an affidavit dated 3.5.2018 in the Court; wherein, she leveled allegation that one Vikramjeet Singh, co-accused in extortion case, which was falsely lodged against her, had visited her in Central Jail, Bhopal on 27.1.2018 along with her erstwhile Advocate Akash Telang and mentioning the name of intending intervener Vishal Khatri, a Journalist Dharmendra Pegwar and State Vice President of Bharti Janta Party, Arvind Bhadoriya had assured her that no harm would come to her, if she leveled allegation of rape against present petitioner Hemant Katare.They warned her that if she did not co-operate with 3 M.Cr.C. No.7233/2018 them, she will have to remain in jail in extortion case for at least three months.They had brought the draft of a report against petitioner Hemant Katare and had asked her to copy the same in her handwriting.Therefore, she had lodged the report of rape against petitioner Hemant Katare under the influence of aforesaid persons and had also given false statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and in the press conference.She had also leveled false allegation against petitioner Hemant Katare in the letter written by her to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the intending intervener Vishal Khatri had stated that he had visited objector Prinshu Singh while she was in Central Jail at the behest of her mother Geeta Singh.When he had met her, he was accompanied by her mother Geeta Singh.Learned counsel for petitioner Hemant Katare and learned counsel for objector Prinshu Singh on the other hand have opposed the application.His name has been mentioned only at one place, where objector Prinshu Singh has stated that Vikramjeet Singh had told her that Vikramjeet Singh, Vishal Khatri and Dharmendra Pegwar had gone to meet the objector; however, there is no allegation that either Vishal Khatri actually met her or influenced her in any manner; therefore, it has been prayed that the application for intervention be dismissed.On perusal of relevant record and due consideration of rival contentions, the Court is of the view that this application for intervention must fail for the reasons hereinafter stated:Petitioner Hemant Katare, who is sitting member of Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh, had lodged a first information report against objector Prinshu Singh on 24.1.2018 under Sections 384, 388 and 120-B of the I.P.C.. Objector Prinshu Singh was arrested in connection with aforesaid case and was lodged in Central Jail, Bhopal.From Central Jail, Bhopal, she wrote a letter to the D.I.G, Bhopal; whereon, a first information report was lodged against present petitioner Hemant Katare under Sections 342, 376(1)(n), 376(2)(n) and 506 of the I.P.C. This misc.criminal case has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the aforesaid first information report lodged by objector Prinshu Singh against petitioner Hemant Katare.After leveling allegations of rape against petitioner Hemant Katare in the first information report, in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in the press conference and in the letter to the Chief Justice of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, as stated above, objector Prinshu Singh filed an affidavit dated 3.5.2018 in the Court, retracting all allegations made against the petitioner and alleging that she had leveled those allegations at the 5 M.Cr.C. No.7233/2018 behest of co-accused in extortion case, Vikramjeet Singh and Advocate Akash Telang in order to be released on bail in the extortion case.Paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 of the affidavit dated 3.5.2018 are relevant for our purpose, which read as hereunder:On 27.1.2018, I was in Central Jail, Bhopal and an advocate came to meet me; the advocate was Mr. Aakash Telang, whom I saw and met the first time and he was accompanied by two others, one of whom was Vikramjeet Singh, about whom I was aware is also a co-accused along with me.I was also told that another journalist, Dharmendra Pegwar was waiting in the Jailer's office.Vikramjeet Singh further stated that Arvind Badhoriya has asked them to convey to Prinshu Singh that she will be given all support.That is about all that appears in the affidavit with regard to intending intervener Vishal Khatri.All she is saying that Vikramjeet Singh had told her that Arvind Bhadhoriya had asked Vikramjeet Singh, Vishal Khatri and Dharmendra Pegwar to assure her that she will be given all support.In aforesaid view of the matter, this application for intervention being I.A. No.16919/2018, deserves to be dismissed. | ['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,533,174 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Shailendra Kumar @ Chotu with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No-0012 of 2020, under Sections-323, 354, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Dibiyapur, District-Auraiya, during pendency of trial.3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:(vii) learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties are neighbours and the FIR has been lodged on account of a relationship formed between the applicant and the victim which was objected to by her parents and family members.Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions.I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.(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. | ['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. |
1,925,415 | x cavity deep on the left side chest, 3 " above the left nipple, margin sharp irregular.The Doctor found duration of death as one 5 and a half day.The prosecution version, as disclosed by P.W.2 Ali Raja in the F.I.R. lodged at 9.25 a.m. on 19.12.1979 at P.S. Raunapar, Azamgarh was that there was a dispute between him and the accused (appellants) regarding the flow of the drainage of his latrine which was disrupted by the accused appellants by making constructions and by raising the level of their land; that a civil case filed by him was pending in court; that on 19.12.1979 at about half past 7 a.m. he (AH Raza) and his brothers Abdul Qayum (deceased) and Mustakim(P.W.3) were cleaning the Nabdan (the filthy water of their latrine); that the accused appellants Qamaru-Zama, Maqbool, and Imtiaz armed with spears and the accused-appellants Samkadar, Hasnain, Munsafi, Gayasuddin, Sharif, Ramjan, Ayoob, Yusuf and Anwar armed with lathis, having common object, reached there and forbade him and.his brothers from cleaning their Nabdan; that the witnesses Haji Usman, Daud and Salauddin also reached there; that he and his brothers did not stop the said cleaning work whereupon accused-appellant Qmaru-Zama, with intention to commit murder, inflicted a spear blow on Abdul Qayum (deceased) and accused-appellants Maqbool and Imtiyaz inflicted spear blows on P.W.3 Mustakim (injured); that remaining accused surrounded him and his brothers, by swinging their lathies and exhorting their companions; that Abdul Qayum and Mustakin sustaining spears blows, fell on the ground and Abdul Qayum succumbed to his injury; that many villagers had assembled there; that accused-appellants fled away towards their houses.The investigating Officer Sri Onkar Singh (P.W.8) reached the spot, prepared the necessary documents and sent the dead body for postmortem.The injured Mustakin was sent for his medical examination.4. P.W.6 Dr. G.M. Lal conducted autopsy of Abdul Qayum on 20.12.79 at 3.30 p.m. and found a single ante mortem injury on his corpse.The injury is reproduced below:(1) Punctured wound ½ cm.x ½ cm.It tallies with the time of occurrence.In his opinion, the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante -mortem injury.The injured MustakimP.W.3 was medically examined by P.W.6 Dr. G.M. Lal on 19.12.1979 at 2 p.m. The following injuries were found on his person:Lacerated wound 1.5 cm.X ½ cm.on the left side head, 8 cm.above the lobe of left ear.Dislocation of right shoulder joint with traumatic swelling 7cm x 4 cm.with deformity.Advised X-ray of right shoulder.Punctured wound 1 cm.x ½: cm.x 1 cm.deep on the left ilium.Traumatic swelling 3 cm.x 2 cm.on the left thigh.Advised X-ray.Injuries No. 2 and 4 were kept under observation and X-ray of these injuries was advised.Injuries No. 1 and 3 were found simple.In Doctor's opinion, injury No. 2 was grievous as there was dislocation of shoulder.Injury No. 3 was caused by sharp pointed weapon and the remaining injuries were caused by blunt object.After recording the statements of the witnesses and after usual investigation, P.W. 8 Omkar Singh (I.O.) submitted the charge sheet Ext. Ka. 18 against all the accused persons for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 324 and 302 IPC.The case was committed to the court of Sessions, the charges were framed against the accused-appellants and thereafter eight prosecution witnesses and one Court witness were examined.The accused- appellants denied the circumstances appearing against them in their statements under Section 313(1)(b) Cr. P.C. and pleaded that they were falsely implicated.The appellant Qamru-Zama took the plea of alibi and stated that he was admitted in Govt. hospital situated at Birno, district Ghazipur from before the date of occurrence.The appellants examined D.W. 1 Shambhu Nath Chaubey, the then compounder, D.W.2 Dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, the then Medical Officer (both posted at P.H.C. Birno) and D.W.3 Jhinnu Khan.The learned trial court after the scrutiny of the evidence convicted the appellants and sentenced them as above.We have heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri Zaffar Abbas for the appellants and Sri M.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.We have also gone through the record carefully.It would be helpful to first have a glance on material evidence.14. P.W.2 Ali Raza (complainant) deposed on 24.11.1980 that about 11 months back at about half past 7.00 a.m. he and his brothers Mustkin and Abdul Qayum were cleaning their Nabdan situated near the boundary wall of Samkadar; that the deceased Abdul Qayum was digging a pit whereas he and Mustkin were extracting the soil; that meanwhile accused Qamru Zama, Maqbool, Imtiaz, Samkadar, Hasnain, Munsafi, Mohammad Yusuf, Gayasuddin, Sharif, Ramjan, Ayoob and Anwar reached there; that accused Qamru Zama, Maqbool and Imtiaz were armed with spears and rest were armed with lathies; that accused persons forbade him and his brothers from cleaning Nabdan but he and his brothers declined to their objections; that the witnesses Usman, Daud and Salauddin also reached there; that a hot altercation between the accused persons and him and his brothers ensued; that accused persons said "MAR DALO SALO KO VA HADDI PASLI TOD DO" whereupon the accused Qamru Zama inflicted a spear blow on Qayum who sustaining spear injury fell down; that accused Maqbool and Imtiaz with their spears attacked upon Mustkin who sustaining injury also fell down; that he (Ali Raja) succeeded in escaping and fleeing away; that accused persons had inflicted a lathi blow also upon Mustkin; that Abdul Qayum had died at the spot; that the occurrence was witnessed by Usman, Daud, Salauddin and Yusuf and also by the accused's relatives Isimdar, Kalwe Husian, Aihsan and Sadar Uddin; that after committing the occurrence the accused persons left for western side.15. P.W.3 Mustkin (injured) deposed on 25.11.80 that the occurrence took place one hour after the sun-rise about 11 months back; that he and his brother Ali Raza were cleaning their Nabdan and his another brother Abdul Qayum was digging a pit; that twelve accused persons (Qamru-Zama, Maqbool, Imtiaz, Munsafi, Gayasuddin, Mohd. Yusuf, Hasnain, Sharif, Ramjan, Samkadar, Ayoob and Anwar) after forming an assembly, reached there; that the accused Qamru-Zama, Maqbool and Imtiaz were armed with spears whereas the other nine accused persons were armed with lathies; that the accused persons asked him and his brothers not to clean the Nabdan; that witnesses Usman, Salauddin and Daud also reached there; that he and his brothers did not stop the work even after the objection of the accused persons whereupon they exhorted "SALO KO JAN SE MAR DO"; that accused Qamaru Zama inflicted a spear injury on the left side of the Qayum's chest; that he (the witness) attempted to flee away but the accused persons encircled him; that accused Maqbool and Imtiaz inflicted spear blows on him; that the remaining accused persons who were holding lathies kept him encircled; that any one of them had inflicted a lathi blow from his back side; that his brother Ali Raza, getting an opportunity, ran away from the place of the occurrence; that Qayum had died on the spot; that he (witness) also fell down and became unconscious and later found himself on a cot in front of his door.The witness explained that spear blow given by given accused Maqbool caused wound in his thigh and spear wielded by accused Imtiaz could not cause the injury by its pointed side, as he bent down.P.W,4 Sala Uddin deposed that occurrence took place one hour after the sun-rise; that he was at his tube-well which was hardly 100 yards away from the place of occurrence; that upon hearing the hue and cry, he reached the spot and saw that all the accused were forbidding the complainant and his brothers Mustkin and Abdul Qayum from cleaning the Nabdan but they did not pay heed to their objection; that the accused Qamaru-Zama, Maqbool and Imtiaz were armed with spears whereas the remaining accused were armed with lathies; that Qamru-Zama inflicted spear blow on Abdul Qayum who sustaining spear injury fell down; that Ali Raza succeeded in fleeing away but Mustkin could not make good his escape; that accused Maqbool and Imtiaz inflicted spears blows and any-one accused inflicted a lathi blow upon Mustkin.17. P.W.5 Daud deposed on 26.11.80 that the occurrence took place about 11 months back about one hour after the sun-rise ; that he was going towards his field from his house; that he saw that a hot altercation was going on between the accused persons and Ali Raza, Mustkirm and Abdul Qayum; that Abdul Qayum was digging a pit whereas Ali Raza and Mustkim were cleaning the Nabdan; that the complainant and his brothers did not stop working even after the objection raised by the accused persons; that accused Qamru-Zama attacked upon Abdul Qayum by inflicting a spear blow upon him; that sustaining the spear wound, Abdul Qayum fell down and died; that accused Maqbool and Imtiaz inflicted spear blows upon Mustkin; that the remaining accused persons had taken Mustkin in a circle and were exhorting that he should not escape; that getting an opportunity Ali Raza escaped and fled away; that Mustkim sustained a lathi blow also; that thereafter all the accused persons ran away.P.W. 1 Dr.S.G.P. Gupta (Radiologist) deposed that Mustkin sustained no fracture.19. P.W.6 Dr. G.M. Lal proved Ext. Ka-3 (injury report of Mustkin) and Ex. Ka 4(Abdul Quayums post-mortem report).He deposed that injury No. 2 of Mustkin was a dislocation of bone hence it was previous hurt; that injury No. 3 of Mustkim was caused by sharp pointed weapon; that Abdul Qayum died as a result of ante mortem injury.P.W. 7 Ram Deo, (Head Constable) proved the Chik report (Ex.Ka-5)and the copy of the G.D.(Ex.21. P.W.8 Omkar Singh (Investigating Officer) proved the papers (Ext. Ka-9 to Ext.Ka-18) prepared by him during the investigation and spoke about the investigation conducted by him.There is nothing particular to comment about it.22. C.W.1 Mahesh Prasad (constable Muharrir) proved Ext. C-1 as the copy of the G.D. dated 19.12.1979 prepared by him.The Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the appellant Qamru Zatna remained hospitalized from 18.12.79 to 25.12.79 at Primary Health Centre in village Birno, district Ghazipur.On its basis, he argued that Qamru Zama was falsely implicated.In cross-examination he disclosed that there was no operation theatre at the P.H.C. nor there was any anesthetist; that the operation of the accused Qamru Zama was the first operation at P.H.C. Birno.In cross-examination, he revealed that he was simply an M.B.B.S. and had no special qualification of surgery except the house job done by him; that village Birno was situated at Ghazipur-Azamgarh road; that the distance of Azamgarh and Ghazipur from Birno was 30 Kms.and 18 Kms.respectively; that PHC Birno was an ordinary P.H.C; that it was not an upgraded P.H.C. that in the year 1979 he conducted no operation except that of Qamru Zama; that urine and blood were tested before his operation but their results were not noted on the bed head ticket; that he did not measure the blood pressure of the patient before his operation; that local anesthesia was applied by him; that he did not mention on bed head ticket that the patient was found fit for operation; that no test for blood sugar was conducted.Thus, it is evident that there was no operation theatre at P.H.C. Birno nor any anaesthetist was posted there; that P.H.C. Birno was an ordinary P.H.C. and P.W. 2 Dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha was simply an MBBS doctor; that he did not measure the blood pressure nor tested the blood sugar; that the local anesthesia, which is a very skilled job, was applied by himself; that Ghazipur, where there was a district hospital having all the facilities and infrastructure of the operation, was only 18 Km from Birno.It is strange that Qamru-Zama, instead of getting his Hydrocele operation done at Ghazipur chose an ordinary doctor posted at an ordinary P.H.C. where no facility for the operation was available.For no gain or advantage, he took a greater risk of his life.It is further strange that D.W.2 who was an ordinary doctor (not a surgeon) at an ordinary P.H.C. took an unnecessary responsibility, for no gain, to conduct the hydrocele operation in adverse circumstances at P.H.C. where there was no facility for the said operation.Moreover, he himself applied even anesthesia before the operation.He could have referred this case to the district hospital, Ghazipur which was only 18 Km from Birno.For these reasons, we find ourselves unable to agree with the defence pica of alibi raised by Qamru-Zama.It is a false and artificial defence raised by him.The Learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the evidence of P.W.3 Jhinnu Khan and argued that P.W.5 Daud's mother and the mother of P.W.2 AH Raza were real sisters and that a case Under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. was jointly faced by P.W.5 Daud and P.W.2 Ali Raza.In view of the above, we partly allow the appeal this way:(A) The conviction and sentences passed against the accused-appellants (1) Samkdar, (2) Hasnain, (3) Munsafi, (4)Mohd. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,554,335 | To highlight the core of the matter pertaining to the interpretation of the said Rule, the facts of the three cases would require to be noted, and as one would be noting the facts, the issue arising would emerge.Ajayvir Gulia, hardly a 'vir (has not displayed any act of bravery) seeks to be declared 'Ajay' i.e. victorious' by vanquishing the department i.e. Delhi Police and regain job as a Constable in Delhi Police.On a statement made to the police by Ms.'S' an FIR No.1065/2002 dated December 04, 2002 for offences punishable under Section 376/342/506/34 IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act PS Nangloi was registered.As per the statement made by Ms.'S', she was seeking employment and came across an advertisement of Surender W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 2 of 35 Security Services which had provided the mobile No.9811844420 and when contacted, a person who gave his name as Ajayvir spoke to her and told her to be in touch with the said person.On December 02, 2002, Ajayvir contacted her and requested her to come near Sunil Dairy, Chander Vihar, Nangloi on December 03, 2002, informing her that she would be picked up from there and taken to the place of the prospective employer for being interviewed.Accordingly on December 03, 2002 she went to Chander Vihar from where Ajayvir with two more persons picked her up in a Maruti car and took her to a building where, at a dagger point, Ajayvir raped her and a person who was being called Mukesh stood guard outside.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 2 of 35She stated that after completing graduation she came to Delhi in search of a job and on December 03 she was called for an interview at a company but could not find the address.A boy met her and told her that he could take her to the place which she was searching for and took her to a place where two persons were sitting.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 3 of 35One went outside and the other who remained inside raped her.Ajayvir Singh Gulia, No.2645/DAP (now 2574/DAP) while posted in III Bn.DAP on 03.12.2002, a P.C.R. call was received at 8.45 P.M. alleging rape in the area of Chander Vihar P.S.Nangloi, West Distt.West Distt.Police immediately attended to got the complaint of victim Ms.S and initiated legal action.One Ms.S daughter of Shri Man Padhee aged 20 years lodged a complaint of rape by one Ajayvir @ babloo S/o Hari Singh, age 32 years R/o Village Badli, Distt.Jhajjar, Haryana and helped by Mukesh S/o Ram Kumar aged 33 years of the same Village.She narrated that she came to Delhi during January, 2002 and was staying with her brother-in-law Mr.Vipul Mishra at Hastal Uttam Nagar, Delhi.Three Months back she noticed a "Surendera Security Services" job opportunity in a News Paper where a mobile phone No.98118-44420 was given.She contacted the number and kept in touch with the person named Ajayvir and requested for the job offered through the news papers.Ajayvir called Ms.S and asked her to come for interview near Sunil Dairy, Chander Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi on 03.12.02 from where she will be picked up.Accordingly on 03.12.02 Ms.S came to Chander Vihar.She was picked up by Ajayvir in Maruti Car in which two more persons were there.She was taken to one room (Kuldeep Properties Office) situated at Veer Bazar Road, Chander Vihar, Nangloi in 200 Sqrs.Yards Plot.In the said room she was taken by Ajay Veer and raped at dagger point.Mukesh latched the door closed from outside and kept standing.Sometime later, she managed to come out and the assailants also left the place.Investigation revealed that the assailant Ajay Veer @ Bablo is a Delhi Police Constable posted in III Bn.DAP bearing belt No.2645/DAP (now 2574/DAP), PIS No.28901405 who has been arrested in above mentioned case.His associate Mukesh belongs to his village Badli, Distt.Jhajjar,Haryana had also been arrested by the Police in the same case.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 5 of 35The above facts and circumstances shows that Const.Ajay Veer, No.2645/DAP (now 2574/DAP) had actively participated in above noted case.Ajay Veer, No.2645/DAP (now2574/DAP being a member of disciplined force was having great responsibility to protect the person and property of the citizens of the country.But instead of protecting the person he himself had been found involved in the aghast crime of rape proving himself unbecoming a member of disciplined force.Anita, sister of Ms.'S' deposed as PW-1 before the Inquiry Officer and stated that in the month of February 2002 her sister, the prosecutrix, came to Delhi to reside with her and was on the lookout for a job.Through a newspaper advertisement she learnt that Surender Security Services having contact mobile No.9811844400 could be the agency through which her sister could find a job and when contacted on the number a person named W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 6 of 35 Ajayvir told her sister that at present no job was available.On December 02, 2002, the person who was speaking by the name of Ajayvir told her sister that a job was available and told her that she would be interviewed around 4.00 PM and accordingly left the house.Her sister returned home at 8.00 PM and told her that Ajayvir had raped her at a knife point in the presence of an accomplice named Mukesh.Her sister led the Police to the spot where she was raped.Nisha PW-2, another sister of the prosecutrix deposed that her statement recorded by the police on December 04, 2002 was correct and she had no more to state.HC Rajbir Singh PW-3 and HC Shrikrishan PW-5 deposed about the FIR being registered on a statement made by the prosecutrix of being raped by Ajayvir and Mukesh standing on guard.SI Usha Sharma PW-6 deposed about the investigation conducted by her and Vipul, PW-4, the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix deposed of what was told to him by Amita.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 6 of 35As required by the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980, a charge was framed against Ajayvir on January 26, 2005 which reads as under:-"I, Mahabir Singh, Inspector/VIth Bn.DAP charge you Const.Ajay Vir Singh Gulia, No.2645/DAP (now 2574/DAP), PIS No.28901405 while posted in III Bn.DAP on 03.12.2002, a P.C.R. call was received at 8.45 P.M. alleging rape in the area of Chander Vihar P.S.Nangloi, West Distt.West Distt.Police immediately attended to it got the complaint of victim Ms.S and initiated legal action.One Ms.S daughter of Shri Man Padhee aged 20 years lodged a complaint of rape by one W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 7 of 35 Ajayvir @ babloo S/o Hari Singh, aged 32 years R/o village Badli, Distt.Jhajjar, Haryana and helped by Mukesh s/o Ram Kumar aged 33 years of the same village.She narrated that she came to Delhi during January 2002 and was staying with her brother-in-law.Vipul Mishra at Hastal Uttam Nagar, Delhi.Three months back she noticed a "Surendera Security Services" job opportunity in a News Paper where a mobile phone No.98118-44420 was given.She contacted the number and kept in touch with the person named Ajayvir and requested for the job offered through the news papers.Ajay Vir called Ms.S and asked her to come for interview near Sunil Dairy, Chander Vihar, Nangloi,Delhi on 03.12.02 from where she will be picked up.Accordingly on 03.12.02 Ms.S came to Chander Vihar.She was picked up by Ajay Vir in Maruti Car in which two more persons were there.She was taken to one room (Kuldeep Properties Office) situated at Veer Bazar Road, Chander Vihar, Nangloi in a 2000 Sqr.Yards Plot.In the said room she was taken by Ajay Veer and raped at dagger point Mukesh latched the door closed from outside and kept standing Some time later, she managed to come out and the assailants also left the place.You Const.Ajay Veer, No.2645/DAP (now 2574/DAP ) being a member of disciplined force was having great responsibility to protect the person and property W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 8 of 35 of the citizens of the country.But instead of protecting the person you yourself had been found involved in the aghast crime of rape proving yourself unbecoming a member of disciplined force.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 8 of 35Alternatively it was urged that the testimony of Amita and Nisha was hearsay and hence not admissible in evidence.Facts pertaining to W.P.(C) No.7344/2012 which concerns three police officers, HC Mahesh Kumar and Const.Satinder Kumar and Const.Dharmender Kumar are that on a statement made by one Sachin Bansal FIR No.123/2003 PS Kamla Market for offences punishable under Section 384/411/34 IPC was registered on April 17, 2003, as per which while commuting on a motorcycle and passing through Connaught Place at around 10:30 PM Sachin Bansal was halted near Thomson Road by a person in police uniform who was in the company of two civilians and was asked to produce a driving license and upon his failure to do so the person in police uniform demanded `500/- and since he i.e. Sachin Bansal only had `300/- with him, the said amount as also his mobile phone and the gold chain were taken away from him.Whereas Const.Satender Kumar and Const.Dharmender Kumar were arrested on April 20, 2003, HC Mahesh Kumar absconded.Dispensing with an inquiry, all three were dismissed from service on April 22, 2003 and successfully challenged the said order when Original Applications preferred by them were allowed requiring all three to be reinstated.On November 22, 2005, the Disciplinary Authority directed W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 11 of 35 disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against all three resulting in a Summary of Allegations being drawn up and served alleging as under:-W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 11 of 352003 one Shri Sachin Bansal s/o Ashok Bansal r/o 5/33 Gajju Katra, Shahdara, Delhi while he was coming from Connaught Place on his bike, he was stopped at Thomson Road red light around 10.30 P.M. by a person wearing Delhi Police uniform and he was asked about the driving licence.In the meantime two persons in civil dress also reached there and stood by the said police person.Since the complainant was without license, they demanded `500/-from him and extorted `300/-from the complainant.Thereafter all the three persons took him to a park near Metro project, Thomson Road, Delhi and took his signature on of blank paper.The thereafter extorted his golden chain and mobile phone of Sony under threat.The complainant was also taken to Connaught Place to get `20,000/-from him from ATM, but due to technical problem with the said ATM, no amount could be delivered to them.A case FIR no. 123/2003 u/s 384/411/34 IPC, PS Kamla Nagar has been registered on the above said complaint.During the course of investigation of the case it has transpired that the above said offence has been committed by three police personnel namely HC Mahesh Kumar No. 1883/C, Ct.Satender Kumar no. 1675/C (both posted in special staff, Central Distt.) And Ct.Dharmender Kumar no. 535/ C (posted in PS Chandni Mahal).Later on looted golden chain has been recovered from the possession of Ct.Satender Kumar and on the disclosure of Ct. Satender Kumar and Ct.Dharmender Kumar, the mobile phone has been recovered from room no. 22, where HC Mahesh Kumar was accommodated.Subsequently, Ct.Satender Kumar no. 1675/ C and Ct.Dharmender Kumar, No.1080/C, 2589/PCR (now 597/C) (PIS No.28940928) and Ct.Their suspension period will be decided later on.The name of Const.Satender Kumar, No.2515/C has also been removed from the list of police personnel facing criminal case.The factual matrix pertaining to WP(C)No.1026/2013 which concerns Const.Ravinder Singh is that on a statement made by one Chatar Singh, FIR No.152/2000 PS B.B.Nagar District Bulandshaher, U.P. for offences punishable under Sections 364/302/201/120-B IPC was registered on July 19, 2000 because as per Chatar Singh his son along with four boys had been taken to a dam on Bamba river at Pastapur village and had been killed.On July 01, 2001 a constable named Kishor Kumar died at Batra hospital, New Delhi due to gunshot wounds.Investigation, as claimed by U.P. Police, revealed that petitioner as also one Ranjit Singh, Vijay Bahadur, Anil Tomar, Rajender and Sisharpal Singh were a gang indulging in gangsterism and kidnapping people for ransom.During investigation the clothes of the missing children were statedly recovered on disclosure statement made by the accused, which included the petitioner.A Tata Sumo vehicle was also recovered.At the trial the witnesses turned hostile.Vijender Singh PW- 10 and Chatar Singh PW-1, the two fathers of the five kidnapped boys also turned hostile and disowned the disclosure statement of the accused being made in their presence as also recoveries of clothes of their children got effected by the accused in their presence.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 16 of 35Three witnesses, SI Nek Ram Singh, HC Inder Prakash and Const.SI Nek Ram Singh deposed that the accused persons told him that they knew where his children were studying and if SI Nek Ram Singh held their lives dear, he should not proceed further.He deposed that all accused appeared to be dead drunk even in the jail.The other two witnesses corroborated SI Nek Ram Singh.But surprisingly, on being cross- examined, all three stated that Ravinder Singh stood as a silent spectator when other co-accused threatened and abused SI Nek Ram Singh.As required by the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 the Inquiry Officer framed a charge which reads as under:-"I, Surender Jeet Singh, Inspector Mounted P & L, E.O, Delhi on the basis of evidence/documents brought on the basis of evidence/documents brought on the DE file during the course of DE proceedings, do hereby charge you Const.Ravinder Singh No.503/L (PIS No.288907160 that you, while serving in Delhi Police, were arrested in case FIR No.152/2000 u/s 364/120-B/302/201 IPC PS BB Nagar, Distt.Bulandshaher UP for which you were placed W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 18 of 35 under suspension vide order No.10422-40/HAP(P- IV)/PCR dated 12.9.2000 w.e.f 9.9.2000, the date of your arrest.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 18 of 35Your above said both the co-accused also gave threats to SI Nek Ram Singh Pal and Const.Krishna Pal that whether their children were not loved to them and they know where their children were studying.They will kidnap their children then they will enjoy the taste of preparing the NSA.It clearly indicates your tacit consent in the above said threats/action.He along with Mukesh Kumar were charge-sheeted in Sessions Case No.48/2003, at which apart from Ms.'S', her sister Amita and Nisha, her brother-in-law Vipul and police officers associated with the investigation were cited as witnesses.The first witness of the prosecution to be examined was Ms.'S', and while deposing she gave a version at variance with her statement pursuant whereto the FIR was registered.She stated that the two accused present in Court were not the persons who were present in the room.Declared hostile and cross-examined she admitted her signatures on point 'A' on the statement Ex.Probably for the reason the prosecutrix had turned hostile, the learned Sessions Judge thought it imprudent to continue with the trial; opining probably that the destination had to be an acquittal.In a short and a cryptic decision dated September 09, 2003, a verdict of not guilty was pronounced.No other person cited as a witness and proposed to be examined to prove the charge was examined by the learned Court of Sessions.Taking a serious view of an enlisted personnel of Delhi Police i.e. a Constable, not only enticing but raping an innocent young girl, invoking power under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, an order was passed on December 04, 2002 terminating services of Ajayvir; and suffice would it be to state that it was obviously an order passed post- haste and without a proper application of mind for the reason the FIR itself was registered on December 04, 2002; and probably for the reason there was a hue and cry in the area and expecting adverse newspaper reports the next day, to silence the critics, the action was taken.But, the Tribunal observed that disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against Ajayvir.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 4 of 35The summary of allegations reads as under:-She came to her home first and called up the 100 No.PCR at 08.45 P.M. in the evening On the complaint of victim Ms.S a case vide FIR No.1065, dated W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 5 of 35 04.12.02 U/s 376/342/506/34 IPC, P.S.Nangloi was got registered and investigation was immediately taken up.She came to her home first and called up the 100 No.PCR at 08.45 P.M. in the evening.On the complaint of victim Ms.S a case Vide FIR No.1065, dated 04.12.02 U/s 376/342/506/34-IPC, P.S.Nangloi was got registered and investigation was immediately taken up.Investigation revealed that the assailant Ajay Veer @ Babloo is a Delhi Police Constable posted in III Bn.DAP bearing belt No.2645/DAP (now 2574/DAP), PIS No.28901405 who has been arrested in above mentioned case.Your associate Mukesh belongs to your village Badli, Distt.Jhajjar, Haryana had also been arrested by the Police in the same case.The charge has been framed on the basis of testimony of PWs.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 7 of 35The above facts and circumstances shows that you Const.Ajay Veer, No.2645/DAP (now 2574/DAP) had actively participated in above noted case.The above act on the part of you Const.Ajay Veer, No.2645/DAP (now 2574/DAP), PIS No.28901405 amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of your official duties which render you liable for punishment as envisaged in Section 21 of Delhi Police Act, 1978."Ajayvir submitted a statement of defence dated February 18, 2005 and did not produce any witnesses in defence.The Inquiry Officer relied upon the testimony of SI Usha Sharma PW-6 who deposed what was told to her by the prosecutrix and how she apprehended Ajayvir.The Inquiry Officer highlighted that the name of Ajayvir Gulia was disclosed by the prosecutrix soon after she was raped.Furnishing the report of the Inquiry Officer to Ajayvir Gulia for his response and rejecting his defence which was premised of he being acquitted by a learned Court of Sessions, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and imposed penalty of dismissal from service upon Ajayvir Gulia.Appeal filed was rejected.Commissioner of Police the prosecution witnesses have been won over; orDharmender Kumar no. 535/C were arrested in the above noted case on 20.04.2003 while HC Mahesh Kumar no. 1883/C was reported to be absconding.2003 special staff, Central district and after performing duties he committed W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 12 of 35 this above said offence in the area of Connaught Place.Dharmender Kumar no. 535/C (now 1080/C) was detailed to perform night patrolling duty in beat no. 1 of PS Chandni Mahal with Arms and Ammunition but instead of performing his duty in the area, he reached the area of Connaught Place and involved himself in criminal activities and Ct.Satender Kumar no. 1675/C was supposed to remain present in the special staff but she along with above two police personnel visited in the area of Connaught Place and permitted the above said offence."W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 12 of 35Notwithstanding the mobile phone of Sachin Bansal which was recovered from HC Mahesh Kumar and the recovery witness Const.Lakhan Singh PW-8 so deposed, and notwithstanding the gold chain extorted being likewise recovered and Const.Lakhan Singh PW-8 so deposing, the three were acquitted principally for the reason Sachin Bansal PW-2 turned hostile.He supported the version of `300/-, a mobile phone and a gold chain being extorted from him but absolved the three accused by not identifying the three as the accused.During the pendency of OA No.1273/2006 which was filed by the the three police officials a Full Bench of the Tribunal decided OA No.2816/2008 Sukhdev Singh & Anr.Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.on February 18, 2011, that a Delhi Police officer could be charge- sheeted departmentally notwithstanding he facing a criminal trial for the same acts, but if before the departmental proceedings were over, the officer concerned was acquitted at the criminal trial, the matter had to be re-visited by the Disciplinary Authority in light of Rule 12, for the reason W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 13 of 35 judicial verdicts have to be given precedence over decisions at the departmental proceedings.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 13 of 35The Original Application filed by HC Mahesh Kumar, Const.Satender Kumar and Const.Dharmender Kumar was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated March 14, 2011 requiring the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision keeping in view the law declared by the Full Bench of the Tribunal.On October 10, 2011 the Disciplinary Authority took a decision that the inquiry had to proceed, but did not advert to Rule 12 at all.The decision dated October 10, 2011 reads as under:-GNCT, Delhi & others their case has been examined under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 and it has been decided that the departmental enquiry pending against them vide this office order No.7827-40/HAP/AC- II/C dated 22.11.2005 and kept held in abeyance vide O.A.Nos.1273/2006, 4159/2010, & MA No.2132/2010- Mahesh Kumar & others Vs.GNCT, Delhi & others is re opened and entrusted to Inspr.Awanish Chander/ Insp.Vigilance for its completion.The EO will submit his progress report in the DE to the disciplinary authority on every 12th and 27th day of each month.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 14 of 35Let them be informed accordingly.(ASLAM KHAN) ADDL.DY.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CENTRAL DISTT., DELHI"This led the three to file OA No.4271/2011 challenging the departmental inquiry initiated against them and permitted to be continued as per order dated October 10, 2011, principally alleging that the evidence cited before the learned Court of Sessions could not be re-led at the departmental inquiry unless the exception carved out vide Clauses (a) to (e) of Rule 12 was/were attracted; and since the order dated October W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 15 of 35 10, 2011 did not hold that any was attracted, the same was liable to be quashed.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 15 of 35Vide order dated March 07, 2012 OA No.4271/2011 has been allowed and the disciplinary proceedings have been quashed.But before that, when the petitioner was in judicial custody and lodged at District Jail Bulandshaher, a detention order under the National Security Act was passed against the petitioner and other co-accused which was attempted to be served upon them by SI Nek Ram Singh in jail and as per SI Nek Ram Singh the petitioner and co-accused threatened him questioning him as to how come he does not know that they are a terror and would ensure that his i.e. SI Nek Ram Singh's children would also meet the same fate as the children of Chatar Singh and Vijender Singh met.On the statement made by SI Nek Ram Singh FIR No.495/2000 PS Sikandarabad, District Bulandshaher, U.P. was registered against Ravinder Singh and others for offences punishable under Sections 353/506 IPC; and the trial is still on.On November 18, 2009, the Deputy Commissioner of Police drew up a Summary of Allegations, since a decision was taken to initiate departmental proceedings against Ravinder Singh.The Summary of Allegations read as under:-"It is alleged against constable Ravinder Singh, No.503/L (PIS No.28890716) that he was arrested in case FIR No.152/2000 u/s 364/120-B/302/201 IPC P.S. BB Nagar, District Bulandshahar 12.9.2000 w.e.f. 9.9.2000 i.e. the date of arrest.Later on, he obstructed and manhandled the server of NSA for which a case FIR No.495/2000 147/353/506 IPC, P.S. Sikandrabad District Bulandshahar, was registered.I further charge you Const.Ravinder Singh No.503/L that while you, along with your co-accused Sahansar Pal, Ranjeet, Vijay Bahadur and Anil Tomer, were under judicial custody in Distt.Jail, Bulandshaher in the above said case, the Distt.Magistrate, Bulandshaher had passed the order under NSA vide No.1297/Nyaye Sahayak dated 09.11.2000 against you for the reasons mentioned in detail in the endorsed NSA to SO/PS BB Nagar for service upon you.When SI Nek Ram Singh Pal, SO/PS BB Nagar, along with Const.Krishna Pal Singh No.901/415/CP, Narender Singh No.1407 and Jai Bir Singh No.1097 had gone to Distt.Jail Bulandshaher to serve the copy of the above said NSA upon you, your co- accused Sahansar Pal, in a threatening way in your presence denied to receive the copy of NSA saying that "We persons will not receive the NSA" your another co- accused Vijay Bahadur took one set of NSA, and tried to treat the same in your presence but the same was taken by SI Nek Ram Singh Pal from his hand.The photocopy of the NSA order, its enclosure, duly attested received from the Sr.Distt.Magistrate- Admn.Bulandshahar vide letter No.83/Nyaye Sahayak dated 14.01.2011 and photocopy of letter No.Abhi-Buland W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 19 of 35 Vividh/11/21 dated 22/24-01-2011, duly attested, received from Sr.Prosecuting Officer, Bulandshahar, during the course of DE proceedings are being delivered to you Const.Ravinder Singh No.503/L along with charge.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 19 of 35Although you and your co-accused persons have been acquitted by the Sr.Sessions Judge, Bulandshaher in case FIR No.152/2000 vide judgment dated 2.6.2001 due to failure of prosecution to prove the charge, but your involvement in the above said criminal cases/criminal activities cannot be ruled out, which is not acceptable/desirable from a member of Delhi Police/Public servant like you.The above act on the part of you Const.We now turn to the facts of each case.We have briefly noted hereinabove in paragraph 8 the testimony of Nisha and Amita, the sisters of the prosecutrix and the same would bring out that soon after the traumatic experience faced by the prosecutrix who was lured to the place where she was raped, she narrated the traumatic experience to her two sisters and she named Ajayvir Gulia.The two witnesses have deposed that the prosecutrix, their sister was looking for a job and had come across an advertisement by a placement agency and a mobile number 9811844400 was disclosed to her and that on the day of the incident she left Anita's house telling her that a person named Ajayvir had told her to reach a place from where she would be taken for an interview.The testimony of Anita, corroborated by Nisha clearly brings out that the prosecutrix had left the house to meet a person named Ajayvir.She returned home after being ravished and told that Ajayvir had raped her.From the summary of allegations against the three, it is apparent that Sachin Bansal was threatened to part with money, a gold chain and a mobile phone and was also taken to Connaught Place to force him to withdraw `20,000/- from an ATM.The looted gold chain and mobile phone were recovered from the accused, as per the summary of allegations.The three accused may have earned the acquittal at the criminal trial, where standard of proof is high, and Courts have taken the view that if eye witnesses turn hostile, recovery of objects such as mobile phones and gold chains, though admissible in evidence, would be insufficient for the evidence to attain the high standard of proof.But, at a domestic inquiry the level of proof being lower, issues have to be considered accordingly.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 30 of 35Pertaining to W.P.(C) No.1026/2013 relating to Const.Ravinder Singh, we must at the outset record our anguish at the manner at which officers of Delhi Police have treated a very serious incident.Kishor Kumar, working with Delhi Police, admittedly died on July 01, 2001 at Batra Hospital due to gun shot wounds.He was allegedly a part of a gang, comprising Const.Ravinder Singh and 5 other persons named Ranjeet Singh, Vijay Bahadur, Anil Tomar, Rajender and Shisharpal Singh who would kidnap people for ransom and even commit the crime of murder.Kishor Kumar.What kind of weapon was used causing gun shot wounds to him? Whether it was a case of an inter gang rivalry? These questions loom large and needed to be answered after a thorough investigation.No attempt whatsoever has been made to do so.As noted above, Const.Ravinder Singh was an accused in FIR No.152/2000 for offences of kidnapping, murder and conspiracy.He was an accused in FIR No.495/2000 for offences punishable under Section 353/506 IPC.In the former FIR he was acquitted.Surprisingly, the W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 31 of 35 parents of the kidnapped children whose bodies were never found turned hostile and did not support the recovery of the clothes of their children.In the second FIR, the trial is on.The second FIR lodged on the statement of SI Nek Ram Singh who went to serve the detention order passed under the National Securities Act upon Ravinder Singh and his co-accused would show that desperate nature of Ravinder Singh and the co-accused.The fact that at the departmental inquiry SI Nek Ram and two other police officers diluted the charge against Ravinder Singh by stating that his co-accused had threatened them whilst Ravinder Singh stood silently itself proves that Ravinder Singh had enough muscle power to substantially silence, if not fully, even police officers.Why was the power under Article 311(2)(b) not invoked? The Commissioner of Police has much to answer.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 31 of 35The clumsy manner in which the Commissioner of Police has acted while drawing up the summary of allegations against Const.We do not find a mention of said acts.As per the Delhi Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1980 the procedure for a departmental inquiry is to issue a summary of allegations and record evidence and if material surfaces to frame a charge, a statement of charge is drawn up.At said stage the charged officer can recall the witnesses for cross-examination and lead defence evidence.W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 32 of 35W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Page 33 of 35Before bringing the curtains formally down, we cannot but resist to note that the three cases bring out a very disturbing trend which we are witnessing off lately concerning Delhi Police personnel.At the constabulary level we find that police officers are able to suborn witnesses and are getting away at the criminal trials and also at the domestic inquiries.The reason appears to be two fold.He suborned her to turn hostile.But fortunately we have sufficient res gestae evidence against him.Ravinder Singh who was charged for kidnapping and murder as also for conspiracy.Impugned order dated March 07, 2012 challenged in W.P.(C) No.7344/2012 passed by the Tribunal is dismissed.Impugned order dated October 30, 2012 challenged in W.P.(C) No.1026/2013 passed by the Tribunal is also dismissed. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,559,952 | a)The first accused along with the accused 2 and 3 had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of shares purchased on behalf of the defacto complainant and his wife Sarala Vasu from different companies.The shares were purchased by the petitioner in its capacity as a sub broker to one M/s.Kantilal Chaganlal Securities Private Limited, Mumbai between 12.10.2006 and January 2009 by acting as an agent to the defacto complainant and his wife.In the course of share trading business, the petitioner had used two forged letters dated 22.07.2008 alleged to have been signed by the wife of the defacto complainant and thereby, dishonestly induced them to transfer the amounts from the account of the defacto complainant's wife to the accounts of the second accused by using the forged letters given by the third accused.Thus, the petitioner and the other two accused had conspired to commit criminal breach of trust for the purpose of misappropriation of the shares and apart from criminal breach of trust, the petitioner and the other accused had also committed the offence of forgery, cheating and misappropriation.b)The said charges were taken on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in C.C.No.3546 of 2014 which is under challenge in the present Criminal Original Petition.Kantilal Chaganlal Securities Private Limited, Mumbai to transfer funds from the accounts of the defacto complainant's wife to the account of the third accused and since the second accused was aware of the fact that these two request letters were forged documents, all the accused have committed the offences of criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, forgery and cheating.6.A few facts leading to the framing of charges against the petitioner are as follows:On 07.04.2004 and 23.11.2004, the defacto complainant and his wife had availed loans of Rs.75 Lakhs and Rs.3 Crores respectively from the petitioner by executing irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the petitioner.The said loans are evidenced through the respective loan agreements, which is not in dispute.On 25.08.2008, the defacto complainant had acknowledged his liabilities by endorsing the statement of accounts rendered by the petitioner.On 16.07.2010, the petitioner had made a demand to the defacto complainant to settle further outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.2,26,09,835/-, to which, the defacto complainant had sent a reply dated 17.07.2010 denying the liability.Consequent to the denial, the petitioner had sent a reply notice dated 28.08.2010 pointing out the defacto complainant's admission of the transactions he had with the main broker and the receipt of accounts statement from the main broker and therefore, claimed the outstanding dues.In connection with this claim, the petitioner herein had filed a suit before this Court in CS.No.224 of 2012 claiming a sum of Rs.2,74,60,403/- together with interest on Rs.1,98,23,969/- at the rate of 12% p.a.Heard Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.The learned Senior counsel further submitted that since the defacto complainant's two earlier complaints were referred to as civil in nature and closed, the Director General of Police, CBCID was not possessed with powers to order reinvestigation and hence, the entire criminal proceedings is vitiated.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior counsel for the defacto complainant on the other hand submitted that the first accused had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 21 shares worth about Rs.56 lakhs belonging to the defacto complainant and his wife, by a clandestine method of making use of two forged request letters dated 22.07.2008 and dishonestly used the same to undertake M/s.After filing of the above said suit, the defacto complainant had filed a private compliant before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and based on the orders pronounced therein, the said complaint was taken on file in FIR No.438 of 2012 by the Central Crime Branch, Egmore, for the offences under Sections 406, 408, 480, 420 IPC.By a report dated 12.01.2013, the Assistant Commissioner of Police had closed the FIR No.438 of 2012 on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature.As against the closure report, the defacto complainant filed a protest petition before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai praying for re-investigation.Based on this, the second FIR in Cr.No.3 of 2013 was registered by the police for offences under Sections 406, 409, 418, 420 IPC against the petitioner herein.After investigation, a final report came to be filed on 28.06.2014 against the petitioner, which was taken on file by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in CC.No.3546 of 2014 and which is impugned in the present Criminal Original Petition.7.Some of the admitted facts of the case is that the defacto complainant and his wife had engaged in share trading by depositing shares as margin with the first accused and availed loan on the strength of such margin.It is not in dispute that when the loan agreement executed by the defacto complainant with the first accused, they had borrowed Rs.75 lakhs and Rs.3 Crores respectively.It is also not in dispute that the loan agreement and irrevocable power of attorney are executed by them to secure the loan of the first accused.The Demat account of the defacto complainant and his wife were maintained by M/s.Kantilal Chaganlal Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai who is the principal broker and the petitioner herein was a sub broker.8.The main dispute between the parties arose when the petitioner herein had sent a letter dated 16.07.2010 calling upon the defacto complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,26,09,835/- which came to be denied by the defacto complainant stating that they had several transactions with the principal broker and that they had not received any details with regard to their transactions with the petitioner herein.The defacto complainant's averments that the petitioner herein did not share any details of the various debt and the notice without any statement to substantiate the details, was replied to by the petitioner herein on 28.08.2010 substantiating that the statements have been received by the defacto complainant from the principal broker and the petitioner was under no obligation to give them the statements.It is in this background that the petitioner herein had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,74,60,403/- together with interest Rs.1,98,23,969 at 12% p.a. in CS.No.224 of 2012 against the defacto complainant and his wife.Till the filing of the suit by the petitioner, no criminal complaint was preferred by the defacto complainant.It is after this suit that the defacto complainant had chosen to initiate criminal complaints against the petitioner.9.The first criminal complaint dated 17.08.2012 in FR.No.438 of 2012 came to be closed by the Assistant Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch on 12.01.2013 stating that the dispute was civil in nature in view of the loan agreement, power of attorney and in the strength of the statements recorded under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. When the defacto complainant had challenged the closure report by filing of protest petition, there were no allegations of bias pleaded against the Investigating Agency nor were any averments made with regard to forgery committed by the petitioner.Furthermore, the defacto complainant had filed his written statement along with the counter claim in CS.No.224 of 2012 in the month of March 2016, wherein he had admitted of signing the acknowledgment of liability dated 25.08.2008 but denied the same to be confirmation of the debt.In the said counter claim petition, there were no allegations of forgery inspite of the fact that charges were framed against the petitioner herein based on his complaint.The issue as to whether the petitioner herein had mismanaged in such investment or not is a triable issue which is the subject matter of the suit in C.S.No.224 of 2012 on the counter claim made by the defacto complainant.As such, the charges framed against the petitioner with regard to criminal breach of trust and the consequent offences can be, by no stretch of imagination, implicate the petitioner for having committed a criminal offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating.12.Moreover, the defacto complainant's first complaint in FIR No.438 of 2012 came to be closed since the dispute was civil in nature.The Assistant Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch while closing the said compliant on 12.01.2013 had taken into account, the 161 (3) statement of the complainant as well as the basic documents of the loan agreement and deed of power of attorney executed between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and had come to the conclusion that the dispute was civil in nature.17.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.Consequently, the proceedings in C.C.No.3546 of 2014 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai which is now being transferred to the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore at Allikulam in C.C.No.3018 of 2017 is hereby quashed.23.10.2017Index:YesInternet:YesNote:Issue order copy on 27.10.2017DPTo1.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.2.The Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore at Allikulam.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.M.S.RAMESH.J,DPorder made inCrl.O.P.No.15122 of 201623.10.2017 | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,561,636 | The first informant, accordingly invested Rs.34 lakhs and was promised a return of Rs.75 lakhs in total.The further allegation in the FIR was that in fact, the Company did not operate the online taxi service but indulged in money rotation and kept on enticing new persons to invest.Sri Swetashwa Agarwal has been heard through video link on behalf of the applicant, Sri P.K. Sahi, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and Sri Dinesh Pratap Rao Dixit on behalf of the first informant Sunil Kumar Mina.The applicant has applied for bail in Case Crime No.206 of 2019 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.The agreement was for providing money for 51 Bikes under a Bike Bot Scheme similar to Ola and Uber.It is further alleged that although by the time, First Information Report was lodged, the first informant was entitled to a return of Rs.6,45,000/-, but he had received only Rs.66,000/-.It is admitted fact that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report.His name surfaced, for the first time, on basis of information received by the Investigating Agency from the office of the Registrar of Company, wherein the applicant was shown as an Additional Director for certain period alongwith 18 other persons.It is also the specific case of the applicant that the main accused namely Sanjay Bhati, signatory of the agreement, had filed a 482 petition before this Court being Criminal Misc.Application No.1537 of 2020 challenging the charge sheet filed against him and one of the pleas raised by him in the said petition was that the entire amount invested by the first informant had been returned to him.In this regard, documentary evidence has been brought on record.Sri Dinesh Pratap Rao Dixit, learned counsel for the first informant had admitted that the first informant had received the money through cheque.Having regard to the said plea, this Court in 482 petition filed by Sanjay Bhati passed an interim order in his favour on 17.1.2020 to the effect that no coercive steps would be taken against him.A copy of the said order has been brought on record alongwith supplementary affidavit. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,925,637 | JUDGMENT R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,569,151 | This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.The applicant has been arrested on 15.09.2014 in connection with Crime No.213/2014, registered at Police Station Raghogarh, District Guna (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 498A read with Section 34 of IPC.As per prosecution case, incident occurred on 02.08.2014 when Rubi Jain committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house.Her marriage was solemnized within two years from the date of incident i.e. on 22.06.2012 with the present applicant Saurabh Jain.Marg No.27/2014 was registered on the basis of information given by Rajendra Jain (father of the deceased).During the course of enquiry, statements of Rajendra Jain, father of the deceased, and other witnesses were recorded.Rajendra Jain, in his statement dated 05.08.2014, stated that demand of some amount was made by the applicant.Apart that, he came to know that because of some illicit relationship of present applicant with co-accused Smt. Neha Jain who happens to be his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and due to sustainment of mental cruelty on account of it Rubi committed suicided.2 Mcrc.10626.2014 Saurabh Jain Vs.State of M.P.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that if the entire case of the prosecution is taken into consideration in its totality even then no case is made out for the offence punishable under Section 304B or 498A of IPC.Moreover, because the charge- sheet has already been filed and final disposal of the case is likely to take time, learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant may be enlarged on bail.Prayer for bail has been opposed on the ground that marriage was solemnized within two years of the incident. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,589,611 | This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.1469 of 2015 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 384, 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the third respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1469 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 384, 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence, the petitioner prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/7 CRL.O.P. No.3976 of 20189. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2015, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.1469 of 2015 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P. No.3976 of 2018 receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.15.07.2020 Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order rpp ToInspector of Police, M-5 Ennore Police Station, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P. No.3976 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.rpp CRL.O.P. No. 3976 of 2018 15.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7 | ['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,590,131 | The Principal Registrar has opined as follows:Present petition has been filed u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR registered as Crime No. 65/2012 for offences punishable u/ss. 498-A, 506 and 34 of the IPC and u/s. 34 of Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Mahila Thana, Padav, Distt.During pendency of the proceedings an application was filed u/s. 320 of the Cr.P.C to the effect that parties have arrived at amicable settlement.Considering the aforesaid, the matter was sent to the Principal Registrar of this court. | ['Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,598,501 | ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::above, in the proposal, the sanctioning authority in its orderunder section 23(1)(a) has taken into consideration only 8crimes / FIRs, which are as follows :It is also pertinent to note that at the time ofsubmitting proposal, no charge-sheet was sent along with theproposal, and as stated above, only 8 crimes / FIRs wereconsidered.Till date, 13 charge-sheets have been filed whichare as follows :Police Station, FIR / crime Number and sections.Vishrantwadi PS Crime No. 414/2008, IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 506, 427Visharambaug PS, Crime No. 169/2009 IPC Sec. 342, 506(2), 294, 504,patilsr 12/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19 34Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioners are seeking followingreliefs :"(a) Strike down Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOCApatilsr 1/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19 being absolutely arbitrary, unguided, uncanalized and thus, unconstitutional being violate of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; or to save it from unconstitutionality to read down, delineate the ambit and scope of the words 'prior approval' occurring in Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA so as to ensure that the same is not rendered an empty formality dependent upon whims, fancies, prejudices and caprices of the concerned officer;::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::(b) Strike down the provision of section 21(4) of MCOCA and declare the twin conditions imposed for release on bail, as encapsulated therein, to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India."Apart from challenge to the constitutional validity ofaforesaid provisions, the Petitioners in above writ petitions havealso prayed for quashing and setting aside of the prior approvalorder dated 9th August 2018 issued under section 23(1)(a) of theMCOCA and to quash and set aside the proceedings invoking theprovisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999[for short "the MCOCA"] against the Petitioners and to set themat liberty.The Petitioner therein relied upon the decision inNikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India 1, in which the Apex Court1 2018(11) SCC 1patilsr 2/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19has struck down the provisions of section 45 of the Prevention ofMoney Laundering Act, 2002 [for short "the PMLA Act"] beingarbitrary and contravening Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitutionof India.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::Since the issue raised in the present petitions isexactly identical to the issue raised in Writ Petition No.4639 of2018, in the present petitions too we grant Rule.We also issuenotice to the learned Advocate General.In Writ Petition No. 4639 of 2018, this Court hasconsidered the Petitioner's prayer for interim relief of bail.Weindependently examined the issue of grant of interim relief of bailand in the facts and circumstances of that case, for the reasonsgiven in support of that order, we have granted interim relief topatilsr 3/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19the Petitioner therein.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::The Petitioners in the instant writ petitions have alsoprayed for grant of interim relief of bail and accordingly we areconstrained to consider this prayer on its own meritsThe Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1670 of 2019 is theoriginal accused no.8 and the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.3741of 2019 is the original accused no.2 in FIR bearing CR.This FIR was registered at theinstance of Jayesh Jagtap, the son of deceased Jitendra Jagtap.It isalleged in the FIR that Jitendra Jagtap was in possession ofproperty bearing Survey No. 481, Rasta Peth, Pune as care-taker.It is further alleged that the Petitioner in WP No.1670 of 2019 andhis partner Sudhir Karnataki were threatening deceased JitendraJagtap for giving possession of the said property.It is furtheralleged that accused no.1 along with 6 to 7 persons threatenedpatilsr 4/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19deceased Jitendra Jagtap for giving possession of the saidproperty and therefore, deceased Jitendra committed suicide.Accused no.8,namely, the Petitioner in WP.No. 670 of 2019 surrendered beforethe investigating agency on 1st August 2018.. On 1st August 2018, the Additional Commissioner ofPolice, Pune granted prior approval under section 23(1)(a) of theMCOCA Act thereby invoking section 3(1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of thesaid Act in the subject crime.As stated above, the Petitioners inboth the petitions are challenging the said prior approval order inorder to claim the interim relief of bail.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::He submitted that while granting approval, the AdditionalCommissioner of Police has relied upon 8 crimes/FIRs.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::In the light of mandate of section 21(4) of the MCOCAct, we have also afforded an opportunity of hearing to thelearned APP.The learned APP opposed the grant of interim relief.Mr. Kamkhedkar, the learned APP submitted that though only 8crimes / FIRs are referred to in the prior approval order, thepatilsr 6/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19proposal submitted to the approving authority contains details of14 crimes / FIRs against accused persons.He submitted that thisCourt should take into consideration the proposal of SamarthPolice Station for prior approval, and if the same is considered,there is no question of grant of any interim relief to thePetitioners.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::The original complainant - Jayesh Jitendra Jagtap hasfiled an application bearing Criminal Application No. 398 of 2019for intervention.We have, therefore, heard him too.Mr. Joshi,learned counsel for the Applicant- intervener relied upon theproposal submitted by Samarth Police Station for prior approvalunder section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act. The learned counselsubmitted that application of mind by the sanctioning authority isa matter which requires evidence to be led and the prosecutionhas to be given sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in thatregard and therefore, the present writ petitions are prematureand there is no question of exercising jurisdiction by this Court atthis interim stage.Before going into factual aspects of the abovepatilsr 7/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19matters, it would be appropriate to set out certain provisions ofMCOC Act, in particular sections 2(d), 2(e) and 2(f) of the said Actas under :::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::[2] A charge-sheet should consists of averments, alleging unlawful activity undertaken either singly orpatilsr 9/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19 jointly by the accused;::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::Vishrantwadi PS Crime No. 414/2008, IPC Sections 143, pending 143, 148, 452, 323, 506, 427Vishrantwadi PS, Crime No. 175/2011, IPC sec 307, pending 147, 148, 149, 323, 504Vishrantwadi PS, Crime No.71/2008, IPC sec.143, 147, pending 149, 324, 427, 435Kotharud PS, Crime No. 276/2014 IPC sec.324, 34Sahakarnagar PS Crime No. 206/2015 IPC Sec. 364(A) pending 389, 34::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::Chaturshringi PS, Crime No. 248/2009, IPC Sec.447, 506, 427, 34Vishraniwadi PS, Crime No. 3186/2010, Arms Act sec.Vishrantiwadi PS, Crime No. 175/2011, IPC sec 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504Vishrantwadi PS, Crime No.71/2008, IPC sec.143, 147, 149, 324, 427, 435Kotharud PS, Crime No. 276/2014 IPC sec.324, 34Sahakarnagar PS Crime No. 206/2015 IPC Sec. 364(A) 389, 34Deccan PS, Crime No. 92/2009 IPC Sec. 143, 147, 149, 324, 427Deccan PS, Crime No. 69/209 IPC sec.Admittedly, other accused were not concernedwith the said case / FIR.Similarly as far as other 7 crimes /FIRs referred to above in the approval order are concerned, theother accused were separately charge-sheeted or triedpatilsr 13/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19differently before the competent Courts and as such there isprima facie no indication of such offences constituting offenceof "organised crime syndicate".::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::So far as the Petitioner in WP No. 3741 of 2019 isconcerned, he is not named in any of the 8 crimes / FIRsreferred to above by the competent authority while givingapproval under section 23(1)(a).In the light of provisions ofthe MCOC Act, referred to above, it is mandatory that morethan one charge-sheet alleging the commission of the offencepunishable with imprisonment of three years or more ought tohave been there in order to apply the stringent provisions ofMCOC Act. Therefore, prima facie the approval authorityseems to have passed the impugned order without applicationof mind as to whether the offences charged were committedby various accused as members of organised crime syndicate.Learned APP and the learned counsel for theintervener heavily relied upon the crimes / FIRs against theaccused in the subject crime referred to in the proposal madeunder section 23(1)(a) of the said Act. We have perused thesame.As stated above, it contains 14 crimes / FIRs.Howeverpatilsr 14/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19when the charge-sheet was filed in the subject crime,prosecution relied only upon 13 previous crimes / FIRs referredto above.There is no reference in the present charge-sheetabout CR.No. 150 of 2009 registered with Khadak PoliceStation.Obviously, this crime is not of much relevance for thepurpose of considering the Petitioner's prayer for grant ofinterim relief.Out of remaining 13 previous crimes/ FIRs, thename of Petitioner in WP No.1670 of 2019 is shown as accusedin (i) FIR No.285 of 2008 registered with Shivaji nagar PoliceStation, (ii) FIR No. 169 of 2009 registered with VishrambaugPolice Station and (iii) FIR No.248 of 2009 registered withChaturshrungi Police Station.As stated above, only FIR No.285 of 2009 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station isreflected in the prior approval order.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::Crime / FIR no. 169 of 2009 was registered on theallegation of commission of the offence punishable undersections 342, 504, 294, 506(2) read with 34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 and section 30 of the Arms Act. Perusal of thiscrime shows that charge sheet is filed for the offences whichare punishable with the imprisonment of less than 3 yearsexcept offence under section 506(2) of IPC and the cognizancehas been taken of those offences only.Thus, thePetitioner in WP 1670 of 2009 is shown as accused in onlythree crimes/ FIRs, and out of these 3 crimes, 2 crimes cannotbe considered for the purpose of application of MCOC Act.Thus, there is only one charge-sheet against the Petitionersince last 10 years, which can be taken into consideration forthe purpose of invoking the provisions of MCOC Act.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::So far as the Petitioner in WP No.3741 of 2019 isconcerned, as stated earlier, he is not accused in any of 8crimes / FIRs referred to above by the approving authority.However, perusal of the proposal shows that he was anaccused in only one crime / FIR bearing CR.No. 108 of 2017registered with Kotharud Police Station on the allegation ofcommission for the offences punishable under sections 324,patilsr 17/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19143, 147, 148, 149 and 427 of IPC and he has already beenacquitted in the said case.Even though this acquittal can notbe taken into consideration, the fact remains that out of 14crimes / FIRs referred to above in the proposal, the Petitionerherein was accused in only one case.Therefore, prima facie,in our opinion, the provisions of MCOC Act cannot be invokedin the present case.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::The learned counsel for the intervener reliedupon the following cases :Relying upon the above decisions, Mr. Joshi, learned2 2014(3) Bom.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::counsel for the intervener contended that the application ofmind by the sanctioning authority is a matter of trial whichrequires evidence to be led and the prosecution has to begiven sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in that regard.(b), namely, to consider their claim for bail, it can be held that for the present juncture with the available materials on record, it is not possible to show any nexus of the appellants who have been proceeded against for their involvement in Malegaon blast with the two earlier cases, namely, Parbhani and Jalna.There is considerable doubt about their involvement in Parbhani and Jalna and, therefore, they are entitled for their bail applications to be considered on merits."[emphasis supplied]7 (2015) 7 SCC 440patilsr 19/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::We are bound by these observations of the apexCourt in the light of provision of Article 141 of the Constitutionof India.These observations make it clear that if theapplication of MCOC is doubtful qua the Petitioner, then, thePetitioner is entitled to be released on bail.The overall perusal of the material against thePetitioners, in both the writ petitions even if taken at its facevalue does not disclose sufficient or tangible material whichwould, prima facie, justify the invocation of the provisions ofMCOC against the Petitioners as an organised crime syndicate.The Petitioners are languishing in jail since last more than 1year.In such circumstances, we are, prima facie, satisfied thatthe order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Polcie,Pune suffers from non application of mind as no material isproduced on record as part of the charge-sheet justifying theinvocation of provisions of MCOCA against the Petitioners.Weare satisfied that at this stage material on record is notsufficient to prima facie establish that the various offencesallegedly committed by the various accused were committedas members of the organized crime syndicate.The findingspatilsr 20/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19recorded by us are merely prima facie and tentative in natureand, in any case, they will have no bearing on the merits of thecase and trial Court is at liberty to decide the cases on thebasis of evidence adduced before it at the time of trial withoutbeing influenced by the aforesaid observations.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 :::In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, we deem itappropriate and convenient to grant interim relief in terms ofprayer clause (e) of both the writ petitions.We, accordingly,direct that the Petitioners be released on bail in SpecialMCOCA Case No. 55 of 2018 arsing out of CR.No. 104 of 2018registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune on executing P. R.Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two sureties inthe like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:10 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,598,948 | This is further proof of thefact that the conspiracy referred to by the prosecution for the Treasuriesof Chaibasa and Deogarh is one and the same conspiracy and not different ordistinct conspiracies.The charges framed for withdrawal of money fromthese two treasuries is from 1988-1996 and 1990-1996 respectively and theperiod of conspiracy has been shown from 1990-1997 and 1991-1996respectively.There were several transactions ofsmuggling.In the present case, there was a single general conspiracy to smuggle gold into India from foreign countries.The scheme was operated by a gang of international crooks.The net was spread over Bombay, Geneva, Beirut and Bahrein.The original scheme was to bring the gold from Geneva.It hasfailed to live up to its reputation.ARUN MISHRA, J.The appeals arise out of three separate judgments and orders oflearned Single Judge of High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi discharging threeaccused persons namely; Lalu Prasad Yadav, Sajal Chakraborty and Dr.Jagannath Mishra on the ground of their conviction in one of the criminalcases arising out of fodder scam of erstwhile State of Bihar.Applying theprovision under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.PC’), the High Courthas quashed RC No.64A/96 against Lalu Prasad Yadav, four cases against Dr.Jagannath Mishra being RC Nos.64A/96, 47A/96, 68A/96 and 38A/96 and twocases against Sajal Chakraborty being RC Nos.20A/96 and 68A/96 on theground that they have been convicted in one of the cases for offencesinvolving the same ingredients with respect to Chaibasa treasury.In the wake of large scale defalcation of public funds, fraudulenttransactions and fabrication of accounts in Animal Husbandry Department ofState of Bihar popularly known as fodder scam, Central Bureau ofInvestigation (for short, ‘the CBI’) investigation had been ordered by thisCourt in State of Bihar & Anr.v. Ranchi Zila Samta Party & Anr.(1996) 3SCC 682 to investigate corruption in public administration, misconduct bythe bureaucracy, fabrication of official records, misappropriation ofpublic funds by an independent agency.This Court directed CBI to doinvestigation and inform the Chief Justice of Patna High Court.On the re-orgnisation of the State of Bihar by virtue of Bihar Re-organisation Act,2000, States of Bihar and Jharkhand were formed.Question arose withrespect to the place of trial of cases i.e. whether in State of Bihar orState of Jharkhand.A Full Bench of High Court of Patna took the view thatnone of the 36 cases which were of Jharkhand to be transferred toJharkhand.CBI preferred appeals before this Court as well as Dr. R.K.Rana.It isfor trial court to decide the prayer for joint trial.There were largenumber of accused persons.There hasto be different trials for different periods.The result of investigation in RC20(A)/96 and RC 64(A)/96 conclusively proves that there was a singleconspiracy with respect to defalcation at various Treasuries.Once accusedhas been punished for the conspiracy for the period 1988 to 1996 he cannotbe punished again for the same offence.The formal charge is identical in RC Nos.51(A),20(A) and 68(A).It was further alleged by the prosecution that the accusedhad developed a nexus with co-accused persons and had obtained from co-accused as a reward for services rendered – a laptop and two printers forhimself.“The Appellant pleaded on the ground of issue estoppel.The issue was regarding his citizenship.The dispute was over someagricultural land in Delhi over which multiple FIRs.and writs were filed. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,602,140 | of the Indian Penal Code adding Section 212/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1)(a)/27 of the Arms Act.He shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and he shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing.In the event he 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. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,603,064 | Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Respondent No.2 and APP for the Respondent - State.Mr. Sawant learned counsel forthe petitioners at the outset seeks leave to amend prayer clause so asto give particulars of the criminal case.Since petition is at the stage ofadmission, we grant liberty.Amendment be carried out forthwith.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:31:15 :::Petitioner no. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are husband andwife.Matrimonial dispute give rise to file civil aswell as criminal proceedings and the said subject FIR is one of them.The learned Counsel appearing for the respective partiessubmitted that during the pendency of investigation and with the helpand intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, theparties amicably settled their differences by way of mutual consentterms filed in Misc.Application No. 294/2018 in Sessions Court forGrater Mumbai.The consent terms are signed by the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 along with their respective counsels, theconsent terms are taken on record.Respondent No. 2 has also filed an separate affidavitUmesh Malani ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:31:15 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 09/07/2019 3/4 3.WP.490.17.docdated 28.02.2019 wherein Respondent No. 2 has given no objection toquash and set aside the subject FIR.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:31:15 :::Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are personallypresent before the Court.On specific query made by us, RespondentNo. 2 submitted that she has made the said affidavit on her own freewill, without there being any pressure or undue influence.She hasfurther confirmed that she has no objection for quashing the subjectFIR initiated by her against the Petitioners.The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryanareported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] has held that in the event of settlementof matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498-A can be quashed,even though the said offence is not compoundable in terms of Section320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court arecontained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below:There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.The hyper-technical view would be counterUmesh Malani ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:31:15 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 09/07/2019 4/4 3.WP.490.17.doc productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added.There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier.That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:31:15 :::Resultantly we quash and set aside the FIR bearing MECRno.6/2016 registered with Chirag Nagar Police Station, Ghatkopar foran offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354, 504,506(ii) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayerclause '(a)'.(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J)Umesh Malani ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:31:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 02:31:15 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,610,192 | Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of application under section 482 Cr.P.C.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 11.7.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai as well as entire proceeding of complaint case no. 143 of 2012, Darshan Singh Ahirwar Vs.Sudama Singh Yadav, under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act, Police Station Rampura, District Jalaun, pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jalaun.The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an Assistant Engineer in department of P.W.D. Jhansi and a construction of the building of I.T.I. was going on at Vikas Khand Rampura district Jalaun.About said construction the departmental enquiry has made and as per order of higher authority the applicant has made technical enquiry and reached at the place of incident where he found many fault and illegality in the construction work then he enquired from Junior Engineer Sri R.K.Singh Rathor then he misbehaved with the applicant and also made filthy language and also beaten by Sri Rathor and about his conduct the applicant has lodged a first information report against Sri Raj Kumar Singh Rathor on 16.9.2011 at police station Rampura District Jalaun which is being registered as case crime no. 910 of 2011 under sections 353, 332, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. The opp.party no. 2 has filed this false and frivolous complaint against the applicant with collusion of Sri Raj Kumar Singh Rathor.The summoning order dated 11.7.2013 was not in the knowledge of the applicant.In the month of June, 2017 the applicant came to know about proceeding of aforementioned complaint case.The applicant did not appear or surrender before the court concerned due to which N.B.W. has been issued against the applicant and there is no ground to quash the summoning order dated 11.7.2013 as well as entire proceeding of the aforementioned case.A perusal of record shows that the applicant has been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The opp.party no. 2 in his complaint it has mentioned that on 16.9.2011 at 2.30 p.m. the applicant committed marpit with him.The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to quash the summoning order dated 11.7.2013 as well as entire proceeding of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.Order Date :- 8.8.2017 Gss | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,720,132 | The petitioner is one of them who were apprehended.354/2019 Page 4 of 4BAIL APPLN.354/2019 Page 4 of 4SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 61/2018 under Sections 379/392/397/411/506/120-B of the IPC, Police Station Jama Masjid.The subject FIR has been registered on the complaint of an employee of Sanjay Sales Agency.As per the complainant, he was instructed by the owner to transport goods and money in a van from their shop at Fateh Puri, Delhi to the factory at Patparganj, Delhi.It is alleged that the complainant had put four boxes in the back of the van containing BAIL APPLN.354/2019 Page 1 of 4 goods and Rs. 15 lakhs in cash.As per the complainant after putting the goods in the back of the van he bolted the lock with a nail and sat in the front seat of the van with driver.It is alleged that three boys were travelling in the said van and they started fighting with the driver of the complainant.After the fight was over, they left the spot.Subsequently, someone pointed out that back door of the van was open.When they checked, it transpired that goods and cash were missing from the van.BAIL APPLN.354/2019 Page 1 of 4Chargesheet has been filed.Based on the same, they were apprehended.He submits that the entire story as mentioned in the FIR has changed in the subsequent statement given to the police.The entire narration of incident has changed and in the supplementary statement it is alleged that there was no theft but there was robbery of Rs. 40 lakhs that also at gunpoint.Substantive charge against the petitioner has only been framed under Section 411 IPC and other charge read with 120 B IPC has been BAIL APPLN.Further it is contended that the alleged recovery of cash from the petitioner is of no consequence, in as much as, neither the number of notes were noted nor there was any marked currency and as such the amount recovered from the petitioner cannot be connected to the subject offence.Status report has been filed and the same is taken on record.Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case.Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.Petition is allowed in the above terms.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J FEBRUARY 22, 2019 mk BAIL APPLN. | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,272,190 | These two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 26th April, 2005 passed in Sessions Case No.63/2004 whereby out of the five accused persons sent for facing trial, accused Ashok Chauhan and Raju were acquitted and accused Gurdayal (appellant in Crl.A. No.638/2005), Ghanshyam Gupta (appellant in Crl.A.No.148/2006) and Nanhe were convicted.CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 1 of 12In brief, the prosecution case is that on 17th July, 2000 DD No.32 Ex.11/A was recorded at C-54/1, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi at about 9:50 PM to the effect that some bad elements have entered the factory and have looted some goods.SI Yashpal Singh along with Const.Deep Chand reached the spot and on the ground floor, Shaym Kishore Sharma and Prakash Chand were untied and on CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 2 of 12 the first floor Babu Ram was untied as they all had been tied with the telephone wires.In the meantime Ajay Gupta, Manager of the said factory also reached there and after making inquiry from the chowkidar and the employees made statement Ex.It is incorrect that on that day I had identified two accused (Ashok and Raju) were among the persons who had come to the factory and I had not stated so before the police.(Statement mark PW2/A is read over to the witness who denied having made the same)."PW2/A to CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 7 of 12 highlight the improvements made by him in deposition before the Court.He had also been confronted with Statement Ex.DW2/DA wherein it was not stated that accused Gurdayal @ Suraj took out a revolver and placed on his chest.In his statement Ex.PW2/A it was also not stated that one of the persons stayed with him and others went upstairs and that person continued threatening him not to raise alarm or that when PW-2 Shyam Kishore tried to lift his face he took out a chhuri and again threatened that he would be killed.All these improvements in the statement of PW-2 who has partially supported the case of the prosecution, could not have been made basis of convicting appellants Gurdayal @ Suraj and Ghanshya for using deadly weapon at the time of commission of dacoity.CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 7 of 12Vide impugned judgment dated 23rd April, 2005 and order on sentence dated 26th April, 2005 while accused Nanhe was convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of 500/-, the two accused namely Gurdayal and Ghanshyam Gupta (appellants herein) were convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 395/397 IPC and sentenced as under:-(i) U/S 395 IPC : to undergo RI for three years and fine of 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for two months.(ii) U/S 397 IPC : to undergo RI for seven years and fine of 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for two months.Feeling aggrieved by their conviction under Section 395/397 IPC and sentence awarded thereunder, appellants Gurdayal and Ghanshyam Gupta have preferred these two appeals.It is informed that accused/convict Nanhe has already been released after undergoing the sentence awarded to him under Section 395 IPC.PW3/A on the basis of which FIR No.417/2000 Ex.PW-9/A was registered under Section 395/397/412 IPC at PS Ashok Vihar.CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 2 of 12After completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed against five accused namely (i) Nanhe Singh, (ii) Ashok Chauhan, (iii) Ghanshyam Gupta, (iv) Gurdayal @ Suraj & (v) Raju @ Karva.Since the appellants Gurdayal and Ghanshyam have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 397 IPC, they have challenged their conviction and sentence mainly on the following grounds:(i) PW-4 Prakash who is stated to be an eye witness has not supported the case of prosecution rather he had deposed that the accused present before the Court were not present at the factory on the day of alleged incident.(ii) Mere recovery of stolen articles cannot form basis to convict the appellants for the offence of robbery or dacoity and only three stolen silver coins were allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant after a long gap of about two months.Hence no presumption of they being dishonestly receiving the property stolen in commission of dacoity could have been drawn.(iii) The recovered three silver coins were not subjected to proper test identification during judicial proceedings before the learned Magistrate.No weapon was recovered from any of the appellants.CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 3 of 12Hence, the very basis of convicting them for committing the dacoity by using deadly weapon is not proved.(iv) No injury was suffered by any of the persons present in the factory.Hence, the necessary ingredients for convicting them under Section 397 IPC were not satisfied.(v) As per the prosecution case, out of twelve stolen silver coins only seven silver coins allegedly stolen were recovered from Raju @ Karva, Ashok Chauhan, Gurdayal and Nanhe and the balance coins have not been recovered nor it can be established as to what happened to those remaining silver coins.(vi) As per prosecution `1200 cash was robbed from the safe but no recovery has been affected.(vii) There are contradictions in the testimony of material prosecution witnesses which prove that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case especially when PW-2 Shyam Kishore has not fully supported the case of the prosecution and PW-4 Prakash has not supported the prosecution case at all and has not identified any of the accused persons to be involved in the same occurrence.On behalf of the State it has been submitted that from the testimony of PW-2 Shyam Kishore it was proved that appellants were armed with weapons at the time of commission of robbery.The robbed silver coins have been partially recovered and merely because they have not been identified by the complainant during test identification proceedings is no ground to disbelieve his testimony as these silver coins having image of Lakshmi ji and Ganesh ji on one CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 4 of 12 side and are purchased and gifted mostly at the time of Diwali festival and kept in the office with religious belief for prosperity.CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 4 of 128. Learned APP for the State submitted that since role of the two appellants has been clearly specified and they have been identified by PW-2 Shyam Kishore, their conviction and sentence may be maintained.Learned Trial Judge has convicted the two appellants for committing offence punishable under Section 395/397 IPC for the following reasons:(i) Recovery of three silver coins have been affected from the jhuggi/house of the accused persons and merely because public witnesses have not been joined is no ground to disbelieve the statement of the police officials.(ii) PW-2 Shyam Kishore and PW-4 Prakash were present in the factory at the time of occurrence and both of them testified that 6-7 persons came to the factory on 17th July, 2000 at about 8.30 PM and some of them were armed with knife and pistol.They also threatened PW-2 Shyam Kishore and PW-4 Prakash with dire consequences if they would raise alarm and those persons tied them with the telephone wire.(iii) PW-2 Shyam Kishore identified only three out of them and merely because he has been declared hostile is no ground to disbelieve his testimony in toto, as his statement to the extent it appears trustworthy can be relied upon.CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 5 of 12(iv) PW-2 Shyam Kishore has identified Gurdayal @ Suraj, Ghanshyam and Nanhe and deposed their specific roles in the occurrence.(v) The discrepancies pointed out by the learned defence counsel were considered insignificant.Learned ASJ held that no TIP was necessary in the matter and dock identification was sufficient as the witness had the opportunity to notice the distinctive feature of the accused persons.Since entire judgment convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 395/397 IPC is based on the testimony of PW-2 Shyam Kishore, it is necessary to extract his examination-in- chief which reads as under:"I am working as a Chowkidar in the factory of Chander Prakash at C-54/1, Wazirpur Industrial Area.My duty hours are from 8:00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. On 17-7- 2000 I was working on my duty.I was alone at that time.I was on the ground flor, whereas two of my colleagues Prakash Chand and babu Ram were present on the second floor.At about 8:20 p.m. a maruti car came and stopped at the gate of the factory.About 6/7 persons came out of that car and out of these persons one person came to me.That person is accused (indicated towards accused Gurdial).Accused Gurdial enquired from me as to where Babu was.I asked as to what work he had with Babu.Then accused Gurdial claimed that he had to take some money from babu.I told accused Gurdial that Babu would come next day and then he should come and collect his money.Then accused Gurdial took out a revolver and placed at my chest and other persons who had accompanied Gurdial in the car surrounded me.When I tried to raise alarm I was over powered and forced to enter the hall of the factory.I again raised CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 6 of 12 alarm and on hearing my noises Parkash came down stairs.Then those persons took a telephone wire and tied my hand and hands of Parkash and thrown us in a room.One of those persons remained standing with me whereas other accused went up-stairs and over powered Babu Ram.The person who stayed with me continued threatening me not to raise alarm and other persons who had gone upstairs started damaging the articles and the noises were heard by me.When I tried to lift my face then the person who had remained with me took out a chhuri and asked me not to raise a voice or I would be killed.When all the persons left I raised alarm and one of the neighbours either informed police or owner of the factory.Accused (indicated towards Ghanshyam) present in Court is the same person who had stayed with me on my guard and had threatened me with chhuri.The other accused (Ashok) was not among the persons who had come.CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 6 of 12Out of the five accused persons sent to face trial, two persons namely Ashok Chauhan and Raju have been acquitted by the learned ASJ.As per TIP proceedings Ex.PW3/B, test identification parade of all the case property was conducted during which PW-3 Ajay Kumar Gupta identified to be stolen silver coins recovered in this case.It is necessary to mention here that as per report Ex.13/F when the chance prints were lifted, left index finger impression of the accused Raju mark S1 matched with the chance print mark Q4 but he has been acquitted by the learned ASJ observing that the chance print Q4 was blurred and comparison of such chance print could not have been safe clue to establish identity.Thus, only three accused persons were left who were identified by PW-2 Shyam Kishore, CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 8 of 12 though PW-4 Prakash specifically stated that none of the accused persons was present in the factory at the time of occurrence.CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 8 of 12The question arising for consideration is whether without proving the involvement of five or more persons in the offence, the three accused persons could have been convicted under Section 395 IPC.In the case Ram Lakhan vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1983 SC 352 an identical issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court and dealt with as under:"In this appeal the appellant has been convicted under Section 395 and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.In our opinion this appeal must succeed on a short point.It appears from the FIR that only 9 persons viz. 1.Ramroop Kurmi,2.Ramdhoop Kurmi, 3.Rambodh Kurmi, 4.Ram Noker Kurmi,5.Sampuran Kurmi, 6.Rambachan Kurmi 7.Ram Lakhan Kurmi,8.Ram Ujagir Kurmi and 9.Ram Pyare kurmi have participated in the dacoity which is alleged to have been committed in the course of which ornaments, grains and other property were looted away.But on appeal the High Court acquitted the remaining three persons and convicted Ram Lakhan the present appellant.The position now is that out of 9 persons named in the FIR who are alleged to have participated in the dacoity Ram Lakhan is along left.Before an offence uder Section 395 can be made out there must be an assemply of 5 or more persons.On the findings of the courts below it is manifest that only one person is now left.The High Court has not found that Ram Lakhan was guilty of any overt act so as to bring his case within any other minor offence.The appeal is accordingly allowed.The accused is on bail.His bail bonds are cancelled.CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 9 of 12The appellant Ghanshyam @ Bablu has also been charged under Section 412 IPC for dishonestly receiving or retaining two silver coins belonging to complainant Ashok Kumar Gupta and Gurdayal @ Suraj has been charged for dishonestly receiving one silver coin belonging to Ashok Kumar Gupta, having reasons to believe the same to be stolen in the commission of dacoity.In view of the decisions in Ram Lakhan vs. State of U.P. (Supra) and Raj Kumar @ Raju vs. State of Uttaranchal (supra), since necessary ingredient to base conviction for committing the offence punishable under Section 395/397 IPC has not been proved by the prosecution as only three accused persons have been held guilty and convicted, the appellants could not have been convicted for committing the dacoity.It is relevant to mention here that Ashok Kumar Gupta, the complainant in this case is not an eye witness.Two eye witnesses PW-2 Shyam Kishore and PW-4 Prakash who were present in the factory at that time have not been made complainant and whatever PW-3 Ashok Kumar Gupta stated in his complaint Ex.9/A is on the basis of information gathered by him from PW-2 and PW-4 who are the employees and present in the factory at that time.It is also not clear from the FIR or DD No.32 Ex.11/A as to who informed the police.The endorsement on the rukka by the CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 10 of 12 Investigating Officer records that police people untied Shyam Kishore Sharma, Prakash Chand and Babu Ram who had been tied with the telephone wires so they could not have made any call to PCR.CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 10 of 1220. PW-2 Shyam Kishore and PW-4 Prakash Chand did not state that they had made the telephone call.Even the number from which the call was received cannot be ascertained from the DD No.32 Ex.11/A or from the statement of the Investigating Officer.The appellants were arrested in FIR No.508, 509, 511 and 512 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Ashok Vihar and on the basis of their disclosure statement this case was solved.On the basis of recovery of two silver coins from Ghanshyam @ Bablu and one silver coin from Gurdayal @ Suraj at the most the appellants could have been convicted under Section 411 IPC for receiving the stolen property.It is also necessary to mention that PW-2 Shyam Kishore in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had not given any distinctive feature of any of the appellant so as to enable him to identify the appellants.In view of the above discussion, the conviction of the appellants Gurdayal and Ghanshyam Gupta for committing the offence punishable under Sections 395/397 IPC cannot be sustained.Hence, the conviction of the appellants for committing the offence punishable under Section 395/397 IPC and sentence awarded thereunder are set aside.For the recovery of stolen silver coins i.e. one silver coin from appellant Gurdayal @ Suraj and two silver coins from appellant CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 11 of 12 Ghanshyam, as the appellants have not been found guilty for committing dacoity, they cannot be convicted under Section 412 IPC.Thus, the appellants Gurdayal and Ghanshyam Gupta are convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 11 of 12As per the nominal roll of the appellant Gurdayal @ Suraj, as on 22.03.2007 he has undergone three years, six months and one day in judicial custody and on 22.03.2007 he was released on bail.Perusal of nominal roll of the appellant Ghanshyam reveals that he has completed the sentence of seven years on 28 th July, 2008 awarded to him in this case and he was finally released from Jail on 08.12.2009 after disposal of other cases pending against him.In view of the nominal roll of the appellant received from Jail, they have already undergone the sentence of three years awarded to them for committing the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.Both the appeals are allowed in above terms.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information.TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.As prayed, copy of the order be also given dasti to learned counsel for the appellants under the signature of Court Master.PRATIBHA RANI (JUDGE) AUGUST 02, 2017 'st' CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 12 of 12CRL.A. Nos.638/2005 & 148/2006 Page 12 of 12 | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,725,679 | Applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") against the judgment dated 15.11.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, District Jhabua in Cri.Heard on I.A. No. 8407/2018, an application u/S 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of custodial sentence of applicant Sattar Khan.Applicant has been found guilty for offence punishable under Section 304A IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. & further convicted u/S 337 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months R.I. respectively.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application, submitting that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.This Court, after carefully going through the record and after hearing learned counsel for the applicant, is of the 2 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CRR-5716-2018 (SATTAR KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) considered opinion that the application for suspension of custodial sentence deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, I.A. No. 8407/2018 is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this revision The applicant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 06.05.2019 and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.List the revision on the question of admission after four weeks.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sh/-Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 2018.12.22 10:46:49 +05'30' | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,927,286 | JUDGMENT Sudhanshu Sekhar Ganguly, J.1.This is an appeal from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri S.C. Dutta, Additional Sessions Judge, Fifth Court, Midnapore in S.T. case No. II of May, 1983 convicting both the appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing both to imprisonment for life and also to a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to R.I. for one month each.The prosecution case was that the two appellants along with twelve other accused way laid one Banabehari Pal at about 10/11 a.m. on 16-7-81 when the present two appellants assaulted him with a spade and an axe and killed him almost instantaneously.All the fourteen accused stood their trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Under Sections 302/34 and 120-B, I.P.C. on the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution the learned Judge found only the charge Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. established against only the present two appellants and he convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated above.Hence, this appeal.It is urged from the side of the appellants that the evidence on record taken together with the medical evidence fell far short of establishing the prosecution allegation against the two appellants.It is to be seen, therefore, if on the materials on record the learned Judge was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants as stated above.The FIR (ext. 1) was lodged in this case by Purna Chandra Pal (P.W. 1) the elder brother of the deceased Banbehari.From his evidence it appears that the brothers and their father Sripati Charan Pal (P. W. 12) had disputes with some of the accused persons viz. Tuna Singh, Babulal Singh, and Sukra Singh and Purna Dolui whose son is the accused, Ratikanta, over plot No. 1286 of mouza Dharimba, Sripati who claimed to be the bargadar of fifty decimals of this plot fought a suit with them over this land.Sripati (P.W. 12) obtained an ad interim injunction therein (Exts. 2 and 3).The deceased Banbehari used to look after these proceeding's due to which the accused aforementioned could not take possession of the said land.Besides the accused Satya Sekhar Mondal suspected that Banbehari was behind the vesting of his lands in the State.Purna also says that Banbehari filed a criminal case against the appellant Durga Singh as he tried to harvest paddy from plot No. 1286 forcibly and this estranged the relation between the parties and the accused party threatened P.W. Purna and the members of his family with dire consequences.The prosecution case is that the murder of Banbehari was entirely due to the inimical feelings which the accused party developed against Banbehari and his family members.Apart from the certified copies of the court-papers (Exts. 2 and 3) mentioned above, the prosecution has also exhibited a number of true copies of letters, allegedly addressed by the deceased Banbehari to the President and Prime Minister of India, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police of Midnapore and other local authorities and the postal papers showing that the originals of these letters etc. had actually been sent to the authorities mentioned above (Exts.5 to 12).The records do not show that the originals of these letters etc. were actually called for from their respective addressees as required under Section 66 of the Evidence Act. In the circumstances stated we are not inclined to take these copies into our consideration.However, apart from the court papers (Exts. 2 and 3) there is oral evidence on the point of pre-existing enmity.There is evidence of Purna mention of which has already been made before.His father Sripati also says about the litigation which he had with the accused party over land and the complaint of the accused Satya Mondal that at the instance of the deceased Banbehari his land was made khas by the Government.There is hardly any cross-examination on these points.Relying on the materials on records - discarding though the copies of the letters (Exts. 5 to 12) mentioned above - it may be safely held that there was a pre-existing enmity between the parties.Enmity, however, is a double-edged weapon.It may be used for explaining as well from the side of the defence why the complaint had been lodged against the accused.In fact, it appears from the evidence of Ardhendu (P.W. 2) that Sripati (P.W. 12) and his sons Purna (P.W. 1), Kanai (P.W. 4) and the deceased were supporters of the C.P.I. whereas the members of the accused party including the present two appellants were supporters of the C.P.I. (M).Even granting that there was enmity between the prosecuting and the accused parties on account of party rivalry, it does not follow from that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses should be discarded because of that.For the law is well settled that the evidence of a partisan witness may be acted upon - even without corroboration - if his presence at the scene of the occurrence cannot be doubted, his evidence is consistent with the surrounding circumstances and the probabilities of the case and strikes the court as true; and, this more so if some assurance for the evidence of such a witness is available from medical evidence : Tameshwar Sahi v. State of Uttar Pradesh .In the present case there is evidence to show the presence of the present two appellants and others at the alleged place of the occurrence, on the relevant date and time.This evidence is coming from Purna, Kanai, Srimanta K. Das and Sripati (P.Ws. 1, 4, 8, 12).Purna and Kanai (P.Ws. 1 and 4) brothers of the deceased noticed them there as they were going to Kharagpur on a bicycle that day sometime after 9 p.m. Srimanta (P.W. 8) a co-villager who was also going to Kharagpur that morning saw them there.Sripati (P.W. 12) the father of the deceased claims seeing them there as he followed the deceased Banbehari and Hansaraj to the field.Both Purna and Sripati (P.Ws. 1 and 12) claim seeing the appellants, Sahadeb and Durga with an axe and a spade with them at that time.On the point of the assaults on Banbehari there is evidence of two witnesses Ardhendu Sekhar Maity (P.W. 2) and Hansaraj Pal (P.W. 5) the latter the eldest son of Purna (P.W. 1) Ardhendu claims that he was going to his own field near the place of the occurrence that day between 10 and 11 a.m. when he noticed that the appellants Sahadeb and Durga Singh had pushed Banbehari down to the Test Relief Road.He also saw the appellant Durga assaulting Banbehari twice on his neck with a spade.Banbehari cried out to him for help but out of fear he ran back home and on way told Mana Singh (P.W. 3) the servant of the house of Sreepati what he had seen.He identified the spade (Ext. I) recovered and seized from a spot near the alleged place of the occurrence, as the one with which the appellant Durga had assaulted Banbehari.Hansaraj (P.W. 5) says that he accompanied Banbehari to the field that day after taking tiffin.They set out from the field for home for bringing the tiffin for their labours.When they came upon the T.R. Road, both the appellants Durga and Sahadeb pushed Banbehari down to the ground and assaulted him with a spade and an axe respectively.Banbehari cried out for help to Ardhendu (P.W. 2) but the latter hastened homewards.He (i.e. Hansaraj) also ran away towards the fields being threatened by the accused Sukra.He also identified the spade and the axe (Exts.I & II) seized in this case as the weapons of offence.How far these two witnesses and the others mentioned above may be relied upon?So far as Ardhendu (P.W. 2) is concerned, the defence could hardly produce any reason why he should be disbelieved.It has not been established that he is a supporter of the C.P.I. or that he has any reason for being friendly disposed towards the appellants.It is not disputed that he had land near the place of the occurrence and the fact that transplantation was going on at that time makes his presence at the place of the occurrence at the relevant time very probable.Besides Mana Singh (P.W. 3) the servant of Sripati to whom he allegedly unburdened himself finding none other present at their house, corroborates him fully.Mana Singh (P.W. 3) cannot be disbelieved simply because he happened to be the servant of Sreepati at that time.Besides, the evidence of Ardhendu is also borne out by medical evidence.Ardhendu saw appellant Durga hitting Banbehari twice on his neck with the spade.Post-mortem examination on the dead body of Banbehari revealed no less than three injuries on the right and two injuries on the left side of the neck (see evidence of Dr. Aftarbuddin P.W. 14 items 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the list of injuries) which according to the Doctor could have been caused by the spade or the axe seized in this case (Exts.I & II).Last but not the least, chemical examination revealed presence of blood on both the spade and the axe (Ext.17).On the one hand, therefore, no reason has been alleged or established as to why this witness should be disbelieved on the other hand his presence at the place of the occurrence at the relevant time has been probabilised by his having land near the place of the occurrence.Besides, his evidence has also been corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses and medical evidence.His version that he accompanied Banbehari to the field that morning and that they both set out therefrom for home for bringing the tiffin of the labourers is corroborated by Nemai Saren (P.W. 9) a labourer who claims that he was labouring in Banbehari's land on that day.His version that Banbehari was pushed down to the ground by the two appellants when they reached the Test Relief Road, that the appellant Durga hit him with a spade and that Banbehari called out to Ardhendu to save him and that the latter instead of coming to his aid left for his home stands corroborated by the version of Ardhendu (P.W. 2).His version also stands corroborated by medical evidence and the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext. 17).It also does not strike one as unlikely that he might have accompanied Banbehari to the field on that day.True he was not named by Ardhendu or in the FIR.Ardhendu must have been too flabbergasted to notice the presence of Hansaraj or anybody else not connected with the assault on Banbehari.The FIR was based upon what the informant Purna (P.W. 1) had heard from Mana Singh and Ardhendu (P.Ws. 2 and 3) and that explains the absence of the name of Hansaraj in the FIR.Similarly the fact that Ardhendu names only appellant Durga Singh as the assailant whereas Hansaraj names him as well as Sahadeb as the assailants does not strike one as significant in view of the fact that Hansaraj stood almost at the place of the occurrence whereas Ardhendu stood at a distance and further that he continued to stay there even after Ardhendu turned homewards.Presumably the assault on Banbehari continued even after Ardhendu turned his back, for he saw Banbehari receiving only two blows whereas postmortem revealed no less than fifteen injuries on the deadbody of Banbehari excluding injury No. 4 which could have been caused by fall and treating the injuries on all the fingers of right and left palms as two injuries.Similarly the absence of Hansaraj when S.I. Rahaman (P.W. 15), the I.O. visited the village and his absence from the village from 17th to 19th July, 1981 have both been explained satisfactorily.Hansaraj (P.W. 5) himself says that he came back home from the field that day at about 4/5 p.m. when the police officer had already left the village.He also says and that is also the version of his father Purna (P.W. 1) that on 17-7-81 he was sent to his maternal uncle's place as it was feared that his life was in danger.The evidence of Ardhendu and Hansaraj (P.Ws. 2 and 5) taken together shows that the present two appellants hit and injured Banbehari with an axe and a spade.The learned Advocate for the appellants refers to the evidence of Dr. M. Aftabbuddin (P.W. 14) who has described all the injuries, found by him on the dead body of Banbehari as lacerated injuries and he argues that the Doctor's opinion totally belies the evidence of Ardhendu and Hansaraj (PWs.2 and 5).The findings of the Doctor as regards the injuries found by him on the dead body of Banbehari are reproduced below for appreciation of the point raised by the learned advocate.On examination I found the following:I. Fracture of the left wrist joint.Lacerated wounds on the left palmer surface of the fingersa) Little finger - 1/2" X 1/2" muscle deep.b)Ring Finger - 1/2 X 1/2 X muscle deep.c) Middle finger - 1/2" X 1/2 muscle deep.d) Index finger 1/2" X 1/2" X muscle deep.All are transversely placed.e) Base of the thumb of palm 2" X 1/2" X muscle deep.Lacerated wound of the right palmer surface of the fingers:a) Palmer surface of the little finger 2" X 1/2" X muscle deep-transversely placed.b) Middle finger - 1/2" X 1/2" X muscle deep - transversely placed.c) Index finger - 1/2" X 1/2" muscle deep transversely placed.Abrasions two in number each 6" X 6" pteced like a cross over the right scapulae V. Anterior surface of the left arm upperthird 1/2" X 1/2'' muscle deep.Lacerated wound right side below and behind the mastoid bone 3" X 2" bone deep at the level of the second cervical vertebra.Injuries 6, 7 and 8 have cut all the muscles, vessels, nerves and partly bone.Middle of the right shoulder lacerated wound 1 1/2" X 1/2" muscle deep.X. Lacerated wound on the left side of the neck these are closed and repaired.a) 4" X 1 1/2 muscle deep and another 1/2" below 31/2'' X 1/2" muscle deep.It has cut the muscles, vessles and nerves.Below the angle of the right side of the mandible lacerated wound 2" X 1" muscle deep.2 lacerated wounds l 1/2" X 1/2" muscle deep close to right nipple.Lacerated wound inner side of the right arm 1/2 X 1/2" muscle deep.Lacerated wound V2" X 1/2" muscle deep outer side of the right arm.All wounds show signs of inflammation and repair.According to the Doctor shock, haemorrhage and injuries on the vital organs caused death in this case.One ordinarily would have expected the injuries to be described as incised injuries since they cut all the muscles, vessels and nerves and in the case of injuries 6 to 8 partly even bone.The Doctor, however, insisted that these injuries were all lacerated in nature.He was further of the definite opinion that the aforementioned injuries (i.e. Sl. Nos. 6 to 8 and 10) and a few others viz. Sl.Nbs. 1, 2, 3, 9 and 11 could be caused by the spade and axe exhibited in this case (Exts.Besides the charge in this case is one Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The evidence on record clearly establishes that both the appellants together pushed Banbehari down to the road and both assaulted him with spade and axe.Death was caused as a result of the joint endeavour of both the appellants and they both must be made responsible for all the injuries caused to the deceased.Banbehari's dead body lying in a pool of blood was actually recovered from the spot with multiple injuries on it.Medical evidence establishes that Banbehari's death was due to the injuries suffered by him on the vital parts of his body, and further that V. The said injuries could have been caused by the spade and axe (Exts.I & II) seized in this case.Blood was detected on both the spade and axe (Exts.I & II) indentified as the weapons of the offence used by the two appellants.In view of the conclusions derived from the evidence we are of the opinion that the learned Judge did nothing wrong by finding the two appellants guilty Under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentencing them to imprisonment for life.The present appeal must therefore, fail.The appellants do submit to their bail bonds and serve out the sentence. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,734,820 | His neighbor Alisher @ Raju (appellant) was also missing.On his this statement FIR No. 491/2006 under Section 363 IPC was registered.Investigation was handed over to SI Pradeep Rawat.During the investigation he came to know that appellant and prosecutrix were in Agra.He along with Sandhya, aunt of the prosecutrix went to Agra on 17th October, 2006 and found prosecutrix and appellant present at the bus stand of Vidya Niketan Colony.On the pointing of Sandhya, appellant and the prosecutrix were apprehended.They were brought to Delhi.Medical examination of prosecutrix was conducted in Safdarjung Hospital.Age of the prosecutrix was got determined through radiological examination by a medical board of doctors since no document could be produced by the parents of the prosecutrix in support of her age.After examining the x-ray plates of her wrist, elbow, shoulder and pelvis, doctors opined that age of the prosecutrix was between 14 to 16 years.6. Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the prosecutrix was recorded.It may be noted here that investigation of the case was handed over on 18th October, 2006 to Women Assistant Sub Inspector Kailash (hereinafter referred to as the "I.O.") who recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the prosecutrix.In her statement prosecutrix stated that appellant was her neighbor.He was married.Appellant and his wife used to quarrel almost daily.On 10th October, 2006 she was sad as her parents had reprimanded her.Appellant asked her as to why she was upset at which she narrated the entire story to him.He told her that he was also fed up with his wife.He suggested that they should go somewhere else and set up a new home.Appellant took her to Agra where they stayed in the house of a friend of appellant located in Vidya Niketan Colony.Appellant introduced her to them as his wife.Appellant did "bura kaam" with her for 2/3 days.P.C before Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi wherein she stated that on 10th October, 2006 she was standing outside her house when appellant came there and took out one cloth from his pocket and waived it in front of her face.Thereafter, she followed him meekly.He took her to Agra.There he kept her in his friend's house.He gave beatings to her.In Satish Kumar (Supra), Senior Radiologist had opined the age of the prosecutrix between 14 to 16 years.It was held that there can be existence of variation in the age on account of climatic, diabetic or hereditary factors extending upto one to two years, thus, age of the prosecutrix, could be between 17 to 18 years.A. 507/2009 Page 8 of 13 In Azim vs. State 2010 III AD (Delhi) 823, as per the opinion of the doctor, who had examined the x-ray plates, age of the prosecutrix was above 14 and below 16 years.A perusal of testimony of prosecutrix makes it clear that she was a consenting party.Such inference can be drawn from her conduct.Prosecutrix has admitted that appellant was her neighbor.In her statement recorded on 16th October, 2010 she has no where stated that appellant had waived a cloth on her face and, thereafter, she followed him meekly till they reached Agra.Instead, she has stated that on 10th October, 2006 she was sad on account of scolding by her parents.Appellant came up to her and told that he was also fed up on account of quarrels with his wife and they should go somewhere and set up a new home.Thereafter, she CRL.A. 507/2009 Page 9 of 13 accompanied him to Agra where he kept her in his friend's house.She has admitted in her cross-examination that while she was travelling with the appellant from Delhi to Agra, as also during her stay with him for about seven days, she did not raise any alarm nor complained anyone that appellant had brought her forcibly and against her wishes.In her cross- examination, she has stated that from their house they went to bus stand in an auto rickshaw.Before boarding the auto rickshaw they had walked for about 10 minutes through the market.There were so many passengers at the bus stand as also in the bus.Bus reached Agra at about 2 am in the night.From the bus stand they went to the house where they stayed, on foot, which was at a walking distance of 5 to 10 minutes.Appellant asked her to stand outside the house while he went inside the house.He came back and took her inside the house.There was no toilet in the house.Appellant has been convicted under Sections 363/376 IPC by the Trial Court; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 376 IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one and half months under Section 363 IPC.A. 507/2009 Page 1 of 13Hymen was found torn but no mark of injury was found on the body of prosecutrix.Appellant was also medically examined in the same hospital.No marks of external injury were found on the body of the appellant as well.Doctor opined that there was nothing to suggest that appellant was not competent to perform sexual intercourse under normal circumstances.A. 507/2009 Page 2 of 13A. 507/2009 Page 2 of 13While they were going to some other house police officials apprehended them at the bus stand.A. 507/2009 Page 3 of 13A. 507/2009 Page 3 of 13On 19th October, 2006 statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.He kept her there for several days.During this period he did "galat kaam" with her after removing his clothes and her clothes.When she objected to this he gave beatings to her.Appellant used to bolt the room from outside whenever he went out.One day she saw someone outside the room and called him.Said person opened the latch of the room and she went to a nearby STD booth.She rang up her aunt who brought the police officials with her to Agra.Charges under Sections 363/376 IPC were framed by the Trial Court against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Prosecution examined eight witnesses in all to support its story.He has deposed that the appellant CRL.A. 507/2009 Page 4 of 13 was potent to perform sexual intercourse.PW6 Dr. Garima had clinically examined the prosecutrix.She has proved her report as Ex. PW6/A. She has deposed that the possibility of rape and sexual assault cannot be ruled out.PW7 Dr. M.K. Wahi has proved bony age report as Ex.PW7/B. He was Chairman of the Board which had examined the x-ray plates and opined the age of prosecutrix above 14 years and below 16 years.He has deposed that margin of error of six months to one year on lower side of the age as well as on the higher side of the age is possible in such cases.All other witnesses are formal in nature being police officials having been joined with the investigation at one or the other stage.A. 507/2009 Page 4 of 13After prosecution closed its evidence, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant was recorded wherein entire incriminating material, which had come on record, was put to him.The case of the appellant is that of simple denial.He claimed that he had been falsely implicated on account of earlier quarrel between his wife and the prosecutrix.He has not led any evidence in his defense.After scrutinizing evidence regarding the age of prosecutrix, Trial Judge has held that there was possibility that prosecutrix was above 16 years of age.Learned Amicus Curiae has vehemently contended that age of the prosecutrix has to be taken 18 years after extending CRL.A. 507/2009 Page 5 of 13 benefit of two years on the higher end, as determined by the doctors through radiological examination.Conduct of the prosecutrix as emerges from the record indicates that she was a consenting party.Prosecutrix had accompanied the appellant and stayed with him for about seven days without raising any alarm or making any effort to escape which itself shows that she was a consenting party.During this period she had passed through crowded places and travelled by public transport without raising any alarm, She even did not complain to any person including her fellow passengers that appellant had been taking her with him forcibly.Prosecutrix has not deposed that appellant had threatened her by showing any weapon or otherwise and for this reason she had meekly accompanied him.Testimony of prosecutrix is discrepant as she has taken inconsistent stand at different stages.In nutshell, his contention is that prosecutrix being a consenting party, no offence of rape within the meaning of Section 375 IPC is made out against the appellant.Reliance has been placed on Satish Kumar Vs.Reliance has been placed on S. Varadarajan Vs.A. 507/2009 Page 5 of 13A. 507/2009 Page 6 of 13A. 507/2009 Page 6 of 13Per contra, learned APP has vehemently contended that prosecutrix is a trustworthy and reliable witness.In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C as also while deposing in the Court, she has categorically deposed that appellant had taken her away against her wishes.She was made to smell one handkerchief.Thereafter, she lost her senses and accompanied the appellant without raising any alarm.Prosecutrix has deposed that she was confined in a room by the appellant, thus, there was no occasion for her to raise any alarm.One day, she saw a person outside the room who helped her in coming out of the room.She went to a STD booth and rang up her aunt and narrated the incident to her.Police officer was informed.Police officials along with aunt of the prosecutrix went to Agra and apprehended the appellant.In this case, no CRL. A. 507/2009 Page 7 of 13 documentary evidence was made available to the Trial Court regarding exact age of the prosecutrix.No ocular evidence is also there to conclusively indicate that the age of prosecutrix was below 16 years as on the date of incident.Only medical evidence is available in this regard.PW7 Dr. M.K. Wahi was the Chairman of the Board which had rendered opinion regarding the age of the prosecutrix on the basis of radiological examination.He has deposed that x-ray plates were examined by him and other members of the Board.From the physical, dental and radiological examination it was found that prosecutrix was above 14 years but below 16 years of age.At the same time he has admitted that there is possibility of margin of six months to one year error on lower side of the age as well as on the higher side of the age.In Jaya Mala Vs.Home Secretary, Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.A Single Judge of this Court held that since there can be variation of up to two years in the bony age determined by examination of X-ray plates, the age of the prosecutrix could be up to approximately 18 years at the time she left the house of her parents.In this case no other evidence is available except report of PW7 according to which age of the prosecutrix was between 14 to 16 years.By giving benefit of margin of error of two years, the age of the prosecutrix can safely be taken as approximately 18 years.Thus, prosecutrix is to be taken as major as on the date of incident.A. 507/2009 Page 7 of 13A. 507/2009 Page 8 of 13At the bus stand lot of passengers were there.She travelled with the appellant in a crowded bus.In spite of this, she did not make any effort to raise alarm or to tell the people that appellant had been taking her against her wishes.In her statement under CRL.A. 507/2009 Page 10 of 13 Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she was standing outside her house, when appellant came there and waived a cloth in front of her face where after she followed him.It is hard to fathom that she would have walked for about 10 minutes before boarding the auto rickshaw and thereafter travelled in the crowded bus and thereafter walked again for about 10-15 minutes in semi-conscious state.She has vividly described the way they reached Agra which also makes this story set up by her highly improbable.It is unlikely that such a detailed description can be given by a person who had been allegedly in semi-conscious state.Her conduct makes her a consenting party.A. 507/2009 Page 9 of 13A. 507/2009 Page 10 of 13Prosecutrix has deposed that appellant used to bolt the room from outside whenever he went out.One day she saw somebody near the room and called him.He opened the door, thereafter, she went to a nearby STD booth and talked to her aunt Sandhya on telephone narrating her plight.Her aunt along with police officials came to Agra and apprehended appellant.However, her this statement is suspicious having remained uncorroborated from the testimony of PW2 Sandhya, who has nowhere deposed that she had received any call from the prosecutrix.The story propounded by the prosecutrix also fails to inspire confidence that she was confined in a room by the appellant.She has admitted that there was no toilet inside CRL.A. 507/2009 Page 11 of 13 the house.If that is so, then she had been going out to ease herself.Prosecutrix had stayed in the said house for about seven days.It cannot be said that during this period in spite of her going out for easing herself she had no opportunity to raise alarm or to escape.PW2 Sandhya has deposed that the prosecutrix was standing at the bus stand while appellant was purchasing something from a shop, before they were apprehended.There was lot of crowd at the bus stand.This shows that appellant had not kept the prosecutrix in his strict captivity and had given enough freedom to her, during which period she could have raised alarm.A. 507/2009 Page 11 of 13Conduct of the prosecutrix meekly accompanying the appellant from her house to the bus stand in an auto rickshaw and, thereafter, to Agra in a bus, staying with him at Agra for a considerable long period without raising any alarm goes against her and an inference can safely be drawn that she was a consenting party.Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Jail for serving it upon the appellant as also for compliance A.K. PATHAK, J.JANUARY 21, 2011/ga CRL.A. 507/2009 Page 13 of 13 | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
1,927,386 | Premises Tenancy Act (12 of 1956)--Section 13(1)(f)--Reasonably required for rebuilding--Tests to determine--"Binani"--A family concern--Absence of a formal resolution for rebuilding--If fatal--Absence of cross-examination--Effect--Interested evidence--Meaning--Section 13 (4).If clog to decree for eviction. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,749,132 | The report has been received from the SHO concerned relating to the affidavit submitted by Govind Singh Patel.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 31.1.2015 relating to Crime No.50/15 registered at Police Station Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 294 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Except the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, remaining offences are bailable.Initially, it was alleged by the complainant that the applicant fired from the gun causing injury to him.However, at present, the complainant has given an affidavit which is duly verified by the concerned SHO that due to crowd, he could not understand that who fired from the gun.In the affidavit, he has accepted that fire was not done by the applicant.Under these circumstances, no offence under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of the IPC.The applicant is unnecessarily kept in the custody.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned Dy.Govt. Adv.for the State opposes the application.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,754,386 | We were requested by the officials of the Bar Association not to dismiss any case or to pass any ex parte order or to delist the matter, if not the learned counsels for both the parties are available.We till now have made no such order ex parte or delist the matter or dismiss any application, where the learned counsels of the petitioner(s) of the opposite party are not available.Having regard to above, we are not inclined to pass any order of adjournment of hearing of this matter and we believe that if we take up this matter for hearing, that would not be against the request made by the Bar Association.Having regard to above, this application is taken up for hearing on merits.The petitioner is the sister-in-law.Now, going through the case diary, we find that the victim-housewife committed suicide within 5 years of her marriage by hanging.We find that not only after the marriage, she was ill treated at her matrimonial home by the inlaws, but, on the date before the occurrence, there was 3 a quarrel between the husband and wife.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,927,549 | JUDGMENT S.K. Kulshrestha, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3-7-1998 of the learned Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 234/96 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC on three counts and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- on each count: in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for three months.He has also been sentenced under Section 307 for attempting at the life of Firoz Khan and sentenced to RI for 5 years.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The appellant was prosecuted for having committed murder on the night intervening 27th and 28th of May, 1996 of Azhar Khan, Afridibee and Arif Khan and attempting murder of Firoz Khan.According to the prosecution, at about midnight there was discussion in the family in which while the other members of the family wanted to give the Tempo on contract for Rs. 3,000/- a month, the appellant had insisted that he would ply the same and hopefully earn about Rs. 200/- per day.After the discussion when everybody was asleep, (P.W. 2), Firoz Khan woke up and heard the alarm raised by Afridibee (deceased).It was about 3 or 3.30 A.M. Arif witnessed that Afridibee and Arif were burning and there was fire on the bed as someone had poured diesel on the bed and set the matress ablaze.Athar was also shouting.It was alleged that accused was assaulting Azhar by means of an iron pipe.Arif managed to jump from the bed but the accused assaulted him too.He brought Afridibee out.Athar also came out bringing and jumped into a water tank with the result the fire extinguished.The accused managed to run away.On learning about the incident, the neighbours collected.Firoz, Athar and Afridibee were taken in attempt to the Hospital where police also arrived.Firoz Khan lodged P-3 Dehati Nalish in the Hospital itself.The report was recorded by the Station House Officer on the basis whereof the offence was registered at P.S. Mahakal.(P.W. 8) Prasanna Chaturvedi Additional Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate was called to record the dying declaration and accordingly dying declarations Exs.P-16 and P-17, respectively of deceased Athar and Afridibee, were recorded.(P.W. 11) Anoop Mishra also recorded the statements P-24 and P-25 of Afridibee and Athar under Section 161 of the Cr.PC.On injured having succumbed to their injuries, their bodies were forwarded for post-mortem examination.Both the experts opined that death had occurred on account of shock.After completion of the investigation the accused was prosecuted.Although the accused pleaded that he was not guilty, he was convicted and sentenced as hereinabove stated.It is against the said conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed.It does not require that the Trial Court shall give finding in regard to unsoundness of the mind at the conclusion of the trial.Learned Counsel for the appellant has next contended that the main witnesses to the incident having not supported the prosecution, the only evidence on which the prosecution has relied is the evidence of dying declaration and the statements recorded by the Police.Learned Counsel submits that even in the statements given by the deceased the fact that the accused was deranged has been highlighted and, therefore, even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused is the person who was responsible for causing the fire resulting in the death of three and injury to one, it was only on account of this mental condition that he committed the said act and, therefore, he cannot be held responsible in law.Learned Counsel for the State, per contra, submits that the incident was preceded by discussion in which the accused was the only disagreeing party and thereafter the accused took out diesel from the vehicle poured the same and lighted match which shows that he knew the consequence of his act and was fully conscious of what he was doing.The prosecution examined (P.W. 2) Firoz Khan, brother of the deceased, as the eye-witness (P.W. 3) Nisar Ahmed and (P.W. 12) Asar Khan as neighbours.Nisar Ahmed and Asar Khan had immediately reached the spot and were informed by Firoz Khan and others about the incident.All these witnesses did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile.Bereft of the evidence of the eye-witnesses and other circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is left only with two dying declarations Exs.P-16 and P-17 of Athar and Afridibee and their statements under Section 161, which now have acquired the status of dying declaration.The dying declarations Exs.P-16 and P-17 were recorded by (P.W. 8) Prasanna Kumar Chaturvedi, Additional Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate while Exs. P-24 and P-25, statements under Section 161, Cr.PC, were recorded by Anoop Mishra (P.W. 11).(P.W. 8) Prasanna Kumar Chaturvedi has deposed that on 28-5-96 he was posted as Additional Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate.On that day, he received a written intimation from P.S. Mahankal at 5.30 A.M. that some people had got burnt and that their statements were to be recorded in Civil Hospital, Ujjain.He had recorded the statement in the question and answer form.In his cross-examination he has stated that at the time of the recording of the statements doctors were present and the persons were giving proper answers and their mental condition was proper.He had, therefore, not obtained a certificate from the doctor because he was himself satisfied about the mental condition and in the requisition itself there was such a certificate of the doctor.In the morning of 28-5-96 he had gone to the place of the incident and arranged for the dying declaration of the persons who were burnt.He had also recorded the statements.In view of the recitals contained in Exs.Reference has also been made to the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Sanghvi (C.W. 4) and father of the accused (D.W. 1) Anwar Khan.He was recluse.He was suffering from Schizophrenia.In the evidence of (D.W. 1) Anwar Khan, he has stated that right from childhood the condition of accused was that of a mad man.Half the time he used to remain like a normal person and the other half, abnormal.During insanity he used to eat as much as a person eats in three or four days.He had also taken him for treatment.From the above testimony and the act of the accused leading to the offence we have to see whether at the time of the commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.The evidence referred to by the learned Counsel is the evidence with regard to mental aberration and abnormality but does not refer to any unsoundness at the time he actually committed the offence. | ['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. |
192,759,088 | When she returned conscious, she asked then she came to know that she was in the house of some relative of Ritesh named Mohan Pradeshi.All said that she will have to live as wife of Ritesh.If she does not obey order, she will be killed.She was frightened, they got her signature on blank stamp paper and threated her and made marriage certificate which is wrong.Next day her father came searching her and she went to Khandwa with father and Mousa.On 21.4.2011, Ritesh committed rape with her and got photograph by threat.His book and mark sheet are with Ritesh.He committed rape against her will.She did not lodge report because of fear of defamation earlier.Later she lodged report.as per rules.the offence alleged against them in Sessions Trial No.190/2012 under sections 376, 366/34 and 506 of IPC.The prosecution story as stated by the learned Sessions Judge in its judgment for the sake of reference is reproduced here as under:-Prosecution story in brief is that complainant lodged report is PS Manawar that she studied in B.Sc.On 21.4.2011 at about 12.30 o'clock, she went to college.Out of college brother of Ritesh, mother Vidyabai, father Prahalad came on silver Maruti and forcible pushed her in Maruti and Umesh put handkerchief on mouth and with some poisonous substance, she went unconscious.Police registered FIR in Crime No.300/11 in Ss.366/34, 376 and 506 of IPC.During investigation police got the victim medially examined, recorded statement, arrested accused, and after completion of investigation filed challan under section 376 of IPC.For the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the respondents are stated in paragraphs 16, 17 and 20 of the judgment, which are reproduced here as under:-Analyzing all the evidence together it is clear that court will have to determine the age of victim first.Looking to the documents, medical papers and version of prosecutrix it is clear that victim is about 20-21 years old thus she is held major.If we analyze statements of victim and other witness there are several facts which needs to be considered throughly these facts are as follows:-First - As victim says that when she was going to college came out of bus accused family came on maruti van and pulled her inside the van.This appears to be highly improbable.She admits in cross examination that, that was busy road and she could shout of make alarm, if that happened some one were witness of that occurrence.Second - She says that accused put handkerchief with some medicine so she lost her sense, but this appears to be unnatural.There is no opinion of doctor that she was given such drug by which she lost her sense only for journey time.Third - Defence presented Ex D-3 affidavit of prosecutrix which was sworn before notary and advocate, notary stated on oath that he notarized the document in court.If she was forcefully taken away she could shout or told to him about the offence.District court is public place she could shout or gather crowd against act done with her.Forth - There is marriage certificate which is Ex.D-11, which was given Adarsh Vivah Mandal which is registered society.Victim says in her cross examination that when marriage was going on there were other marriage was also being solemnized, naturally as two marriages were being performed there should have been ample crowd, she could resist against marriage, as marriage room was full of crowd it is not possible that any person could perform force marriage on such public place.These are about 14 photographs.In these photographs victim and accused marriage is being solemnized.She is looking happy normal and satisfied with the marriage.She is shown that she is eating sweet, put garland to accused taking part in the religious rite, this shows that victim was doing marriage with consent.These all acts show that victim went voluntarily with accused for the purpose of marriage, accused did not take her by force, she did marriage with accused Ritesh by her free will but it appears that because of fear of her father she is giving statements against accused persons.Accordingly, the application is dismissed. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 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. |
192,760,134 | A copy of the said settlement is also annexed to this petition.In addition, all the aforesaid proceedings initiated by the complainant are also stated to have been duly withdrawn.Counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the settlement and as agreed, the first petitioner is obliged to pay a sum of Rs. 22 Lacs to the complainant towards all her claims and dues.A sum of Rs. 18 Lacs already stands paid and the remaining amount of Rs. 4 Lacs has been handed over to the complainant in Court today by way of a Demand Draft bearing No.114926 dated 17.11.2014 drawn on State Bank of India.The complainant specifically approbates the aforesaid settlement and also states that she has received the entire amount of Rs. 4 Lacs in Court today, and CRL.M.C. 5203/2014 Page 2 of 8 nothing further remains to be done.CRL.M.C. 5203/2014 Page 2 of 8This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 263/2012 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Malviya Nagar on 05.06.2013 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.3. Counsel for the State, as well as for the second respondent/complainant, enter appearance and accept notice.The Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Sanjay Jain, Police Station Malviya Nagar, who is also present in Court, identifies the petitioners, as well as the complainant, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2 in this petition.CRL.M.C. 5203/2014 Page 1 of 8However, during the course of petition seeking anticipatory bail moved by the petitioners, the matter was referred by the court below to mediation and ultimately, on 13.12.2013, the parties settled all their disputes before the Mediation Centre, Saket, New Delhi.She also states that she does not wish to continue with the matter and the proceedings against the petitioners be closed.CRL.M.C. 5203/2014 Page 7 of 8I am of the considered opinion that the circumstances of the case require that a quietus be given to the matter, where the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes which are primarily of matrimonial and domestic nature, and where the complainant and the first petitioner have obtained a divorce by mutual consent, and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution.Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 263/2012 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Malviya Nagar, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,927,669 | The prosecution case is as follows:The complainant-Baban Pandurang Kolambe resides at village Chandai with his wife, brothers their wives and children.One river known as 'Ulhas' flows by .the side of the said village Chandai.M/s. Laxman Kolambe and Nagu Mahadu said to have removed the said sand in the bullock cart on 19th May, 1994 and sold it to one Rajan Balkrishna resident of village-Palaspe.Removal of sand was witnessed by son of the complainant and his cousin brother Mahadu.It is a prosecution case that on 31st May, 1994 at about 10.00 a.m. complainant had gone to the house of Laxman Valku to enquire as to why the sand excavated by them was removed.The accused reacted sharply and retorted as to whether the sand belonged to his father.This resulted in hot exchange of words between them.One Ramchandra Pandu, younger brother of the complainant came on the spot noticing hot exchange of words -and shouts and requested them not to raise any quarrel.In the meantime, M/s. Mahadeo Namdeo and Naravan Baban also came to the spot.Further the prosecution version is that Ramchandra Kolambe had held complainant in his arms and was trying to push him towards his house so as to avoid any possible scuffle.It is also a prosecution case that Duroabai and Janardan Kolambe came there and took Ramchandra to his house.In the meanwhile Ganpat Patil and Kashinath Bagale residents of Chandai also came on the scene.They sent Laxman and his brother to their house.In the meanwhile, Ramchandra was removed to Kadav in the bullock cart for treatment.He was therefore taken to Kariat Hospital.He was again removed to Hospital at Thane and from Thane Hospital to Sion Hospital at Mumbai as per medical advice.During the course of treatment, he died on 22nd May, 1994 at 9.45 a.m. in Sion Hospital at Mumbai.The accused persons were arrested.He has stated on oath that there is one river by name "Ulhas: flowing by the side of the village.He along with his brother had excavated sand from the said river.That M/s. Laxman Valku and Nagu Mahadu removed the said sand in bullock cart and sold it to one contractor which was seen b-v his son Naravan.On 21st May 1994 he went to Laxman Kolambe to enquire as to why did he remove their sand which resulted in heated exchange of words and abuses.It attracted attention of his brother Ramchandra who came to the soot to pacify both of them.In the meanwhile Naravan and Mahadeo came on the 'spot.Duroabai and Janardhan sought to remove Ramchandra to his house who had become unconscious having bleeding from his head.He was thus removed to Kadav Hospital in bullock cart for treatment; from there he was removed to Kariat Hospital;; from there he was removed to Thane Hospital and.JUDGMENT V.C. Daga, J.This is an appeal against the Judgment and order dated 30th October, 1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag in Sessions Case No. 167 of 1994 convicting appellant No. 1 - accused No. l for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer R.I. for two months.Whereas appellant No. 2-accused No. 2 came to be sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer R.I. for one month.Factual Matrix :In the meanwhile, Laxman Valku came on the spot with stick.His brother Bhau came on the scene with iron bar.Their clothes were attached under panchanama (Exh.23).Iron bar and stick of accused Bhau were also attached under Panchanama (Exh.24-A).P.S.I. Mr. Dome recorded statement of witnesses.The same were sent to the Chemical Analyser along with forwarding letter.After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the present appellants - accused to o rose cut e them under Section 302, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of sessions.The Sessions Judge, after going through the papers and hearing prosecution and accused persons charged them under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly charges were framed against both the accused.Particulars of charges were read over and explained to them.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The defence of the accused persons is of total denial.That no blows were received by the deceased from any of them.The Sessions Judge then tried both the accused persons and after considering the evidence and the circumstances available on record convicted both the accused for the offences with which they were charged.Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the appellants have preferred this appeal.The learned trial Judge had erred ind appreciating the evidence on record.According to him in absence of independent evidence, the learned trial judge ought not to have relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses apart from the fact that their evidence did not corroborate the medical evidence available on record.Having heard rival parties the prosecution in support -of its version examined eight witnesses.ultimately, to Sion Hospital, Mumbai on the same clay.Ramchandra died in the morning hours on 22nd while he was under treatment.The complainant has stated that, he ultimately, filed complaint on 22nd May, 1994 at 8.0$ p.m. which was reduced in writing by the police under his signature.He has proved his complaint (Ex.h.18) and also identified the iron bar and stick as article Nos.3 and 4 which were produced before the trial Court.This witness Baban was cross-examined by the accused at length.The entire cross-examination, if read, would make it clear that Baban stood to the test of searching cross-examination and his evidence could not be shaken up.22 With this if we travel to P.W.3- Naravan Kolambe, he has also narrated the incident and supported the prosecution version in toto.The appearance of Bhau and Laxman (the appellants) with iron bar and stick and inflicting blows on the victim.The complainant has also proved his complaint.Presence of Durgabai has also been established.He was also cross-examined but his evidence could not he shaken up.His evidence corroborates the evidence of the complainant Baban.With this if we turn to evidence of P.W.4 Durgabai i she has also given a verbatim picture of the scene and events; which have taken place on the scene of offence.She stated that hearing hot talk between Baban and Laxman she went running after Baban and she also followed him to take him back.Ramchandra tried to separate his elder brother Baban.In the meanwhile Bhau au inflicted blow by means of iron bar on the head of Ramchandra.Ramchandra fell down.Laxman inflicted 3-4 blows by means of stick on Ramchandra.She also admitted to have removed Ramchandra along with Janardan to the house.She also identified iron bar and stick shown to her in the Court during trial.She was cross-examined.but no adverse material could be e1icited from her.The aforesaid evidence of all the three eve witnesses is in consonance with the medical evidence available on record.The view taken by the trial Court is, thus, reasonable and possible view based on proper appreciation of legal evidence.The findings recorded by the trial Court can very--well be supported by the evidence on record. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,927,825 | curly black hair which appeared matted with sticky substance.There were blood tinged vaginal secretions and the vaginal walls had tenderness with bleeding on touch at six O'clock position of hymen.There were also old healed tears at 4 and 7 O'clock position of hymen.ORDER R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.This criminal appeal arises from the judgment and order convicting the appellant-accused under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years imprisonment.It was further ordered that if the fine amount is paid, the same shall be paid to the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) as the compensation.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the prosecutrix of below sixteen years of age, while she was returning from the house of one Ramrao, after attending to her household duties on June 12, 1996 during the afternoon at about 16.15 hrs., on her way to her residence and when she had reached in a cashew garden, the appellant-accused caught her from the back and lifted her and took her to the bushes and committed an offence of rape by overpowering her.Thereafter the accused threatened the prosecutrix that if she were to disclose the said fact to her parents or any one else, she would be killed.After getting herself freed from the clutches of the accused, the prosecutrix ran to her house and on seeing her aunt-Mira in the neighbourhood of her house the prosecutrix collapsed before her and narrated the entire incident to her.On narration of the incident to the father of the prosecutrix, he tried to question the accused about the incident whereupon the accused tried to rush on the person of the father of the prosecutrix with Koyta and thereupon the prosecutrix along with her father approached the police and lodged the complaint.The investigation having started thereupon, the accused was arrested on the same night and the accused as well as the prosecutrix were referred to the Goa Medical College for necessary medical examination.After conducting the necessary panchanama of the scene of offence and recording the statements of Mira, father of the prosecutrix and on receipt of the medical report, the necessary prosecution was launched and the accused stood trial of charge of commission of rape on the prosecutrix.The prosecution examined five witnesses including the prosecutrix (P.W. 1), Dr. Sapeco (P.W. 2), the prosecutrix's aunt-Mira (P.W. 3), Panch-Bapusaheb (P.W. 4) and Investigating Officer (P.W. 5).The Additional Sessions Judge, on analysis of evidence on record, held the charge against the accused to have been proved and convicted him under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.While assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. S.G. Bhobe, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused, submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, ought to have appreciated that the deposition of the prosecutrix and her narration of the alleged incident was inherently incredible and unbelievable and was neither supported by the medical evidence nor by any other corroborative circumstances.Taking us through the evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W. 1), Dr. Sapeco (P.W. 2) as well as of Mira (P.W. 3), the learned Advocate submitted that the medical evidence rather than supporting the case of the prosecution negatives the version given by the prosecutrix.The vaginal contents were blood tinged vaginal secretions.There were no injuries on the anus.There was no enlargement of axillary, cervical and paratrochlear lymph nodes".The doctor has stated that the physical examination of the prosecutrix was suggestive of recent sexual intercourse.Similarly, the examination of the accused disclosed that, "he had a soft scabbed area of 1/8 cms.with another 1/4 cms.diameter of redness around equidistance by half cm.area at pronated aspect of left forearm 5 cms.from the wrist.The doctor has also stated that the discharge on the panty was otherwise than menstruation and the said discharge was sticky in nature and could be within the duration of twenty four hours.The doctor has categorically stated that there was sign of penetration of penis in the vagina of the prosecutrix.The evidence discussed above clearly discloses that the appellant-accused had in fact, by over powering the prosecutrix, made her to lie down, removed her nicker and after removing his own half pant committed an offence of rape by penetrating his penis in the vagina of the prosecutrix on June 12, 1996, at about 16.15 hrs.when the prosecutrix was on her way back to her house after completing her household duties in the house of Ramrao.Moreover, a mere opinion regarding hypothetical circumstances cannot wipe out cogent and clear evidence brought on record in support of the charge against the accused.Much grievance was sought to be made about the contradictions in the testimony of different witnesses, particularly that of the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) as compared to the testimony of Mira (P.W. 3).The contradictions stated to be are in relation to the statements of the witness pertaining to the narration of the incident by the prosecutrix to her father, statement regarding the pain suffered by the prosecutrix on entering the penies of the accused into her vagina and accompanying of the father by the prosecutrix when he had gone to the house of the accused.What was sought to be done before the trial Court in the case in hand was to question the Investigating Officer about a statement made by a witness to the Investigating Officer whose statement had been recorded by the said officer but neither was the said person examined by the prosecution as the witness in the case nor did the Investigating Officer had brought on record anything before the trial Court regarding the statement made by the said witness during the course of the investigation.It is not permissible to question the Investigating Officer regarding some statements made by some person in the course of investigation except when such a person has been examined as prosecution witness before the Court and has made a statement contradictory to the one which was made by him to the Investigating Officer, or has made some improvement over the statement before the police.Perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that after considering the evidence on record in detail, the learned Additional Sessions Judge arrived at the finding that the evidence on record clearly established commission of offence for which the accused had been charged.The appeal fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,659,702 | SK Court No.28 Rejected CRM 2936 of 2019 In the matter of: an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 06.03.2019 in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 05 dated 03.01.2016 under Sections147/148/149/323/325/326/332/333/353/186/379/4 27/435/436/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and adding Sections 411/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the P.D.P.P.And In Re: Md. Muktarul Sk. & Ors.Mr. Sudip Banerjee ......For the Petitioners.The application for anticipatory bail, is, accordingly rejected.Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,926,639 | 2.The detenu came to the adverse notice of the police in three cases.Twocases were registered against him in Crime Nos.112 and 164 of 2006 under Section379 IPC on the file of the Valliyoor Police Station and the third case wasregistered on 03.11.2007 in Crime No.455 of 2007 under Sections 294(b) 323 and506(2) IPC on the file of the same Police Station.The first two adverse casesare pending trial and the third adverse case is under investigation, when theorder of detention was passed.The order of detention was passed on the basisof the ground case alleged to have accused on 04.11.2007 on the file ofValliyoor Police Station in Crime No.456 of 2007 under Section 294(b) 353, 307,506(ii), IPC in which he has been remanded.At paragraph 6, theDetaining Authority concluded as follows:"6.I am aware that Thiru.Sahayaraj is in remand in Valliyoor policestation crime number 456/2007 and he has not filed any bail application so far.I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail byfiling bail application for the above case since in similar cases bails aregranted by the concerned court or higher courts.If he comes out on bail, hewill indulge in further activities in future, which will be pre-judicial to themaintenance of the public order.10.Coming to the facts of this case, the representation dated 'nil' of thepetitioner was received on 20.12.2007 and the remarks were called for on thesame day itself.The Collector has received the representation from theGovernment on 24.12.2007 and the remarks were called for from the SponsoringAuthority on the same day.The remarks were received from the SponsoringAuthority on 26.12.2007 and the report was sent to the Government on the sameday.No.107 of 2007, dated 12.11.2007 passedby the first respondent is quashed.The detenu is directed to be releasedforthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.1.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.3.The Inspector of Police, Valliyoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,672,965 | 1 CRA-11147-2019 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CRA-11147-2019 (BAKHARIYA Vs STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS) 2 Indore, Dated : 24-02-2020 Parties through their counsel.The Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit for such a compromise.I.A. No.1641/2020 stands rejected accordingly.Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod Date: 25/02/2020 11:48:48 | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,926,730 | Pending same, in view of the said incident, A-1 and his son A-2 desired to wreck vengeance.They hatched up a plan with A-3 and four others.Pursuant to the plan, on the date of occurrence, namely on 21.7.1999, when the deceased, who went for work, was returning during night hours, all the accused waylaid, dragged him to a nearby burial ground, severed his head and left the trunk there.They left the place of occurrence.b)Before that, at about 7.30 p.m., all the accused questioned P.W.5, the close relative of the deceased as to the whereabouts of the deceased.P.W.5 enquired why they wanted to know, but they did not give any reply at all.Since Dhanraj did not come back, on 22.7.1999 morning, P.W.1 instructed Rajasekaran to go over and search for her husband.When he was on the way, he found the trunk of the deceased, but the head was found missing.All have proceeded to the spot.P.W.6, V.A.O. also went to the spot.After ascertaining the same, P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.6, proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P.23, the printed F.I.R. was despatched to the Court.He proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P.3, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.24, the rough sketch.He conducted inquest on the trunk of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars between 10.45 a.m. and 12.45 p.m. and prepared Ex.P.25, the inquest report.He recovered M.O.12, the Moped and M.O.3, leather chappel, in the presence of the witnesses under Ex.P.5 mahazar.He also recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth under Ex.P.4, mahazar.The dead body was sent for the purpose of autopsy to the Government Hospital, Virudhachalam.d)P.W.8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Virudhachalam, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased.He has issued Ex.P.18, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.e)Pending investigation, on 25.7.1999 at about 6.00 p.m., P.W.10 arrested A-2 at Vadalur bus stand along with Murugesan and Thilankumar in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7. A-2 gave confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses.The admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the confessional statement, A-2 produced M.O.7, bloodstained shirt, which was recovered under Ex.P.8, mahazar.P.Ws.6 and 7 attested the same.M.O.10, aruval was also recovered from A-2 under Ex.(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Cuddalore made in S.C.No.197 of 2004, whereby this appellant shown as A-2 along with two others, shown as A-1 and A-3, stood charged as follows A-2 - Sections 148, 341, 302 r/w S.149 and 201 r/w S.109 IPC A-1 and A-3 - Section 302 r/w S.109 IPC.On trial, A-2 was found guilty under Sections 148, 341 and 302 r/w S.149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for six months under Section 302 r/w S.149 IPC, R.I. for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for three months under Section 148 IPC and R.I. for one month and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one week under Section 341 IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.A-2 was acquitted of the offence under Section 201 r/w S.109 IPC and A-1 and A-3 were acquitted of the charge levelled against them.Hence this appeal at the instance of the second accused.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated thus:a)P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Dhanraj, who was employed as a school teacher at Ponneri.P.W.2, Rajadurai and one Rajasekaran were the sons of P.W.1 and Dhanraj.A case was registered against Rajasekaran and others for rape and murder of Ponnuruvi.Though they were found guilty and sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, an order of acquittal was made by the High Court and hence an appeal was made before the Apex Court.P.1, the complaint to P.W.10, the Inspector of Police.c)On the strength of Ex.P.1, P.W.10 registered a case in Crime No.166 of 1999 under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC.He examined the witnesses and recorded Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements.The statements of Murugesan and Thilankumar were also recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same were marked as Exs.P.15 and 16 respectively.Pursuant to the same, Murugesan produced M.O.8, shirt, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.On 26.7.1999 at about 5.00 a.m., A-1 and A-3 were also arrested and their statements were also recorded.All the accused were sent for judicial remand.f)P.W.10 continued with the investigation.The statements of the witnesses were recorded.P.W.5 was also examined and his statement was also recorded.He filed a report on 27.10.1999 against the accused for the offence under Sections 148, 341, 302, 120(B) and 201 IPC.Further investigation was done by Mathiarasu, Inspector of Police, who has filed the final report.3.Three of the accused were absconding and one accused died and in respect of A-1 to A-3, the case was committed to the Court of sessions and they were caused case papers and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and relied on 26 exhibits and 12 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced and looking into the materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of A-2 and has found him guilty as stated above and awarded punishments as referred to above.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Senior Counsel has made the following submissions:a)In the instant case, the occurrence has taken place on 21.7.1999 at about 9.00 p.m. Even as per the prosecution case, there is no occurrence witness.The prosecution rested its entire case on two circumstances.The first one is the statement of P.W.5, who is the close relative of the deceased and the other is the alleged recovery of weapon of crime, namely M.O.10 from A-2 and also the recovery of M.O.7, shirt.Except these two circumstances, the prosecution had no evidence to offer at all.Even these two circumstances cannot be said to have pointed out the guilt of the accused.b)Admittedly, P.W.5 is the close relative of the deceased.According to P.W.5, on the date of occurrence, namely on 21.7.1999, at about 7.30 p.m., he was intercepted by the accused persons and was enquired about the deceased.After informing that he did not know, he further enquired them as to why they were making enquiry over the deceased, but they did not give any reply at all.The witness has further added that he has gone to the scene of occurrence next day morning and was there for some while and then, he returned.It is pertinent to point out that he has not whispered anything about the accused or their meeting or their enquiry about the deceased.After verifying the case records, P.W.10 has categorically admitted that the statement of P.W.5 has reached the court on 13.12.2001, but the charge sheet was filed even in the month of November, 2001 and thus, it would be quite clear that the statement of P.W.5 was procured and placed before the court after filing of the charge sheet.Hence the evidence of P.W.5 should not be given any credence at all.According to P.W.7, the statements were recorded at the police station and their signatures were obtained.M.O.7 shirt was not sent for chemical analysis.So far as M.O.10, aruval was concerned, as per Ex.P.22, the Serologist's report, the blood group could not be fixed and it was disintegrated and under these circumstances, it could not, in any way, point out the guilt of the accused.Even the recovery by itself cannot be the basis for sustaining conviction.Hence in short, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the prosecution had no evidence worth mentioning at all.The trial court has not considered the above aspects.Having acquitted A-1 and A-3, the trial court has miserably failed to consider that all the reasons which are applicable to A-1 and A-3 are equally applicable to A-2 also.Hence the appellant herein is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this court.5.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.6.It is not in controversy that one Dhanraj, the husband of P.W.1, was done to death in an incident that took place during night hours on 21.7.1999 at the place of occurrence.Following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer P.W.10 on the trunk of the deceased and the preparation of the inquest report, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.8, the Doctor, who has given Ex.P.18, the post-mortem certificate and has also deposed before the court as found in the post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.Thus, it was a homicidal death.This fact was never disputed by the appellant/accused and hence no impediment was felt by the trial court in recording the finding that Dhanraj died out of homicidal violence, which has got to be affirmed.7.So far as the charges levelled against the appellant/accused was concerned, from the available materials, it could be seen that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer and it has rested its entire case only on circumstantial evidence.P.W.5 is the close relative of the deceased.According to P.W.5, on 21.7.1999 at about 7.30 p.m., when he was just coming near to the place of occurrence, he was intercepted by the accused persons and was enquired about the deceased.After giving reply that he did not know, he made a further enquiry to the accused persons as to why they were searching for him, to which they did not give any reply and within a few hours, the occurrence has taken place.It is admitted by P.W.5 that he went to the place of occurrence on the next day morning and was there for some time, but he did not tell anybody about the earlier incident.Thus, it would be quite clear that P.W.5, who is the close relative of the deceased, has kept calm and did not whisper anything as to the incident that had taken place on 21.7.1999, a few hours prior to the occurrence and further, his statement reached the court after a period of more than two years and that too after the filing of charge sheet and hence no evidentiary value could be attached to his evidence.Hence at no stretch of imagination, it could be considered as the circumstance, pointing to the guilt of the accused.So far as the recovery was concerned, it has got to be mentioned that the very recovery by itself will not be sufficient to sustain conviction as per the settled principles of law.Apart from that, two witnesses were examined for the purpose of arrest, confession and recovery of M.Os from the accused.P.W.7 has categorically admitted that the statements were recorded in the police station and they have signed the same.Hence it is highly doubtful whether the accused could have been arrested and their confessional statements could have been recorded as claimed by the Investigating Agency.9.Apart from that, so far as M.O.7, shirt was concerned, it was not sent for chemical analysis and that no explanation was tendered for the same.So far as M.O.10, aruval was concerned, it was alleged to have been recovered from A-2, but no blood group was found.Under these circumstances, all would go to show that this could not be the circumstance against the accused.Except these two circumstances, the prosecution had no evidence to offer at all.Hence it would be quite clear that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.But, the lower court has failed to consider any one of the factual or legal positions, as narrated above.Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A-2 by the trial court is set aside.The appellant/A-2 is acquitted of the charges levelled against them.The bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand terminated and the fine amount, if any paid by him is ordered to be refunded to him.Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed.(M.C., J.) (M.V., J.) 15.10.2008Index : YesInternet : Yesvvk M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.AND M.VENUGOPAL, J.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.2.The Inspector of Police, Kammapuram Police Station, Cuddalore District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.A.NO.70 OF 2006 15.10.2008 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,680,881 | He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed.The applicant has filed this second application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.First application was dismissed as withdrawn.by Police Station- Chinor, District- Gwalior in connection with Crime No.60/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 506/34 IPC, and 3/ 4 of POCSO Act.Prosecution story in short is that the applicant along with other co- accused persons enticed the daughter of the complainant who is aged about 17 years and took her along with them and committed rape upon her.On the aforesaid basis crime has been registered.Learned counsel for the applicant stated that he has been falsely implicated in the matter.The prosecutrix 2 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-41405-2020 (Ramlakhan Singh Kushwaha Vs.It is also stated in the application that co-accused Mahesh is the main accused and applicant has no criminal antecedents.He has been implicated on the basis of previous enmity.Applicant is a permanent resident of District- Gwalior and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,689,352 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 03.11.2015 relating to Crime No.391/2015 registered at Police Station- Station Road Morena, District Morena for the offences punishable under Section 307, 323, 294, 341 and 506B/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old person of 60 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Except the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, the remaining offences are bailable.It is alleged against the applicant that he assaulted victim Harilal with a stick causing fracture of his left arm.It was a case of free-fight and in the incident the wife of the applicant and other persons have sustained injuries and a counter-case was also registered between the parties.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.2 M.Cr.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the application.It is directed that the applicant namely Amrit Lal be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM Morena, to appear 3 M.Cr.C. No.13409/2015 (Amrit Lal v. State of MP) before the Committal Court and the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.3 M.Cr.(N. K. Gupta) Judge Meh/- | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,700,498 | In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17.9.2019 in connection with Kotulpur P.S. FIR no. 151/2018 dated 28.9.2018 under sections 341/325/323/332/333/308/506/34 of the IPC added section 304A IPC And In Re : Ramjan Mondal & Ors.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.(Jay Sengupta, 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 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,701,000 | This is first application under section 439 Cr.P.C.Offence under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, section 3(1)(2) (4) of MP Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam,2000, sections 45-S/58-B (5-A) of the RBI Act and sections 4,5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 have been registered against the applicant at Crime No.154/2011 at Police Station, University, Gwalior.Counsel for the applicant submits that the the applicant is in jail since 28/2/2014 and charge sheet has been filed against him.Other co-accused persons have been released on bail after filing of the charge sheet.He placed before us copies of the order dated 22/1/2013 passed by this Court in MCRC 499/2013 (Smt. Mathurabai Vs.State of MP) and the order dated 23/6/2014 passed in MCRC 4285/2014 (Santoshilal Vs.State of MP) granting bail to the other co-accused persons in the case. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,710,934 | This application u/S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicant Manan, who is in custody since 19/12/2017 in connection with Crime No.435/2017 registered at P.S. Palasia, Indore for commission of offence punishable u/S. 420, 467, 468, 471, 511 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.The allegation against the applicant is that he has presented a forged and fabricated cheque at the State Bank of India Branch AB Road and the Bank Officers, as the cheque was forged and fabricated have taken action in the matter.The cheque was not deposited and FIR has been lodged against the applicant.The applicant has stated before the Police Authorities that the cheque was given to him by one Varun Dubey and Varun Dubey is also a co-accused in respect of the crime in question.Learned counsel for the respondent - State has has read out the statements available in the case diary.He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.It has been stated that it was the present applicant who came with a HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.Applicant Manan is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1.00 lac (Rs. One lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on the dates fixed in this behalf.Certified Copy, as per Rules."The allegation against the present applicant is that he was accompanying Manan, who has been granted bail by this Court.Learned government advocate has opposed the bail petition and readout the statements available in the case- diary.This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record and also keeping in view the order dated 05.02.2018, is of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed.(S.C. Sharma) Judge N.R.Digitally signed by NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Date: 2018.03.01 17:23:42 +05'30' | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,844,867 | It is not disputed on record that appellant was Shiksha Karmi Class-III and he was Incharge Superintendent of Govt. Adivasi Balak Ashram, Sadpur, District Damoh.He further found that an amount of Rs.19.029/- has neither entered into the cash book nor found in the hand of the appellant.Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 378(2) of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by judgment dated 10.11.2011 passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge(F.T.C.), Damoh in S.T. No.182/2008, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 409 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he has to suffer further R.I. for three months.Awadh Bihari Richharia (P.W.-6) had seized the cash book (ex P-6).Thereafter a show cause notice dated 24.12.2005 (Ex. D-2) has been issued to the appellant, which was replied by the appellant vide his reply dated 30.12.2005 (Ex. D-3).Area Organizer Salim Khan has further enquired the matter and the appellant was removed from the post.It is further submitted that one Suraj Giri Goswami was posted in place of appellant on the post of Superintendent but appellant has not handed over the alleged amount of Rs.19,029/- to him and thereby he misappropriated the same and committed an offence of criminal breach of trust, therefore, a report was lodged at Police Out Post Sadpur of Police Station Rajpura.During investigation, it was informed by the appellant to the enquiry officer on 04.01.2008 that he has been deposited the amount of Rs.19,029/- in the account of Govt. Adivasi Balak Ashram.After due investigation, appellant was arrested and charge sheeted before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hatta, 3 who in turn committed the case to the court of Sessions and the Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 409 of I.P.C. against the appellant.Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.Appellant in his defence submitted that since he has prosecuted Awadh Bihari Richharia for the offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore, he falsely implicated the appellant.He further pleaded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that Richharia took 86 vouchers from him on the date of inspection i.e., 23.12.2005, therefore, he could not carry out the expenditure in the cash book.After appreciation of the evidence on record, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.Hence, this appeal.He further submitted that the prosecution tried to led the secondary evidence in regard to the aforesaid 4 vouchers, though initially the trial Court allowed their application.Appellant challenged the aforesaid order dated 21.07.2009 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh before this Court in Cr.This Court set aside the aforesaid order with liberty to move a fresh application.In these circumstances, the original 86 vouchers ought to have been produced before the trial Court.He further submitted that if the aforesaid vouchers were produced before the trial Court, then the appellant would get the opportunity to probablise his defence that an amount of Rs.19,029/- has already been spent by him for the purpose of expenditure of the hostel and therefore, he has been falsely implicated by Awadh Bihari Richharia (P.W.-6).On the basis of aforesaid ground, he prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of respondent/State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.I have perused the impugned judgment alongwith the evidence recorded before the trial Court.Awadh Bihari Richharia (P.W.-6) stated that he made a surprise inspection on 23.12.2005 at Adivasi Balak Ashram, Sadpur, where appellant was Incharge Superintendent of aforesaid Ashram.He further stated that on the date of inspection, he found that an amount of Rs.19,029/- has neither entered into the cash book nor found in the hand of the appellant.Thereafter, he directed Area Organizer to make a detailed inspection and enquiry.He further found that appellant has withdrawn a total amount of Rs.63,000/-, but he has not produced the vouchers of Rs.19,029/- and he had not given the aforesaid amount to the successive officer Suraj Giri Goswami.Suraj Giri Goswami (P.W.-7) has stated that he had not received the amount of Rs.19,029/- from the appellant at the time of taking over the charge.As far as the amount of Rs.63,000/- is concerned, Salim Khan (P.W.-4) has admitted in his cross-examination that he prepared the enquiry report but the same has not been 6 produced before the trial Court.The Trial Court has not exhibited the copy of the aforesaid document.In these circumstances, the story of withdrawal of Rs.63,000/- has not been proved due to non-availability of original documents.Further, the charge against the appellant was framed only for misappropriation of an amount of Rs.19,029/-.It shows that at the time of inspection made by Awadh Bihari Richharia (P.W.-6), an amount of Rs.19,029/- has neither entered into the cash book nor found in the hand of the appellant and lateron on the directions of District Magistrate (Collector), appellant has deposited the aforesaid amount in the account of Adivasi Balak Ashram, Sadpur.Now the question arises for consideration is that whether appellant has dishonestly misappropriated the aforesaid amount of Rs.19,029/- or not ?Appellant took the defence that at the time of inspection, Awadh Bihari Richharia (P.W.-6) has seized as many as 86 vouchers from him, wherein appellant has 7 expended amount of money for purchasing different items for the use of Adivasi Balak Ashram.He further submitted that since appellant previously prosecuted Awadh Bihari Richharia for the offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore, he has previous enmity with the appellant.Due to previous enmity, he destroyed the vouchers, therefore, the appellant could not make entry of aforesaid amount in the cash book.After careful examination of statement of Awadh Bihari Richharia (P.W.-6), wherein he has admitted that the original record has been lost.He further admitted that after enquiry, he issued a notice (Ex.D-2) to the appellant.He further admitted that if entry of any voucher has not been made in the cash book, it may be an irregularity on the part of person concerned.It is admitted on record that the prosecution tried its level best to lead the secondary evidence in regard to documents (including vouchers) said to have been lost.Initially the trial Court allowed the prosecution to lead the secondary evidence, thereafter appellant filed criminal revision No. 1312/2009 before this this Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.08.2009 and it was directed to make an appropriate application before the trial Court.Certainly, appellant was negligent in performing his duty as In-charge Superintendent of Adivasi Balak Ashram.For aforesaid dereliction of duty, he may be punished appropriately after conducting departmental enquiry, but at the same time in the aforementioned circumstances, criminal liability of dishonest misappropriation of the amount cannot be fastened on the appellant.In the result, appeal is allowed. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,845,914 | JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.A neatly planned and draftly executed murder of the deceased by using a mini lorry as the weapon of offence is the subject matter of the prosecution.2. Kumar (A1) is the younger brother of Sivaraman, the first deceased, who brought him up, gave education and got employment as a Police Constable.The said Kumar (A1) due to family dispute hatched a conspiracy along with A2 Kannan and A3 Chakravarthy to commit the murder of the deceased Sivaraman, his elder brother and in pursuance of the conspiracy, a mini lorry was engaged which was driven by A2 Kannan on 18.8.1998 and dashed against the TVS 50 in which the first deceased Sivaraman was riding, as a result of which, the second deceased Sarathambal, his grandmother sitting as a pillion-rider as well as Sivaraman were thrown on the road with injuries, which resulted in the instantaneous death.A2 Kannan and A3 Chakravarthy are lorry drivers known to each other.P.W.1 Ramalingam, the approver, is the resident of Karamanikuppam village.A2 Kannan and the approver Ramalingam belong to same village and as such, they are close friends.P.W.1 Ramalingam along with his wife P.W.6 Chitra is running a Tea stall at the village.P.W.1's brother died in a motor accident one year back.A1 Kumar being a Police Constable helped P.W.1 to get the body quickly after post-mortem.He also arranged to engage a counsel for getting compensation for the death of his brother.That was how both A1 and P.W.1 became close.(b) The first deceased Sivaraman is the elder brother of A1 Kumar.After the death of their father, A1 was brought up and given education by the first deceased Sivaraman.He also helped him in getting the employment as Police Constable.He also arranged marriage for A1 with one Baby, the sister of his wife P.W.6 Chitra.After driving her out from his house, A1 who had developed illicit intimacy with one Sundari, another woman Police Constable married her.(c) In the meantime, on the basis of the criminal cases, the first accused Kumar and his second wife Sundari were suspended from service by the Police Department.The first accused thought that the cases were filed against him by his wife only at the instance of his elder brother, the first deceased Sivaraman.Therefore, the first accused had strong grudge against the first deceased.(d) Since P.W.1 became a close friend of A1, A1 told his family affairs to P.W.1 and also about the troubles being given to him by the first deceased and about his suspension.Then, the accused 1 and 2 and P.W.1 Ramalingam, the approver hatched a conspiracy to do away with the first deceased by hitting him with a mini lorry while the first deceased Sivaraman was riding in the Moped and to make it appear as an accident.(e) In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, P.W.1, the approver watched the movements of the first deceased.One Sankar was the driver of the mini lorry.On that day, A2 Kannan, driver Sankar and cleaner Balachander (P.W.3) were proceeding in the lorry slowly, waiting for the first deceased to come on the way with his Moped.Meanwhile, A2 and A3 found that Sivaraman, the first deceased was driving the vehicle along with pillion rider Sarathambal, the second deceased.This was informed to both A1 and P.W.1, who in turn asked them to hit against both.Then, at about 3.00 p.m., the mini lorry was parked near the Railway gate expecting the arrival of the deceased in the Moped.(f) In the meantime, expecting danger at the hands of the first accused, the first deceased went to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore and presented a complaint Ex.P8 on the same day, i.e. on 18.8.1998 against A1 and others, seeking police protection.Thereafter, he was driving his TVS 50 proceeding towards his village along with the pillion rider, his grandmother Saradambal.(g) Meanwhile, A2 gave brandy to the driver Sankar and after consumption, Sankar went to the top of the Cabin and slept.At that time, the first deceased along with the pillion rider, the second deceased, was driving the Moped.In the meantime, Sankar, the driver on hearing the sound woke up and asked about the accident.There, Sankar, the driver, A2 Kannan and P.W.3 Balachander took food in the Tea shop.Then, A2 used the telephone in the house of P.W.1 after getting permission from P.W.6, the wife of P.W.1, phoned up to A1 and informed that they executed their plan and both of them died.(i) Meanwhile, P.W.8 Ramalingam who witnessed the "accident" went to the police station and gave a complaint Ex.P5 to P.W.24, Head Constable.The case was registered for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. The printed F.I.R. is Ex.(j) P.W.25, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of message, took up the investigation and reached the scene of occurrence on the same day evening.He prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch.He seized M.O.3 TVS 50 driven by the first deceased.He conducted inquest over both the bodies.P26 and P27 are the inquest reports.Then the bodies were sent for post-mortem.(k) P.W.17 Dr. Veerasigamani conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the first deceased on 19.8.1998 at 11.50 a.m. He found crush injury on the head and skull bone fractured into multiple pieces and crush injury on the left leg.He opined in Ex.P14 post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury.(n) At about 8.00 a.m., on being pointed out by P.W.3, P.W.25 arrested A2 Kannan in the presence of P.W.9 V.A.O. At about 11.30 a.m., he arrested A3 Chakravarthy.At abut 1.00 p.m., P.W.25 arrested P.W.1 Ramalingam, the approver and on his confession, he seized M.O.1 TVS 50 from him.The statement of P.W.1 is Ex.The statements of others including the statements of A2 and A3 are Ex.P12 series.(4) The motive and the threatening incident spoken to by P.W.7, the wife of the first deceased, the documents such as Exs.P10, P18, P19, P20, P21 and P31 showing the criminal cases and civil cases pending between the first deceased and A1 marked through P.Ws.13, 14, 21, 22 and 23 and Ex.(5) The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 who speak about the arrival of A2 and others in a mini lorry involved in the incident to their Tea shop and by using their telephone A2 talked to A1 immediately after the occurrence.(6) The arrest of A2 as identified by P.W.3 and A3 and on A1's information, the arrest of P.W.1 from whom M.O.1 TVS 50 was recovered.According to the prosecution, the first deceased Sivaraman, the elder brother of the first accused brought him up, gave education to him and also got an employment for him in the Police Department.Initially, both the families lived together.There was no issue to Baby, the wife of A1 for a long time.In course of time, matrimonial relationship between Baby and A1 began to be bitter and A1 developed illicit intimacy with one Sundari, woman Constable working in the same police station.He also married her without the consent of the said Baby.After putting her to torture for dowry, he drove her out.The said Baby thereafter had to take shelter in the house of P.W.7, her sister Kalavathi.According to her, on the date of occurrence, she went to the court along with her sister Baby.The first deceased came to the court in his TVS 50 along with his grandmother Saradhambal.After leaving her in the court, he went to the Superintendent of Police and presented a petition Ex.P8 seeking police protection from the hands of the first accused who made several attempts to kill him.P8 is an important document in this case.The same has been marked through P.W.13 who is the Section Superintendent working in the Office of the Superintendent of Police.According to him, the first deceased came to the Superintendent of Police and presented in person the complaint Ex."fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;jhy; moahl;fs; trkha; jhf;f tUfpd;whh;/ ntz;Lbkd;nw thfdj;ij vd;kPJ nkhj Kaw;rp bra;fpd;whh;/ gy bfhL:ukhd Ma[j';fs; bfhz;Lk;.moahl;fs; bfhz;Lk; vd; capUf;F nrjk; tpistpf;f Kaw;rp bra;fpd;whh;/"P9 shows that on 18.8.1998, the complaint Ex.P8 was received by the Superintendent of Police.The only person who speaks to the occurrence is P.W.3, the cleaner who was travelling along with the accused on 18.8.1998 in the vehicle involved in the incident.Apart from the said witness, the prosecution has produced P.W.8 Ramalingam, who gave complaint Ex.P5 to the police stating that the mini lorry T.N.31 B 0435 at 3.30 p.m. came rashly and negligently without blowing horn and dashed against the TVS 50 and sped away without stopping the vehicle, as a result of which, both rider as well as pillion rider died at the spot.Since he knew about the names of both the deceased as he happens to be their relative, he mentioned their names in the complaint.This complaint Ex.P5 was registered by the Head Constable, P.W.24 for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. on 18.8.1998 at 4.00 p.m. After registration, he sent the F.I.R. Ex.P.W.25 on receipt of the message, came to the scene at about 4.45 p.m. He recovered TVS 50 M.O.3 from the scene.Then, he conducted inquest.Then, he sent the dead bodies for post-mortem.On coming to know of the particulars about the driver of the vehicle, on 19.8.1998 at about 12.30 p.m., he arrested the driver Sankar and recorded his statement.But, on the information given by P.Ws.2 and 3, he came to know that this is not the accident, but a case of murder.On the basis of the written report given by P.W.2, P.W.25 prepared Express Report Ex.P28 altering the case into one under Section 302 I.P.C. P.W.2 produced his mini lorry M.O.2 which was recovered.Then, A2 was taken to the house of A3 and as identified by A2, A3 was arrested.On the basis of their statement, P.W.25 came to know that P.W.1 and A1 had played a major role in the incident.Hence, P.W.25 came to the Tea shop of P.W.1 at 1.00 p.m. and arrested him and in pursuance of his confession, he recovered TVS 50 M.O.1 from him.The arrest of the accused and P.W.1 had been made in the presence of P.W.9, V.A.O.Accordingly, Exs.P1 and P12 series were recorded from them.But, P.W.3 is the only eye witness who speaks about what actually happened as he was inside the lorry as cleaner.The fact that the mini lorry M.O.2 has been used by A2 has been clearly established by the Trip Sheet marked as Ex.Initially, the case was treated as accident case and registered under Section 304-A I.P.C. Ultimately, truth that was a murder was found out during investigation.Then, all the three accused were charged and tried for the offences under Section 120-B and 302 I.P.C. A1 was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 302 I.P.C. (two counts) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life concurrently.A2 was convicted for the offences under Section 120-B and 302 I.P.C. (two counts) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for each of the offences and the sentences were directed to run consecutively.A3 Chakravarthy was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 302 (two counts) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for each of the offences and sentences to run concurrently.The short facts leading to the conviction are as follows:"(a) Kumar (A1) was working as a Police Constable attached to Nellikuppam Police Station.While she was in the house of the first deceased, she gave a complaint against A1, her husband for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. She also filed a petition seeking maintenance from him.In these cases, the first deceased was a witness.Aggrieved by that, A1 filed a suit in civil Court against the first deceased for partition and obtained injunction restraining the first deceased from alienating the properties.(l) P.W.18 Dr. Karpagavalli conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the second deceased Saradhambal on 19.8.1998 at 11.15 a.m. She found crush injury on the skull, legs, hands and fracture in the right hip bone.She gave opinion in Ex.P16 post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury and fracture of bones.(m) P.W.2, who came back to his house on 20.8.1998 enquired P.W.3 cleaner as to the details of the accident.P.W.3 Balachander told him as to what really happened.Then, on 21.8.1998 at about 7.00 a.m., P.W.2 along with P.W.3 went to the police station and met P.W.25, the Inspector of Police and gave the statement.In pursuance of the said statement, the case was altered from Section 304-A I.P.C. to 302 I.P.C. against the accused 1 to 3 and sent the Express Report Ex.(p) In the meantime, P.W.25 came to know that A1 Kumar surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengleput.Therefore, on 1.9.1998, P.W.25 filed an application for police custody of A1 and accordingly, police custody was granted.After examination, he was produced before Court for judicial remand.He also filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore requesting to grant pardon to P.W.1 Ramalingam.After observing the formalities, on being satisfied with the statement given by P.W.1 Ramalingam, P.W.15, the Chief Judicial Magistrate tendered pardon to him on 9.11.1998 through Ex.P11 proceedings under Section 306 Cr.P.C.(q) P.W.25 examined the other witnesses and collected the documents relating to enmity between the first deceased and the first accused, namely Ex.P8, the petition presented by the first deceased on the date of occurrence seeking police protection, Ex.P19 to P21, the plaint, written statement and the interim order passed by the civil Court in the suit filed by A1 against the first deceased.(r) During the course of investigation, M.O.1 TVS 50 belonged to P.W.1, M.O.2 mini lorry belonged to P.W.2 and M.O.3 new TVS 50 belonged to the first deceased were sent for inspection.P.W.19 Motor Vehicles Inspector found damage in the vehicles M.Os.2 and 3 and gave inspection report Ex.(s) After completing the investigation, P.W.25 Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 120-B and 302 I.P.C.(t) During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 25 were examined, Exs.P1 to P32 were filed and M.Os.1 to 17 were marked.(u) The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence available on record.The defence of the accused is one of total denial.They stated that the false case had been foisted against them.(v) On appraisal of the materials produced by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 120-B as well as 302 I.P.C. (two counts) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under each count.Aggrieved by that, a common appeal has been filed by all the three accused."When the matter was taken up for final disposal, it was represented that the bundle has been handed over to respective parties long back by the erstwhile counsel on record.The acquaintance of P.W.1 with A1 was not clearly established as he himself stated that A1 was suspended by the Police Department even one year prior to the date of occurrence.Further, the role played by P.W.1 as per his evidence in this case is so minimal, but the judicial confession of A2 and A3 would show that P.W.1 has taken the main role and as such, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed.Furthermore, the conduct of P.W.1 in not informing to any other person regarding the incident is so artificial.According to P.W.1, he was arrested on 21.8.1998 early morning at 1.30 a.m., but the arrest was shown by P.W.25 only as 21.8.1998 at 1.30 p.m. and in view of the above contradiction, the arrest cannot be believed.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has placed the following materials:(2) The evidence of P.W.3, the eye witness for the occurrence.(3) Ex.The first deceased, husband of P.W.7, advised A1 to take his sister-in-law back by disassociating from the said Sundari and to lead amicable life.Despite the said advice, A1 continued his marital life only with the second wife.A1 filed a suit for partition against the first deceased and obtained injunction.By this time, Baby preferred a police complaint against A1 and the said Sundari for the torture meted out to her.In these cases, the first deceased was one of the witnesses.In pursuance of the criminal complaint, A1 and his second wife Sundari were suspended from service by the Police Department.Under those circumstances, A1 took the help of P.W.1 Ramalingam, approver, and A2 Kannan who are his friends and conspired to commit the murder of the first deceased by hitting him with a lorry to make it appear as an accident.In pursuance of the said conspiracy, at the instance of A1 and P.W.1, A2 and A3 hired a mini lorry from P.W.2 and after watching the movements of the first deceased, they went and parked the vehicle near the Railway gate and after noticing that the first deceased was coming in his TVS 50 along with the second deceased towards the village, A2 drove the vehicle and dashed against the Moped causing crush injuries on the bodies of both the deceased, resulting in their instantaneous death, thereby committed double murder.The motive for the occurrence is that A1 had strong enmity against the first deceased, his elder brother, who helped his first wife Baby to file a criminal complaint against him due to which, he was suspended from service by the Police Department.It is not disputed that A1 got married to Baby, the sister of P.W.7 Kalavathi.The first deceased only arranged the marriage for A1 with his sister-in-law Baby.A1 had illicit intimacy with another Woman Constable through whom a child was born.That apart, Baby, the first wife was tortured and then driven out.Thereafter, Baby had to take shelter in the house of the first deceased, the husband of her sister.A1 did not heed to the advice of the first deceased to lead an amicable marital life with the said Baby.On the other hand, A1 filed a suit in O.S. No. 282 of 1996 for partition and obtained injunction against the first deceased from alienation of the properties.P19 is the plaint filed by the first accused against the first deceased.P10 is the written statement filed by the first deceased.The injunction order obtained by A1 against D1 is Ex.In this case, the charge sheet was filed on 3.2.1997 against A1 and his second wife Sundari.That apart, Baby filed a maintenance application Ex.In both these cases, the first deceased was a witness.Apart from that, a case was registered for affray against both A1 and the first deceased under Section 160 I.P.C. under Ex.The details of the criminal case and the suspension order in pursuance of the same have been spoken to by P.W.14 Woman Sub Inspector of the concerned Police Station.The factors relating to the pendency of civil and criminal cases have been spoken to by P.W.7 Kalavathi, the wife of the first deceased.As a matter of fact, these things have not been disputed by the first accused either in the cross-examination or in the statement given by him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is clear that A1 had strong motive against the first deceased since he thought that the first deceased was responsible for filing of the criminal cases against the first accused, in pursuance of which, A1 and his second wife were suspended.With this background, we have to analyse the evidence adduced by the prosecution with reference to the conspiracy hatched by the accused.Regarding conspiracy, the prosecution has placed the evidence of P.W.1, the approver, the judicial confession Ex.P1 made by him and the judicial confession Ex.P12 series made by A2 and A3 and the evidence of P.W.7 and Ex.P8, the complaint given by the first deceased seeking police protection apprehending danger at the hands of the first accused.According to P.W.1, he developed acquaintance with A1 who was working as a Police Constable, as he helped him whenever he went to the police station with regard to the problems that arose in the village.It is further stated by him that his brother died in an accident one year back and A1 only helped him in getting the dead body after post-mortem and arranged a counsel for claiming compensation.In course of time, they became very close friends.In that context, on one day, the first accused told him about his family affairs and since he suffered very much at the hands of his brother Sivaraman and he was suspended only at his instance, he sought his help to murder him.Though P.W.1 advised him not to resort to such action as the matter could be settled through mediation, the first accused insisted that the first deceased must be done away with.Whenever P.W.1 came to court to attend the case for compensation, the first accused used to talk about his plan.At that time, A2 also joined with him.Then, A1 asked A2 to execute the plan of murdering the first deceased by hitting him with a lorry so that the case would be closed as an accident case.In pursuance of the said plan, there was an attempt to hit him with a vehicle, but fortunately, the first deceased escaped with some simple injuries.Two months later, again the similar plan was hatched.This time, A3 also joined.A1 gave Rs.500/- to P.W.1 and asked P.W.1 to lend his TVS 50 M.O.1 for four days so that the identity of the first deceased Sivaraman could be shown to the other accused.Though he was reluctant initially, P.W.1 was compelled to accept the plan as the first accused told him that he helped him a lot.Accordingly, TVS 50 and cash of Rs.1,000/- were handed over by P.W.1 to the other accused to identify the first deceased as well as to watch his movements to execute their plan.On 18.8.1998, the accused 2 and 3 came to A1 and P.W.1 and informed them that the first deceased was travelling in TVS 50 with one old woman and as such, they could not execute the plan.Then, A1 instructed them to hit and kill both of them.Accordingly, the plan was executed causing death of both the deceased.After the occurrence, A2 came to the Tea shop of P.W.1 and phoned up to A1 about the execution of the plan.When P.W.1 phoned up to P.W.6 regarding the delay in getting the cheque for compensation from the Advocate, P.W.6 informed him that A2 came to the Tea shop with mini lorry after finishing the work entrusted to him.According to him, A2 Kannan, P.W.3 Sundar and one Shankar came to the Tea shop on 18.8.1998 at 4.00 p.m. and A2 obtained permission from P.W.6 Chitra to phone up to A1 Kumar and then phoned up.16. P.W.6 Chitra also would state that her husband P.W.1 had close acquaintance with A1 since her husband used to go frequently to the police station whenever the problems arise in the village.She also stated that A1 only helped P.W.1 in filing the case for compensation.P.W.7 Kalavathi is the wife of the first deceased.According to her, on one day, when she went to court along with the first deceased to attend the criminal case filed by her sister Baby, A1 heckled her husband/first deceased by stating that he would not come to the court on the next hearing and he would be run over by a lorry.According to P.W.25, the Inspector of Police, that he received Ex.P8 for taking appropriate action against A1 on 20.8.1998 along with the endorsement Ex.Thus, the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.13 and P.W.25 would make it clear that the first deceased on 18.8.1998 went to the Superintendent of Police and presented a complaint against A1 and others seeking police protection.The perusal of the complaint Ex.P8 would show that A1 by engaging rowdy elements attacked him earlier and several complaints had been given with reference to the said attack and further attempts were being made by him to eliminate him.He himself made an endorsement directing the Inspector of Police to enquire into the matter and to take action against the first accused.Further, the complaint Ex.P8 would show that the earlier complaints were given with regard to the attempts to attack him on various dates and no action was taken.These things would reveal that attempts were earlier made to kill the first deceased by hitting with a lorry and on apprehending danger to his life at the hands of A1, he presented a complaint to the Superintendent of Police seeking police protection on the date of occurrence.However, on 28.8.1998, the first accused surrendered before the Court at Chengleput.Thereafter, P.W.25 filed an application Ex.P30 for obtaining police custody.After interrogation, he was sent for judicial remand.As indicated above, P.W.8 would merely speak about the accident as he happened to be eye witness for the same as a bystander waiting at the Bus stop.According to P.W.2, the owner of the lorry, A2 and A3 came and asked the lorry for hire to take the goods of A2 to Vadalore.P.W.3 also would state that on 18.8.1998 at about 12 O' clock, both A2 and A3 came in a TVS 50 and engaged the mini lorry for taking the goods from Cuddalore to Vadalore.P32 shows the Register Number of the mini lorry and the details of the departing place and arriving place.It is also mentioned in the second column that the vehicle has been engaged by Kannan (A2) for taking the goods from Cuddalore to Vadalore.According to P.W.3, A3 followed the mini lorry in a TVS 50 and in the mini lorry, driver Sankar, A2 Kannan and cleaner P.W.3 were there.At that time, A2 asked Shankar, the driver to stop the vehicle nearby so that he could drink Brandy.Accordingly, he stopped the vehicle near the Railway gate.After drinking Brandy, Sankar went to the top portion of the Cabin and slept.In the meantime, A2 got down from the vehicle and took TVS 50 from A3 and went to Cuddalore O.T. and after half-an-hour, he came and handed over the said TVS to A3 and A2 got into the lorry and began to start the vehicle.When P.W.3 asked A2 Kannan as to why he was to drive when the driver Sankar was available, A2 said that he was also a driver and he could drive better than the driver of the mini lorry.At that time, another TVS 50 driven by a man was crossing the mini lorry on the left side.An old lady was the pillion rider.Due to the impact, both of the deceased were thrown to the roadside.On hearing the sound, the driver Sankar woke up and asked A2 as to why he was driving rashly.At that time, A3 who followed the lorry in another TVS 50 belonged to P.W.1 came near the lorry and asked A2 as to whether he finished his job (nghl;L js;spahr;rh).A2 replied, "Yes".Then, he asked P.W.6 present there to allow him to phone up to A1 Kumar.After finishing their tiffin there, at about 4.30 p.m., Sankar took the lorry.A2 Kannan was dropped on the way.Then, they left the vehicle in the house of P.W.2, owner and went to their respective houses.When he asked the cleaner P.W.3 as to how the accident took place, he gave the details as to what actually happened.Only thereafter, taking note of the serious situation, on 21.8.1998 at about 7.30 a.m., P.W.2 along with P.W.3 went to the police station and gave a written report to P.W.25 Inspector of Police.The fact that Sankar was asked to consume Brandy and made him to sleep in the upper portion of the Cabin and then on noticing both the deceased coming in the TVS 50 on the backside, A2 started the lorry and drove the same speedily and allowed the TVS 50 to go in front and then, went to left side and dashed against them, would clearly go to show that it was not an accident and it is a clear case of murder.Furthermore, according to P.W.3, after the incident was over, the vehicle did not stop in spite of the question put by both P.W.3 and Sankar, driver and at that time, A2 informed A3 that he finished his job and thereafter, they went to the Tea shop of P.W.1 and talked to A1 over telephone.As indicated above, only on the information given by P.W.3, A2 was arrested and at the instance of A2, A3 was arrested and thereafter, on their statement, P.W.1 was traced.It is true that P.W.3 did not report about the incident to the police nor to his employer immediately.But, he gives explanation that he got afraid since he came to know that Shankar was arrested on 19.8.1998 and only on 20.8.1998, he told about the incident to his employer P.W.2 as soon as he came back to his home.P.W.2 also would state that he went outside for his personal work and came back to his house only at 8.00 p.m. on 20.8.1998 and thereafter, he enquired with the cleaner who gave details.As per the report Ex.P17 given by the Motor Vehicle Inspector P.W.19, he found so many parts of the vehicle got damaged and front left side corner bumper dented.This would corroborate the evidence of P.W.3 that though the deceased went on the left side in TVS 50, A2 drove the vehicle to the left side and dashed against the TVS 50 driven by the first deceased.The reading of the deposition of P.Ws.2 and 3 would clearly reveal that P.W.3 was inside the vehicle as cleaner when the occurrence had taken place.As noted above, but for the information given by P.W.3, the involvement of A2 and A3 would not have been known to the investigating officer.Similarly, but for the statement of A2 and A3, the involvement of P.W.1 and A1 would not have been brought to light.In this context, the evidence of P.W.1, the approver assumes significance.According to P.W.1, he was also one of the conspirators.(D) Though the conviction of an accused on the testimony of accomplice cannot be said to be illegal, yet the Courts will, as a matter of practice, not accept the evidence of such a witness without corroboration in material particulars.For corroborative evidence, the Court must look at the broad spectrum of the approver's version and then find out whether there is other evidence to corroborate and lend assurance to that version.On going through Ex.P1, the judicial confession given by P.W.1 and the deposition given by him, it is clear that he has given a consistent version with regard to the acquaintance with A1 and the conspiracy hatched by A1 along with the other accused.Though his evidence is attacked by stating that he had acquaintance with A1 only for one year, it is the clear evidence as noticed from the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.6 that he was having a long acquaintance even before the death of his brother in the accident as he used to go to police station to solve the problems that arise frequently in the village with the help of A1 who was then working.As a matter of fact, the evidence of P.W.1 has not been seriously challenged.As a matter of fact, he was arrested on 21.8.1998 itself on the basis of the information given by A2 and A3 and his judicial confession was recorded on 2.9.1998 and only on 9.11.1998 P.W.15 Chief Judicial Magistrate granted pardon to him.Till then, he was an accused.It is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that P.W.1 himself would admit that he had no axe to grind against the deceased and he had gained nothing out of the murder of the deceased.In these circumstances, this Court on looking at the broad spectrum of the deposition of the approver (P.W.1) has to conclude that P.W.1 is a reliable witness.It is noticed that P.W.1 had stated in 164 statement also that he was arrested on 21.8.1998 early morning at 1.30 a.m. If the statement of P.W.1 is accepted regarding the time of arrest, naturally, the evidence given by P.W.9 and P.W.25 regarding the time of arrest of P.W.1 cannot be said to be true.On the other hand, we can accept the evidence of P.W.1 as his version relating to the time of arrest also is consistent with his statement Ex.P1 made before P.W.16, the Judicial Magistrate.37. P.W.1's version that earlier attempt to attack and kill the first deceased was made has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7, the wife of the first deceased.P8, the complaint presented by the first deceased on 18.8.1998, the date of occurrence to the Superintendent of Police.This has been spoken to by P.W.13 also.Further, P.W.3 also would speak about this.At the end, it is pointed out that even though A1 was not at the spot, he has been wrongly convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor on two counts.It was stated that A3 did not drive the vehicle and as such, he cannot also be convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor.The Additional Public Prosecutor would state that the conviction on these accused can be suitably modified.Accordingly, A1 is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor (2 counts) and convicted for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.A-2 is convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 302 I.P.C. (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for each of the offences.A-3 is convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. (two counts) and sentenced to undergo life imprisosnment for each of the offences. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,849,132 | L.P. 463/2017 Page 1 of 9 23rdNovember, 2011, in relation to his daughter; aged about 16 years (hereinafter referred to as "the victim").On the basis of the complaint the subject FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC.Thereafter, on 16th December, 2011, the brother of the victim, namely, Deepak (PW-7) received a telephone call from the victim informing that she was at the Bhajanpura Bus Stand, New Delhi.Pursuant to receiving the call, PW-7 reached there and escorted the victim to the Police Station.The victim was medically examined and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded founded on the allegation made against Pradeep Kumar alias Deepak Mandal (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'); of enticing the victim and taking her to his house, marrying her and of committing rape upon her.L.P. 463/2017 Page 1 of 9Subsequent statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C was also recorded before the concerned Magistrate and the charge under Section 376 IPC was also added.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 363/376 IPC and the Trial Court framed charges under the said sections.The Crl.L.P. 463/2017 Page 2 of 9 respondent pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial.L.P. 463/2017 Page 2 of 9In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, including the victim (PW-1).Subsequent thereto, statement of incriminating material was put before the respondent and later the statement of the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.The testimony of victim (PW-1) further unequivocally records that she met the respondent of her own free will.Further, it has been deposed by the victim that before her marriage with the respondent she used to stay in a tenanted room with the latter's aunt, uncle and their daughter, and after her marriage with the respondent; which was performed behind the back of her family members, they started residing together as husband and wife in a separate tenanted room in the same street.At this juncture, it would also be relevant to observe that the victim had categorically deposed that at no stage she complained either to the landlord or to any neighbour or to the relatives of the respondent that she was forcibly being detained.On the contrary, it was testified by the victim that she took normal meals and did normal household work and had even gone out of the house once or twice with the relatives of the respondent to purchase household items.L.P. 463/2017 Page 5 of 9The accused was nowhere in picture when she started from her house on 21.11.2011 and till she reached Kashmere Gate on 22/11/2011 where the accused allegedly met her.According to the victim, it was a single room where the accused was residing with three other persons namely Mausi, Mausa and their daughter.The present leave petition instituted on behalf of the State, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') assails the judgment dated 27th July, 2016, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, (North-East), Karkardooma Courts Complex, New Delhi, thereby acquitting the sole respondent in case titled as "State vs. Pradeep Kumar @ Deepak Mandal"; arising out of FIR No.459/2011 under Sections 363/376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').The respondent denied all the allegations levelled against him and refused to lead any evidence.The Trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and thorough examination of the evidence on record, acquitted the respondent of the said charges framed against him.The respondent was acquitted particularly in view of the statements of the victim (PW-1) recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, as well as, her deposition in Court,which in the considered view of the Trial Court indicated that she left her house and started residing with the former voluntarily, without any coercion, threat, pressure or enticement, and consented to have sexual intercourse with him.It is the said order of acquittal dated 27th July, 2016, which has been assailed in the present petition seeking leave to appeal therefrom.Without further ado, we would proceed to elaborate the basis on which the respondent was acquitted of all the said charges.L.P. 463/2017 Page 3 of 9L.P. 463/2017 Page 4 of 9L.P. 463/2017 Page 4 of 9Furthermore, when the victim (PW-1) was examined at the hospital she had clearly made a statement to the attending doctor that she of her own free will had left her parental home and married her boyfriend on 26th November, 2011, and had physical relations with him many times thereafter.In this behalf, it would be further relevant to note that the said statement recorded in her MLC (Ex.PW-16/A) clearly reveals that the doctor did not record any history of physical assault.Based upon the above material, the Trial Court came to the following conclusion:-It is abundantly clear from the statements of the victim recorded u/S 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as her deposition before the Court that she had gone from the house absolutely of her own free will, without any kind of coercion, threat, pressure or enticement on the part of the accused.She had ample opportunities to return back to her house when the accused did not met her on 21.11.2011 at Ashok Nagar but instead of returning back to her home, she went to the house of one Parul and stayed with her overnight.Again, on the next day, she went from her house to Kashmere Gate instead of returning back to her house when she could have done so and there was absolutely no pressure or inducement upon her from anyone including the accused.There had been no explanation on her part as to why she chose to go to Kashmere Gate instead of going to her own house.It has come in her testimony that the house of Parul was situated at a walking distance of 10/15 minutes from her house and thus, she could have easily return back to her house, that too, when she was aware that her father was quite perturbed because of her missing from her house and was repeatedly calling her on phone.No order as to costs. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
192,851,118 | The cause of death is written as some acute intestinal obstruction.The duration of the deceased is written as 2 years.The witness who has come from the hospital had stated that he can bring the register regarding the admission etc but thereafter he was never examined.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 2 of 13The letter written by the deceased suggest that she was continuously given some kind of food which she could not be digested and which was painful.Because of that she had some acute intestinal obstruction, which may be the ultimate cause of death.All the witnesses who are the near relatives of the complainant have clearly stated that the accused-persons had not informed about the death despite they being the close relatives of the deceased and her father and mother had gone to Pakistan.They did not inform them also in time.The child i.e. the daughter of the deceased stated that her mother had eaten some goli which her father had brought.Immediately after consuming the same she had died.This also raises strong suspicion that the deceased was being continuously given some kind of poison which has ultimately resulted in her death.Although, this case had needed a strong and throughful investigation but for the reasons best known to the police they have not chosen so despite the fact that there was clear allegations from the parents i.e. the complainant and other relatives and the above conduct of accused also suggests same foul play.The deceased had also written such letters which suggests that she was being mal-treated and made to eat the food which was not even cooked alongwith the food for other members and which causes burning sensation in her chest.It is submitted that this deposition is in fact inconsistent with what is alleged in the complaint and in any event does not inspire confidence for summoning the Petitioners for an offence as serious as 302 read with 498A IPC.On 14th August 1989, the deceased decided to stay with her in- laws after her in-laws approached her parents for a compromise offering to keep the deceased and the daughter with them.It is pointed out in the report of SI Kuldeep Singh that the complainant along with his family went to Karachi and did not return for several months on account of two deaths there.In the meanwhile, the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis which was diagnosed at the New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre.She was given treatment for the same.It is pointed out that despite proper medical care and attention she did not recover from the disease and her condition deteriorated day by day.The deceased was admitted to Jai Prakash Narain Hospital but did not get any relief as a result of which she was discharged from the hospital and returned to her in-laws house.The deceased had earlier complained of chest pain and breathlessness for which she was given medical treatment.What happened on 22nd February 1990 is stated as under in the said report of Kuldeep Singh:"However, on 22.02.90, the condition of Nazneen Fatima deteriorated a great deal and the father-in- law Abdul Muqeed told several relatives of the complainant staying nearby that the condition of her dauther-in-law was very serious.She was taken to LNJP Hospital but she died at 9.30A.M. and the doctor has opined the cause of death is subactuite Intestinal Obstruction and that she had been suffering from the disease for the last two years.Since, the in-laws of Nazneen Fatima provide her medical attention and she was suffering from old disease no foul play suspected.It is thereafter stated in paras 8 to 12 as under:The aforementioned complaint was filed by the Respondent on 11th March 1993 alleging that the daughter of the complainant, who had been Crl.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 1 of 13 married to Petitioner No.1 Abdul Muneer on 14th January 1986 had died under mysterious circumstances on 22nd February 1990 and that she was given poison by the accused persons (the Petitioners herein).The other witnesses examined were Nargis (CW-1), the mother of the deceased, Om Prakash (CW-3), Record Clerk from LNJP Hospital (where the deceased was stated to be admitted), Mirajuddin (CW-4), an uncle of the deceased, Jameela Begum (CW-5), the aunt of the deceased, Moinuddin (CW-6), the complainant, Mohd. Habib (CW-7), Mohd. Saleem (CW-8) and Shahida Begum (CW-9), a niece of the complainant.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 1 of 13By an order dated 5th August 2002 the learned MM came to the following conclusion:On the perusal of the file, I find that the statement of witnesses was written by SI Kuldeep Singh.The file also finds annexed the photocopy of death certificate of Nazneen Fatima W/o.Abdul Munir dated 22.2.90 at 9.30 AM.Accordingly, I am of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused Abdul Munir Crl.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 3 of 13 (husband), Abudul Mukid (father-in-law) who had informed that the deceased was ill/sick; Amtul Hasin (mother-in-law); Anjum Bano W/o.Abdul Moied; (Jhethani); Nasima; Yasmin: Shabnam (nanands) for offence punishable U/s.302 read with section 498-A IPC.Issue NBWs against all accused persons vide PF for 27.8.2002."M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 3 of 13Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the Petitioners preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.39 of 2005 in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Delhi.Thereafter the present petition has been filed.Learned counsel for the Petitioners challenges the summoning order on various grounds.It is pointed out that within six months of the marriage on 16th July 1986, the deceased filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC.On 14th August 1989 a compromise was arrived at between the parties and thereafter they resumed living together.It is pointed out that the complaint failed to disclose that the police of Police Post Turkman Gate, Crl.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 4 of 13 SI Kuldeep Singh made an enquiry into the complaint of the Respondent and concluded that the deceased died on account of "subaclite intestinal obstruction".The police concluded that no foul play was suspected and that from the statement of the witnesses nothing incriminating was forthcoming.The said report dated 6th May 1993 of Kuldeep Singh, submitted before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, has been annexed to this petition.The medical record showing the treatment given by the Petitioners to the deceased for tuberculosis and other medical ailments has also been produced on record.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 4 of 13Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the deposition of CW-2 Ruby Fatima.It is pointed out that the letters alleged to have been written by the deceased to the Respondent when he was in Pakistan have not been proved in accordance with law.Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand sought to support the summoning order stating that at this stage the learned MM Crl.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 5 of 13 only had to be satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out against the Petitioners for the aforementioned offences.It is submitted that the depositions of the witnesses examined at the pre-summoning stage substantiated the complaint and therefore no interference was called for with the summoning order.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 5 of 13The trial court record has been perused.It reveals that after the filing of the complaint on 11th March 1993 a report was indeed submitted to the court of the learned MM on 6th March 1993 by SI Kuldeep Singh.This report pointed out that the marriage between the deceased and the Petitioner No.1 was an unusual one in the sense that the deceased had allegedly been raped by Petitioner No.1 when she had gone to stay at the house of her maternal uncle.When this fact came to light in order to keep prestige of the family, the marriage was solemnised.Five months after the marriage, a child was born.She thereafter decided on her own to stay with her parents due to lack of compatibility between the spouses.Certain orders were passed in the said petition which were challenged by way of a revision petition in this Court.The complainant was himself not present and therefore, expressed Crl.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 7 of 13 his apprehension about the death.The statement of the witnesses were recorded and nothing incriminating has come to light from them."M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 7 of 13A perusal of the complaint shows that according to the complainant when the wife of the complainant visited the house of the accused on 2 nd November 1989 she came to know that the deceased had been ill-treated by the accused persons.That on his return from Pakistan the complainant along with his wife went to house of accused persons where the Accused persons particularly accused No.1 was very harsh and rude towards complainant and his wife and stated that his daughter had died her natural death.That the complainant thereafter came to know from the neighbourers and his relatives who were at that time in Delhi that his daughter had died Crl.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 8 of 13 unnatural death i.e. by giving poison.The Accused persons had given poison to his daughter and she died due to the said reason.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 8 of 13That Ruby Fatima daughter of deceased & Accused No.1 told that her mother was alright on that particular day in the morning and was doing her work as usual and that after taking her tea, her condition immediately became serious and a Doctor also came to attend on her but she died immediately.The complainant enquired from Accused about the name of the doctor who attended on the deceased but the accused refused to do so.That the complainant also came to know that the Accused persons immediately took the dead body of his daughter to the Kabristan where she was buried.The Accused were heard saying that the deceased died in the hospital.The complainant also went to the Hospital (J.P. Narain Hospital) and enquired from the concerned persons about the death of Nazneen Fatima but he could not get the information from them.It is beyond doubt that the Deceased Nazneen Fatima never admitted in the hospital."It is stated that the complainant approached the Commissioner of Police with a written complaint on 30th July 1990 but no action was taken thereon.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 9 of 13M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 9 of 13The aforementioned averments, in the considered view of this Court, do not give a satisfactory explanation for the conduct of the complainant in not returning to India immediately upon knowing of the death of his daughter.This is rather unusual if indeed the wife of the complainant came to know even on 2nd November 1989 that her daughter was being ill-treated by the accused persons.Further the complainants conduct in waiting till 11th March 1993 to file a complaint after given a written complaint to the police on 30th July 1990 is even more unusual.Absolutely no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming on this extraordinary delay in approaching the Court particularly when the offence is allegedly a serious one.In the impugned order dated 5th August 2002 the learned MM has noticed that the cause of the death is shown as "acute intestinal obstruction" and no poisoning as alleged by the complainants.The evidence of CW-2, the daughter of the deceased has been referred to by the learned MM for concluding that "the deceased was being continuously given some kind of poison which was ultimately resulted in her death." In her deposition before the Court, the child Ruby (CW-2) inter alia, stated as under:"My mummy died by consuming goli.I did not see the gold consuming by my mother.My mummy used to be beaten by my Papa.Many Crl.M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 10 of 13 people gathered at the time of death of my mummy.Goli was brought by my papa and the same was consumed by my mummy on her own.She consumed goli with water and just after consumption she died."M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 10 of 13M.C. No.3819-22/2006 Page 11 of 13 Marghoob Hussain neither of whom has been examined as a witness.A second letter stated to have been written by the deceased on 30 th January 1990 does not bear any stamp of a post office at Pakistan.She appears to have gone back to her matrimonial home after a compromise was reached.A copy of this order be sent to the learned MM concerned forthwith. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,285,864 | The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.190 of 2015, on the fileof the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi,Thoothukudi District.The case of the prosecution, as put forth by its witnesses, isconsciously narrated below:-The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.Ilayaperumal @ Durai.He was residing at Polpet, Tuticorin.The accused was in the habit of eve-teasingPW-5, who is the daughter of the deceased's brother.Few months prior to theoccurrence, the first accused had teased PW-5, who was residing atSelvanayakapuram.Hence, the first accused was forced to vacate the houseand shift the place of residence to Ashok Fathima Nagar, Shanmugapuram by the deceased.While so, on 16.09.2014, when the deceased went to the house ofhis brother, he found the first accused standing there along with anotherperson.The deceased scolded them as to why they were standing there and asked them to go away from the said place.The first accused left the place.On the same day, at about 05.45 PM, while the deceased was proceeding near a Welding Workshop situated near the Murugan Hall, the first accused wasstanding there along with some other persons.On seeing the deceased, thefirst accused had abused him in filthy language and took out a knife, whichwas in his possession and stabbed the deceased on his left portion of theabdomen, left shoulder, right shoulder and left side of the back.Thedeceased fell down.On seeing the occurrence, PW-2, the brother of thedeceased and one Rajagopal [PW-3] raised alarm.Immediately, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.On hearing about the occurrence, PW-1, the wife of the deceasedrushed to the place of occurrence and took the deceased to the TuticorinGovernment Hospital in an Auto for treatment.PW-7, Dr.M.Akilan, admitted himin the hospital and issued Accident Register [EX-P4].Then, PW-15 forwarded both the documents to theCourt and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police.Taking up the case for investigation, at 09.30 PM, on 16.09.2014,PW-16 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of PW-6 and another witness.He recovered bloodstained earth [MO-4] and sample earth[MO-5] from the place of occurrence.Thereafter, he recorded the statement ofthe deceased, while he was taking treatment in the hospital as an in-patient.Then, he recorded the statements of PW-6 and PW-1, the wife of the deceased.PW-1 handed over the bloodstained baniyan and lungi.On 17.09.2014, PW-16 arrested all the five accused near Tuticorin New Bus Stand in the presence ofPW-13 and another witness.On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession andproduced the knife [ MO-3].PW-16 recovered the same under a Mahazer.On returning to the Police Station, PW-16 forwarded the accused to the Court forjudicial remand.He also handed over the material objects to the Court.On20.09.2014, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.Totally, there were as many as five accused in thiscase.The Trial Court framed as many as six charges, as detailed below.Charge Accused Penal Provisions12 to 5147 IPC 21148 IPC 31 to 5294(b)IPC 41302 IPC 52 to 5302 r/w 149 IPC61 to 5506(ii)By Judgment dated 23.03.2016, the Trial Court acquitted the accusedNos.2 to 5 of all charges and the first accused from the charges underSections 148, 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, however, the TrialCourt convicted the first accused and sentenced him, as detailed below:-Section of LawSentence of imprisonment Fine amount 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life.Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the first accused/the appellanthas come up with this Criminal Appeal.On intimation from thehospital authorities, PW-15, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, proceeded tothe Tuticorin Government Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased.The said statement was signed by the deceased and attested by the wife of thedeceased.On returning to the Police Station, PW-15 registered a case inCrime No.605 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.EX-P1 is the complaint and EX-P20 isthe First Information Report.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of thedeceased in the presence of panchayatars.EX-P23 is the inquest report.Then,he forwarded the dead body for postmortem.PW-9 - Dr.M.Udhayakumar conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.EX-P8 is the postmortem certificate.He noticed the followinginjuries:-"1.A sutured wound of length 5 cms seen in the left side of back.Onremoval of sutures, cut injury of size 5 cms x 2 cms x bone deep.2.A sutured wound of length 4 cms seen in the left lower arm.Onremoval of sutures, cut injury of size 4 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep.3.A sutured wound of length 3 cms seen in the right shoulder.Onremoval of sutures, cut injury of size 3 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep.4.A sutured wound of length 3 cms seen in the left lower abdomen.Onremoval of sutures, cut injury of size 3 cms x 2 cms x abdominal cavitydeep.5.Midline laparotomy sutures and drainage tubes on both sides noted(Treatment procedure)."He gave an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died ofcomplications of cut and stab injuries sustained by him.Since PW-16 was transferred, PW-17 took up the case forinvestigation.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against theaccused.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriatecharges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment.When theaccused were questioned in respect of the charges, they pleaded innocence.Inorder to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 17 witnesses wereexamined, 23 documents and five material objects were marked.When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidencesavailable against them, they denied the same as false.On the side of thefirst accused, DW-1, the father of the first accused, was examined and aRation Card [EX-A1] was marked.The defence of all the accused was a totaldenial.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court acquittedthe accused Nos.2 to 5 of all charges and the first accused from the chargesunder Sections 148, 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, however, theTrial Court convicted the first accused and sentenced him to undergoimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergosimple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code.That is how, the first accused/the appellant is now beforethis Court with this Criminal Appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and alsoperused the records carefully.At no point of time, according to the learned counsel, the accused resided at Selvanayakapuram.Moreover, PW-5 did not inform PW-16, the Investigating Officer about the eve-teasingperpetuated by the accused.The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that PW-5,during cross-examination, improved her version stating that the deceased usedto visit the house of PW-5 and on account of the same, there were frequentquarrels between the deceased and his wife.Thus, PW-5 has given a go by tothe earlier stand and gave a different version in her cross-examination,which would show that the evidence of PW-5 cannot be believed.The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that thereis an inordinate delay in registering the complaint and forwarding the FirstInformation Report to the Court.Though the fact remains that the deceasedwas taking treatment in the hospital for nearly four days, the prosecutionhas not chosen to obtain the dying declaration from the deceased.Thus,according to the learned counsel, EX-P1 is shrouded by suspicion, since PW-2and PW-3 had admitted that they were unaware of EX-P1, when they were examined during investigation.The learned counsel for the appellant furthersubmitted that the prosecution has not recovered the dress worn by thedeceased at the time of occurrence.Thus, according to the learned counsel,EX-P1 is a concocted document, which has been planted by the prosecution.The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that theevidences of PW-2 to PW-4, who are the alleged eye-witnesses, are not trustworthy and they have been planted by the prosecution.Inviting the attentionof this Court to the chief-examination of PW-1, the wife of the deceased, thelearned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW-1 admitted that when shewent to the place of occurrence, the body of the deceased was found lying inthe drainage and two lorries were standing nearby, affecting the visibility.Thus, there is no chance for PW-2 to PW-4 to witness the occurrence.Thelearned counsel further submitted that PW-2 is the own brother of thedeceased and PW-3 is closely related to the deceased.It is the categoricaladmission of PW-2 that he did not inform about his presence in the place ofoccurrence during investigation.Thus, according to the learned counsel, acumulative scrutiny of the eye-witnesses, who happen to be the closelyrelated, interested and chance witnesses, would show that their presence, atthe place of occurrence, is unnatural and they have been planted as eye-witnesses.While concluding, the learned counsel for the appellant, in thealternative, submitted that the act of the accused would not amount tomurder.The deceased was admitted in the hospital at 06.25 PM, on 16.09.2014 and he had been declared dead at 10.45 PM, on 20.09.2014 and as per EX-P6, the death intimation, the diagnosis is septicemia due to stab injury.Thelearned counsel for the appellant submitted that out of four injuriessustained by the deceased, the injury found on the lower abdomen alone is onthe vital part of the body and the other injuries are simple in nature.However, PW-9, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, had given a very vague statement in the postmortem certificate [EX-P9] that the injuriessustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause the death.Thus, according to thelearned counsel for the appellant, if at all this Court believes the evidenceof the prosecution, even then, the act of the accused will not come under thepurview of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and at the most, his actwould fall within the ambit of First Exception to Section 300 of the IndianPenal Code and therefore, the accused is liable to be punished either underSection 304(i) or 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, opposed thisCriminal Appeal.According to him, the prosecution has clearly proved thecase with cogent and convincing evidence.Under such circumstances, no infirmity can be found on the conviction and sentence recorded by the TrialCourt.Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal ofthe Criminal Appeal.We have considered the above submissions.It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for theappellant that as per the case of the prosecution, the accused was teasingPW-5, who was residing at Selvanayakapuram.Hence, the accused was forced to shift his place of residence to Ashok Fathima Nagar, Shanmugapuram, Tuticorinby the deceased.Since the deceased played a very active role in shifting theplace of residence, the accused had a grudge over the deceased.On account ofthe same, on 16.09.2014, the first accused committed the offence by stabbingthe deceased with knife.In order to disprove the motive projected by theprosecution, the father of the accused was examined as DW-1 and marked EX-D1, the Ration Card.DW-1 has deposed that his family has been residing at GeorgeRoad, Tuticorin North and at no point of time, the accused resided atSelvanayakapuram.Thus, from EX-D1, according to the learned counsel for theappellant, the motive projected by the prosecution stands disproved.Next, in order to disprove the motive projected by the prosecution,the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, invited the attention ofthis Court to the cross-examination of PW-5 and submitted that though it isthe case of the prosecution that the first accused was teasing PW-5, whichresulted in the accused to shift the place of residence elsewhere, but,during cross-examination, PW-5 has given a complete different version thatthe deceased used to visit her house frequently and on account of the same,there were disputes between the deceased and his wife, which would go toprove that the evidence of PW-5 cannot be relied upon.On a careful analysis of the evidence of PW-5, we find that in herchief-examination, she had stated that the accused was very often teasing PW-5, where ever she was going and this was questioned by the deceased, who isher paternal uncle.Even in the cross-examination, she had assertively statedthat the accused was teasing her.Since she had spoken in the cross-examination about the frequent quarrel that had taken place between thedeceased and his wife on account of the visit of the deceased to PW-5' house,it does not mean that she has given a go by to her earlier version, whenparticularly, PW-5 made an assertion in cross-examination that she was teasedby the accused very often.Therefore, it is incorrect to state that PW-5 hasgiven up her earlier version and gave a total different version in her cross-examination.Thus, we are of the view, the motive for the occurrence is dulyproved by the prosecution and the submission made by the learned counsel forthe appellant in this regard is rejected.Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submittedthat there is delay in registering the complaint and forwarding the FirstInformation Report to the Court, we find that there is no delay at all.The accusedwas admitted in the Tuticorin Government Hospital, at about 06.25 PM.Thus, in our considered view, there is nodelay either in preferring the complaint or forwarding the First InformationReport to the Court.It is yet another submission of the learned counsel for theappellant that the evidences of PW-2 to PW-4, who are closely related to thedeceased, are not trust worthy and they have been planted by the prosecution.Inviting the attention of this Court to the chief-examination of PW-1, thelearned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW-1 admitted that when shewent to the place of occurrence, the body of the deceased was found lying inthe drainage and two lorries were standing nearby, affecting the visibility.Thus, according to the learned counsel, the evidences of PW-2 to PW-4 wouldshow that they might not have witnessed the occurrence and as such, theirevidences cannot be believed.We do not find any substance in the said contention taken by thelearned counsel for the appellant.In fact, the evidences of PW-2 to PW-4 arecogent and convincing.Though PW-2 to PW-4 have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been brought on record so as to disbelievetheir evidences.Their evidences are duly corroborated by the evidence of PW-Moreover, it is too well settled that if a witness claims to be present atthe place of occurrence by chance or he is closely related to the deceased,it is necessary that the reason for his presence at the place of occurrence,by chance, should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court.In thiscase, the occurrence took place nearby the Welding Work Shop, at Selvanayakapuram, where PW-2, who is the own brother of the deceased, was standing.Furthermore, from the evidence of PW-2, it could be seen that allthe relatives of the deceased were residing in and around the same area.Thus, the presence of PW-2, at the place of occurrence, in our consideredview, cannot be doubted.The other contradictions pointed out by the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant are all minor and immaterialcontradictions, which cannot be taken into consideration.Above all, EX-P1 was recorded by PW-15, while the deceased was taking treatment in the Tuticorin Government Hospital.The above statement recorded by PW-15 amounts to dying declaration, in which the deceased has clearly mentioned that it wasthis first accused, who stabbed him with knife on his left portion of theabdomen, left shoulder, right shoulder and left side of the back .Though PW-15 has been cross-examined at length, nothing has been brought on record soas to discard his version.Thus, the prosecution has clearly proved the casebeyond reasonable doubt that it was this first accused, who alone stabbed thedeceased.On the same day, at 06.25 PM, the deceased was admitted in the Tuticorin Government Hospital.He was in thehospital for four days taking treatment as an inpatient.On 20.09.2014, at10.45 PM, the deceased was declared dead in the hospital.The doctor, whoconducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, issued EX-P9, postmortem certificate, which would show that the deceased would appear to have died ofcomplications of cut and stab injuries sustained by him.However, as per EX-P6, the diagnosis is septicemia due to stab injury.The doctor, who treatedthe deceased in the Government Hospital, for a period of four days, has notbeen examined.The treatment given to the deceased has not been explained.Absolutely, there is no evidence with regard to the treatment given to thedeceased for four days.The first accused has got no history of any badantecedents.Subsequent to the occurrence also, he has not committed any crime.Having regard to these mitigating as well as aggravatingcircumstances, we are of the view that sentencing the first accused toundergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in thefollowing terms:-The conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused/appellant, byJudgment dated 23.03.2016 made in S.C.No.190 of 2015, on the file of thelearned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi,Thoothukudi District, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is setaside and instead, the first accused/appellant is convicted under Section304(i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees TenThousand only], in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.1.The Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.2.The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi North Police Station, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,864,979 | This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant-accused is in custody since 02/07/2019 in connection with Crime No. 555/2019, registered at Police Station-Kotwali, District- Betul (MP), for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376 (II) (N) and 323 of IPC.As per prosecution story in short is that on 20/06/2019 prosecutrix has given written complaint that the applicant has committed rape upon her with the false pretext of marriage since 02/12/2010 and on 05/01/2011 applicant has committed rape, the prosecutrix has lodged an FIR that applicant has committed rape with her.On such information police has lodged the report for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and started investigation thereafter applicant was arrested since then applicant is in judicial custody.The prosecutrix is adult lady.She loves the applicant- accused.Both parties wants to solemnize the marriage.Prosecutrix appeared before the trial court, she deposed before the trial court that she wants to marry with applicant-accused and she did not want any further proceeding against the applicant-accused.Applicant-accused has been falsely implicated in this case, he is innocent.Trial will take long time for final disposal.He further submits that there is no probability of his absconding and, tempering with the prosecution evidence.The applicant is ready to furnish bail bond as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned GA for State opposes the said bail application.Considering the contention of both the parties, it is evident that the prosecutrix is adult lady.She loves the applicant-accused.Both parties wants to solemnize the marriage.Prosecutrix appeared before the trial court, she deposed before the trial court that she wants to marry with applicant-accused and she did not want any further proceeding against the applicant-accused. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,928,660 | ORDER Dipak Mishra, J.In this revision preferred Under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') tne petitioners have called in.The investigating agency registered offences punishable Under Sections 498A/34 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') against the husband, Pramod, in-laws of the deceased and some other relations.It has been putforth in the petition that the applicants after receiving information relating to the death of Sunita, reached her in laws' house on 2-8-2000 at 9-30 a.m. As alleged by the prosecution the applicants made enquiry about the death of Sunita and on not getting satisfactory reply they started beating her husband, Pramod, and mother-in-law, Ranjanabai, as a result of which she sustained certain injuries.The report of this incident was lodged by the husband, Pramod, which gave rise to a crime for offences Under Sections 307 and 147 of the IPC.Later on, Ranjanabai succumbed to the injuries in the hospital while availaing treatment and offence Under Section 302 of the IPC was added.Eventually a charge-sheet was filed in respect of the aforesaid offences against the applicants, who faced trial before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur, Dtstt.The trial Court framed charges against the applicants for the offences punishable Under Sections 147,294, 302 and 307 of the IPC.At this stage the file relating to Sessions Trial No. 145/2000 was sent to the District Judge (Vigilance) for inspection and the District Judge (Vigilance) gave a note that an additional charge Under Section 149 of the IPC should be framed against the applicants.On the basis of the aforesaid the learned trial Judge framed an additional charge Under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the IPC.On 11-5-2000, it has been averred that this charge was framed as an alternative charge to what had been framed earlier.The petitioners had denied the charge and submitted an application Under Section 217 of the Code for recall of the eye-witnesses who had been examined for the purpose of cross-examination in the light of framing of an additional charge Under Section 149 of the IPC.The trial Judge rejected the said application on the ground that Section 149 of the IPC is not independently punishable and eye-witneses have already been cross-examined.The matter was listed on 29-5-2001 on which date the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to bring on record the petition which was filed before the learned trial Judge to highlight that there was categorical assertion that no cross-examination was made keeping in view Section 149 of the IPC.The petition in question was filed and has been brought on record, | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,928,661 | Deceased Rajvir was a resident of village Akola, Appellant Kunwar Sen is resident of village Bhagner.These two villages adjoin each other.Kharja Nala separates them.The case of prosecution in brief is that on 24-9 1979 the first informant Lala Ram was giving bath to his bullocks at about 12 noon in the aforesaid Kharja Nala near the culvert.Rajvir deceased also arrived on the culvert from the side of Bhagner.He was followed by appellant Kunwar Sen and his son Man Singh.They were accusing Rajvir of stealing his maize .The deceased felt offended of this accusation which resulted in exchange of abuses and hot words.It is alleged that appellant Kunwar Sen then fired upon Rajvir and the shot hit in the lumber region of his stomach.After receiving the fire arm injury the deceased ran for some distance and ultimately fell down in the 'usar' near the field of Raghuveer.Both the accused persons then fled away towards village Bhagner.This incident was also witnessed by Mahesh Chandra, Hori Lal and Indrapal.Lalaram, the first cousin of the deceased, went near Rajvir and found him alive.S.I.R.S. Agnihotri, PW 6, took up investigation .PW 1 Lala Ram is cousin brother of deceased Rajvir.He stated that on the date of incident he was present in Kharja Nala in the south of culvert and was giving bath to his bullock.JUDGMENT J.C. Gupta, J.Appellant Kunwar Sen has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment and order dated 26-8-1980 passed by the then III Addl.Sessions Judge, Mairipuri in S.T. No. 608 of 1979, for committing the murder of Rajvir.When he reached the place of occurrence, he found Rajvir dead.The inquest report Ex. Ka 8 and other necessary papers were prepared and the dead body was sent to mortuary for post mortem examination.The case was also converted under Section 302, IPC through GD entry Ex.Dr. P.K. Jain PW 4 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rajveer on 15-9-1979 at 3.45 p.m. and prepared post mortem report Ex. Ka 1 .Following ante mortem injury was found :Fire arm wound of entry of 2 cm x 3 cm.x cavity deep on the right side of abdomen (lumber region), 18 cm away from umbliculus.Loops of intestines were corning out through the wound.Margins were inverted and lacerated.Blackening present.Direction of the wound was right to left.In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury.On an analysis of evidence the learned Sessions Judge discarded the testimony of PW 3 Hori Lal but placing reliance on the evidence of PW 1 Lal Ram and PW 2 Mahendra Singh and other evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found appellant Kunwar Sen alone guilty of causing murder of Rajvir.Co-accused Man Singh was however, acquitted with the finding that he had no common intention with his father of committing the crime in question.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the alleged eye witnesses examined at the trial PW 1 Lala Ram and PW 2 Mahendra Singh were inimical and partisan besides being chance witnesses and were not capable of being relied upon.In his opinion it was a blind murder.The factum of Rajvir dying an unnatural death on account of a fatal fire arm injury has neither been disputed nor challenged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant.Thus undoubtedly it is evident from the evidence on record that Rajvir was murdered.However, it has to be examined whether the murder of Rajvir was committed by the present appellant Kunwar Sen in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.The success of prosecution for proving the guilt of the appellant depends upon the evidence of three witnesses namely Lala Ram PW 1, Mahendra Singh PW 2 and Hori Lal PW 3 who claimed themselves to be present at time of murder of Rajvir.Dead body of Rajvir was found in the 'usar' near the field of Raghuvir.According to the prosecution case the deceased sustained only one fire arm injury on the right side of abdomen (lumbar region and at the time Rajvir suffered that injury he was on the culvert of Kharja Nala which was north-south.Village Akola was situated towards east and village Bhagner *.n the west of the culvert.Appellant and his son Man Singh who was also tried along with the appellant were residents of village Akola.This village was removed by about 5-6 furlongs from village Bhagner.The culvert lies in between these two villages.Thus even according to the prosecution case the incident occurred at an isolated place far removed from village abadi.At about 12 noon Rajvir deceased arrived on the culvert from village Bhagner side.Accused Kunwar Sen and his son Man Singh followed him.They hurled abuses and made accusation against Rajvir of stealing their maize crop.Rajvir denied the charge whereupon exchange of abuses and hot words ensued between Rajveer and accused persons.Kunwar Sen all of a sudden fired upon Rajvir from a country made pistol which hit him in his lumbar region.After being struck by the shot Rajvir ran towards south east and fell down in the usar near the field of Raghvir.Both the accused persons then ran away towards Bhagner village.The incident was also witnessed by Mahendra Singh PW 2, Hori Lal PW 3 and Indrapal.It has also been stated by him that after the accused had fled away, the witnesses came near Rajvir and found that he was alive.Instead of making any attempt to remove Rajvir for providing medical aid, he went to his village and got F.I.R. Ex.Ka 1 scribed by Mahesh Chandra Sharma and then from there he straight away went to police station and lodged the FIR on the same evening at 5.30 p.m. It may be mentioned here that the police station was about 9 kilometres from his village.When he came .back at the scene of occurrence at about 9 p.m. he found Rajvir dead.In cross examination he stated that there was a field of appellant Kunwar Sen in village Bhagner which had maize crop in the middle while Jwar was sown all around.This field was about two furlongs away from the Kharja Nala and was visible from the Nala.The Nala was about five feet deep .When accused persons arrived at the scene of occurrence Rajvir was talking to his witness while sitting on culvert.When the shot was fired on Rajvir by Kunwar Sen his face was towards east and accused was removed by 5-6 paces from the deceased.At the time of firing Rajvir was on the left side of Kunwar Sen.PW 2 Mahendra Singh stated that he was going from his village Akola to village Bhagner.He repeated the facts as stated by PW 1 Lala Ram.It has also come in his evidence that Rajvir died in his presence at about 3.30 p.m. In cross examination he stated that he was going to Ramvanshi tailor to collect clothes which he had given for stitching about four days ago.However, he admitted that he did not go to collect clothes after the incident.According to him also Kunwar Sen fired from a distance of 5-6 paces.He however, contradicted PW 1 Lala Ram by stating that Kunwar Sen was in front of the deceased and not on the right side or left side of the deceased.He further stated that at the time of firing Rajvir was on the culvert whose floor was of 'pucca' bricks.He further stated that no pellets, ticklis or blood fell on the floor.After receiving fire arm injury Rajvir ran from the culvert and fell down near the field of Raghvir after covering a distance of about 50 paces (75 feet) but no blood dropped in between the culvert and the place where Rajvir fell down.It is further stated by him that he had shown the place to the Investigating officer from where he witnessed the incident.However no such place has been shown by the I.O. in the site plan Ex. Ka 13 and the I.O. stated that the witness never showed him that place.P.W. 3 Hori Lal stated that he was going towards Kharja Nala in search of his cattle.After the incident he however did not go for that purpose and left for his village.He did not stay on the spot either and further stated that he did not know at what time Rajvir breathed his last.He admitted that no one made any attempt to take injured Rajvir to his village.He further admitted that he was interrogated by the Investigating officer after 10-15 days of the incident.He further admitted that before he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer, he did not disclose to any person the fact of his having witnessed the incident.As per the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses Rajvir was shot at the culvert and only a single shot was fired on him and after receiving the fire arm injury Rajvir ran to a distance of about 50 paces before he fell down in the 'USAR' near the field of Raghuvir.Dr. P.K. Jain PW 4 who conducted post mortem examination stated that in all possibility the deceased after receiving the ante mortem fire arm injury could not have run for more than 10-20 paces.It is also noteworthy that not even a single drop of blood was found on the 'pacca' floor of the culvert where the deceased sustained fire arm injury or at any point right from the culvert up to the place where Rajvir fell down.The witnesses in clear words have i admitted that no blood dropped in the way.The ante mortem fire arm injury was cavity deep and loops of intestines were coming out through the wound.Peritoneum was grossly lacerated below the injury and cavity contained about 30 ounces of fresh and clotted blood.Mesentry was grossly lacerated at pieces.Ascending and transverse colon were also grossly lacerated.Cause of death was haemorrhage.Having regard to the nature of injury and the opinion expressed by Dr. Jain it becomes highly doubtful that Rajvir could have run for a distance of about 50 paces after receiving the fire arm injury and not even a single drop of blood would have fallen down on the ground from the wound.Thus not only the presence of the witnesses is rendered doubtful but it is also difficult to accept the prosecution story that Rajvir sustained fire arm injury when he was on the culvert of the Nala.Perhaps the place was changed for the reason that the place where dead body of Rajvir was found, was surrounded by Jhars (shrubs) of Babool and was not visible to passers-by.All the three witnesses in a parrot like manner have stated that when Kunwar Sen fired on Rajvir he was removed by 5-6 paces (12-15 ft) from him.Dr. P.K. Jain has been very specific in opinion that the shot must have been fired from a distance of less than four feet.He has further 'opined that the fire must have been made from right side of the deceased as direction of that shot was inward and from right to left.However, according to PW 2 Mahendra Singh, Kunwar Sen was in front of the deceased and not in his right or left side.If the shot was fired from the front side, direction of the wound would not have been from right to left.As already pointed out above the place from where the witnesses had seen the occurrence has not been shown by the I.O. in the site plan because as per his statement he was not told of this fact by the witnesses.All the three witnesses were chance witnesses and no plausible explanation has come in the evidence which could convince us of their presence at the scene of occurrence.The medical discrepancy which we have pointed out above further makes their presence doubtful.In addition to these infirmities there is a glaring circumstance which creates a heavy doubt if these witnesses were actually present at the time of occurrence.PW 1 Lala Ram was a close relation of the deceased.He stated that when he along with PW 2 Mahendra Singh and PW 3 Hori Lal came near Rajvir after he had fallen down, they found him alive.By that time accused persons had already run away.Therefore, there was no question of their having any danger at the hands of accused persons.P.W. 1 Lala Ram himself admitted that he left Rajvir bleeding at that very place and went to his village where he first got the F.I.R. scribed and then went to lodge the same at the police station which was removed by 9 kilometers.This conduct of P.W. 1 in leaving his brother on the spot profusely bleeding without making any effort for providing him immediate medical aid in order to save his life was most unnatural and preposterous.If the incident had occurred in his view and Rajvir was still found alive, in normal course his first anxiety would have been to save life of Rajvir particularly when this witness was not a stranger but was a close relation of the deceased.It is also in his statement that he remained at the police station up to 7 P.M. and came back at the place of incident at about 9 P.M. Thus almost for nine hours, he could not be expected to have remained indolent without even caring to know if any medical aid had been provided to Rajvir.His conduct in leaving Rajvir on the spot to bleed to death is so abominable and incongruous that we are unable to swallow the same and yet accept his claim of having witnessed the incident which was a hit and run affair at an isolated place.Mahendra Singh P.W. 2 is said to have stayed on the spot with injured Rajvir.He stated that Rajvir died in his presence at about 3.30 P.M. That means Rajvir remained alive for more than three hours after he was fired at.It is ridiculous to accept that this witness would allow Rajvir to die in his presence without being medically attended to for more than three hours.P.W. 3 Hori Lal also admitted that they did not make any attempt to shift Rajvir to his village.To us it looks most ridiculous that though the incident was witnessed by four persons of the own village of the deceased including his own cousin yet none tried to take him to his village or to any other place for medical aid though they had found Rajvir alive and he remained so for more than three hours.This unnatural, indolent and loathsome conduct of the witnesses leads us to a reasonable inference that in all probability these witnesses had not witnessed the incident.The defence argument does seem to carry weight that when the dead body of Rajvir was found at an isolated place late in the evening, the First Information Report was lodged after manipulation and consultation and the same was ante-timed.In the F.I.R. it was stated by the First Informant that he has come to police station to lodge the report leaving Rajvir alive on the spot.According to Lalaram P.W. 1 he got the report scribed in his village, if it was so the above averment that he has come to police station to lodge the report leaving Rajvir alive on the spot could not have found place in the report.The report appears to have been prepared after reaching police station.It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that in inquest report a mention is to be made regarding registration of case at the police station.Inquest report was undisputedly prepared on 25-9-1979 at 6.55 A.M. and completed at 8 A.M. on the same day.The F.I.R. as per police papers was registered on 24-9-1979 under Section 307 I.P.C. If copy of F.I.R. was with the Investigating officer when he prepared inquest, inquest report could not have contained the recital that case crime No. 151 has been registered at police station under Section 302 I.P.C. on 24-9-1979 because case under Section 302 I.P.C. was converted only on 25-9-1979 after the return of the Investigating officer to the police station.This discrepancy creates a reasonable doubt if F.I.R. had come into existence before the preparation of inquest report.On a careful analysis of the evidence on record, we find that the presence of three eye witnesses at the scene of occurrence, who claimed their presence by a sheer chance, is highly doubtful for various reasons which we have already assigned above.The First Information Report is also a suspicious document and has no corroborative value.The resultant effect of all the discussion made above is that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to get benefit of such doubt.The order of conviction and sentence dated 26-8-1980 passed by the then III Additional Sessions Judge.Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 608 of 1979 is set aside. | ['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. |
192,867,133 | Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.232/2011 dated 12.12.2012 on the file of Mahila Sessions Court, Chennai.The appellant/accused, who was found guilty and sentenced under Section 376 and 417 of IPC by the trial court in S.C.No.232 of 2011, has come forward with this appeal seeking to set aside the same and to acquit him.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.10.2010, the appellant/accused by giving false promise of marrying her to the minor victim girl viz., Divya aged about 15 years, took her to his house at No.51, Annai Sathya Nagar, 1st street, West Jafferkanpet, Chennai-83 and by compulsion had physical relationship with her and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and 417 IPC.The complaint alleged to have been given by P.W.2 is marked as Ex.On receipt of Ex.P.2, P.W.18-Investigating Officer has taken up investigation and also made arrangements to conduct test on both the accused and victim and also recorded statements of the witnesses.The trial court, after hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant documents has framed two charges against the accused under section 376 and 417 of IPC and the same has been read over and explained to him.The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 19 have been examined, Exhibits P.1 to P.23 have been marked.When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in respect of the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime.D.W.1/Angaleswari and Ex.D.1-Horoscope of the victim girl has been marked on the side of accused.The trial court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant evidence available on record has found the charge against the accused proved beyond reasonable doubt and thereby found the accused guilty under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment and further found him guilty under Section 417 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment and further ordered both the sentences to run concurrently.Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/accused has preferred this criminal appeal.According to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the following infirmities in the prosecution case viz., (1) Ex.(5) further the fact that P.W.19, the Investigation Officer has admitted in the cross examination that during the course of his investigation, he came to know that P.W.1 and the accused had fallen in love with each other and since the appellant/accused belong to different community, P.W.2 did not accept the marriage, was also not taken into consideration by the trial court.Thus the learned counsel, pleaded to entertain the appeal and to set aside the conclusion arrived at and the sentence imposed by the trial court.According to victim/P.W.1, while she had love affair with the accused for one year and the accused used to take her to his house, when there is nobody at his house and on believing that the accused would marry her and on his request, she had physical relationship with him.Thus, according to P.W.1, the occurrence of rape took place at the house of the accused and she gave consent to the same and her date of birth as noted in Ex.11.2. P.W.2 also corroborated the version of P.W.1 on the aspect that on believing that the accused would marry her, her daughter P.W.1 had physical relationship with the accused.P.W.16 further stated that the girl was sent to Kasthuribai Gandhi hospital for confirmation of pregnancy.The Prosecution also examined P.W.17-Doctor Gayathridevi, who stated in her evidence that on 29.12.2010, at about 11 a.m., while she was on duty in the Kasthuribai Gandhi Hospital, examined the victim girl, who stated to have had physical relationship with her brother's friend for 4 to 5 times and on examination, an embryo of the growth of 7 to 8 weeks was present.P.13-Accident Register, Ex.P.15-scan report, Ex.P.16-Blood test report and Ex.The prosecution also examined P.W.15-Doctor Thunderchief, who conducted test on the accused and according to him, the accused was not impotent.The medical certificate given in respect of the same is produced as Ex.According to P.W.18-Gunasekaran, the Investigating Officer of the case, on the basis of Ex.P.1/complaint given by the mother of the victim, he registered FIR/Ex.P.19 and after examining the victim and other witnesses, she visited the occurrence spot and prepared Ex.P.3-Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch Ex.P.20 and also took steps to examine the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and recorded her statement and also examined the doctor who conducted test on the victim girl as well as the accused and recorded their statements and thereafter, he was transferred, hence, handed over the file to the Inspector of Police, who assumed charge therein.According to P.W.19-Aranganathan, the Investigating Officer, who subsequently taken charge, had altered the section from 376 IPC to 417 and Section 376 IPC and the altered section report is marked as Ex.P.23 and thereafter, he filed charge sheet under Section 417 and 376 IPC.Thus prosecution contends that oral and documentary evidence produced by them will substantiate the allegation against the accused and the same has been accepted by the trial court, which found the accused guilty of the offence as stated above.12. Heard both sides.It is only generally stated by P.W.1 that she will go to the house of accused and nobody else were available at that time, but she has not stated specifically as to whether the alleged act of rape took place in the accused house and on what date.According to P.W.1, she was promised by the accused that he will marry her and on believing that, she had sex with him.There is nothing on record to show that accused was not willing to marry the accused.It is admitted by P.W.1 herself in the cross examination that the accused was prepared to marry her even now, and only because, her brother is not liking the accused, problem cropped up.The other witnesses examined as P.Ws.2 to 4 are hearsay witnesses and they do not help to establish the prosecution case in any manner.It is therefore clear that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the victim was physically assaulted by the accused as alleged by the prosecution.It is contended on the side of prosecution that the victim being a minor girl, even if she gave consent for physical relationship, it will amount to offence under Section 376 IPC.To prove that the victim girl is a minor, the prosecution produced her School Leaving Certificate as Ex.However, P.W.1, in her evidence stated that the date given in Ex.There is no other evidence regarding the correct age of the victim on the side of the prosecution.The doctor who had examined the victim girl has not assessed her age.No certificate has been obtained from the doctor, who deposed as P.W.16., regarding the age of the victim.She admitted that no x-ray was taken to determine the age of the victim and no certificate was given by her regarding the victim's age.On the other hand, the defence produced Horoscope of the victim girl as Ex.P.W.1 admitted that it is her horoscope and the same was written by her mother while she was studying 10th standard.Thus, the prosecution has not clearly established the fact that the victim girl was a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence.In such circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the accused had physical relationship with the minor girl after making false promise as alleged by the prosecution.As stated earlier, the prosecution has not established the fact of victim being physically assaulted by the accused.Further, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused that the trial court failed to take into consideration the evidence placed before it regarding the refusal of the parents of the victim girl to give her in marriage to the accused.The mother of the accused, who deposed as D.W.1 categorically stated that they were ready to give the accused in marriage to victim girl.It is stated by P.W.6 that the accused came to the house of victim girl and asked her father to give the victim girl in marriage to him but the same was refused by the parents of the victim girl.It is admitted by P.W.18, the Investigating Officer of the case that, the victim's mother/P.W.2 has stated in her statement that she refused to give her daughter in marriage to the accused inspite of the request to her by the family of the accused.It is therefore clear that the accused never refused to marry the victim girl, but on the other hand it is only the family of the victim girl who refused to give her in marriage, to the accused.In such circumstances, the finding of the trial court in respect of the offences alleged against the accused is unacceptable and the same is liable to be set aside.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the accused as well as victim are present and affidavit has been filed by the victim girl stating that she got married to the accused and they are living together happily.The appellant also filed the copy of their marriage invitation, marriage certificate, marriage receipt from Arulmigu Vadapalani Andavar Thirukoil, Vadapalani, Chennai-26, Birth Certirficate of the 1st child by name Thiruvarasu and the Birth Certificate of the 2nd child, before this court, in support of the factum of their marriage.A copy of Aadhar Card, wherein, the victim is stated to be the wife of Balaji, accused herein is also produced before this court, in support of the factum of their marriage.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the alleged victim and the accused are now married, living happily and the said fact also may be taken into consideration by this court.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also verified the present status and stated that the appellant and the victim are living together after their marriage.In view of the above stated discussion, it is crystal clear that the finding of the trial court cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, the issues arisen for consideration in this criminal appeal is answered in favour of the accused.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.The trial court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant evidence available on record has found the charge against the accused proved beyond reasonable doubt and thereby found the accused guilty under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment and further found him guilty under Section 506(1) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and ordered both the sentences to run concurrently.Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/accused has preferred this criminal appeal.According to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the following infirmities in the prosecution case viz., (1) the evidence of P.W.1 has not been considered properly by the trial court;(2) the fact of non-examination of one important witness viz., Rajeswari, was not considered by the trial court;(3) the fact of earlier dispute between mother of the victim who deposed as P.W.2 and the accused has not been taken into consideration by the trial court;(4) the fact of delay in lodging the complaint and other evidence was not taken into consideration.Thus the learned counsel, pleaded to entertain the appeal and to set aside the conclusion arrived at and the sentence imposed by the trial court.According to victim/P.W.1, while she was in the first floor of house along with her neighbour Rajeswari, the accused came there at about 6 p.m., and suddenly caught hold of her hand and kissed her; she pushed aside the accused and proceeded to ground floor and the accused followed her and closed the doors, abused her in filthy language and raped her.According to P.W.1, at that time, her mother, P.W.2-Geetha Priya had gone to Andhra to meet their relatives and on her mother's return on 09.03.2009, at about 6 p.m., the house owner Rajeswari informed P.W.2 about the act of the accused in catching hold of the victim and kissing her.Immediately P.W.2 asked the accused about the same, but he denied the occurrence.P.W.1 states that she was threatened by the accused not to say anything about the occurrence of rape to anyone.According to P.W.1, the accused stated that he is having a C.D.,of her taking bath and if she informed her mother or anyone about the occurrence, he will display the C.D., to everyone.Further according to P.W.1, she was threatened by the accused that he will kill P.W.2, if she informed her about the alleged rape.Further, when P.W.1 stated that the accused married her mother P.W.2/Geetha Priya earlier about 5 years back and subsequently on 08.03.2009, when her mother was away from home, the accused misbehaved with her and the same was informed to the mother only later when her mother found out the message received in the cell phone from the accused.The said complaint copy is produced as Ex.Thus the victim P.W.1, contends that the accused committed intercourse with her against her wish even while she was a minor and also produced Ex.Thus, according to P.W.1, the occurrence of rape took place on 08.03.2009 and she did not inform about the same to any one including her mother P.W.2 till 13.10.2009 and thereafter only on 01.03.2010, nearly after one year, Ex.P.1/complaint was lodged about the occurrence against the accused.9.2. P.W.2 also corroborated the version of P.W.1, even though she was not present at the occurrence spot, on the day of alleged occurrence.Prosecution examined P.W.3-Doctor Geethanjali, who conducted test on the victim girl to support the case of the prosecution.According to P.W.3/Doctor, while she was on duty in the Madras Medical College Hospital, on 06.04.2010, the victim P.W.1-Shalini was produced for examination by the police and according to her, the girl was aged between 19 and 25 years and there was evidence of the girl having intercourse earlier and the certificate issued by her is produced as Ex.The prosecution also examined P.W.4-Doctor Dhunderseep, who conducted test on the accused and according to him, the accused was not impotent.According to P.W.6-Sakunthala, the Investigating Officer of the case, on the basis of Ex.P.1/complaint given by the mother of the victim, she registered FIR/Ex.P.7 and after examining the victim and other witnesses, she visited the occurrence spot and prepared Ex.P.8 Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch Ex.P.9 and also took steps to examine the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and recorded her statement and completed the investigation and thereafter, she filed charge sheet under Section 376 r/w.506(2) IPC.Thus prosecution contends that oral and documentary evidence gathered by them will substantiate the allegation against the accused and the same has been accepted by the trial court, which found the accused guilty of the offence as stated above.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that the fact of alleged rape is not clearly established.P.W.1 admitted in her evidence that she was with one Rajeswari, the landlady of the building, when the accused came to her house, but the said Rajeswari has not been examined before the trial court.P.W.1 further stated that her house and the landlady house are in the same compound and there are other tenants in the neighbouring portions.P.W.1 also stated that if she called from her portion, it can be heard in other portions.In such circumstances, there is no material before the court to show that the victim resisted or made any attempt to prevent the accused from committing the alleged offence.She further admitted that between 8.3.2009 and 16.05.2009, the accused had physical relationship with her on several occasions, but, she has not stated about the same to anyone immediately and Ex.Further P.W.1 stated to safeguard her self respect, she did not prefer the complaint immediately.It is surprising even after that no complaint was lodged immediately but they waited till 01.03.2010 to lodge the complaint/Ex.In such circumstances, the delay in lodging the complaint is not properly explained and the same has not been taken into consideration and appreciated by the trial court.In the absence of acceptable explanation for such a long delay in lodging the complaint, doubt arises about the claim of the victim.Further, according to P.W.1, she kept quite without informing any one about the occurrence, since the accused was threatening her stating that he is in possession of a C.D., of her taking bath and the same will be released by him to public.However P.W.1 stated that she is unaware of how and when that C.D., was taken and the accused informed her about the same only after she submitted herself to him.Further, P.W.1 admits nothing is mentioned about the said C.D., or the accused threatening her on the basis of the C.D., in Ex.P.1/complaint.Likewise, the mother of the victim, who deposed as P.W.2 stated that on 13.10.2009, she was informed about the accused being in possession of C.D., recorded by him while the victim/P.W.1 was taking batch.But nothing was mentioned about the said C.D., or the accused threatening the victim/P.W.1 in respect of the said C.D., in Ex.P.1/complaint.The Investigating Officer of the case who deposed as P.W.6 stated that nothing was mentioned about the said C.D., in the complaint/Ex.P.1., or in the statement given by P.W.1 during enquiry.It is also admitted by P.W.6 that no such C.D., was secured by her.In view of the above said evidence, it is not clear as to whether any such C.D., really existed.According to P.W.1, she informed her mother about the alleged act of rape by the accused on 13.10.2009 and before that, she informed her grandmother Padmavathy, who is residing at Alandur, but her grandmother ignored the same.It is unbelievable that the victim's grandmother would have kept quiet after she informed about such occurrence.Further it is stated by P.W.1 that before she lodged Ex.P.1 complaint on 01.03.2010, her mother has lodged another complaint against the accused.P.W.1 also admitted that she is aware of the complaint lodged by the accused against herself and her mother alleging that they were threatening the accused and demanding money.She also stated that prior to lodging of Ex.P.1/complaint, she gave a complaint before All Women Police Station in writing, but the same was returned by the Police.It is further stated that from January 2010 onwards she had given several complaints to All Women Police Station.Similarly, P.W.2 also stated that she lodged the complaint on 01.07.2010, at Porur Police Station, but no action was initiated on that complaint.She further stated that the accused gave back the amount and jewels taken away by him from her house in the Porur Police Station and settled the matter.She also stated that the accused lodged the complaint against her in the Mylapore Police Station that she is threatening and demanding money from the accused.She also stated that she received Rs.35,000/- from the accused in Mylapore Police Station.The Investigating Officer of the case who deposed as P.W.6 stated that the complainant in this case is P.W.1, before she give complaint on 01.03.2010, in All Women Police Station, Poonamallee, 3 other complaints were lodged before the Higher Officials, by the accused as well as P.W.1, her mother P.W.2 separately.According to P.W.6, complaint dated 03.02.2010 was given by P.W.2, complaint dated 15.02.2010 was given by P.W.1 and the complaint dated 13.02.2010 was given by the accused and on enquiry, she came to know other complaint given in different police stations by the victim as well as accused herein.It is therefore clear that several complaints were lodged by the victim, her mother as well as accused against each other, prior to present complaint.P.1 was given by the victim girl.It is therefore clear that dispute existed between the victim, her mother on one side and the accused on the other side. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,928,109 | Appellant was also residing in the same lane just opposite the house of Dittu Ram.It is said that Dittu Ram wanted the deceased to vacate the tenanted premises.On 5th of August, 1980 at about 4 p.m. while the deceased Sukh Dayal and his wife Ram Piari PW-6 were present in their room both the accused are stated to have come there and asked Sukh Dayal to come out.After Sukh Dayal deceased came out of his room the appellant Ishwar Singh alias Baa asked Sukh Dayal deceased whether he would vacate the house or not and while this was going on, Ram Piari PW-6 also came out and told them that they would vacate the house.Thereafter Ishwar Singh appellant is stated to have stabbed Sukh Dayal deceased with a knife like thing in the chest.PW-8 Shiv Dayal brother of deceased Sukh Dayal is stated to have arrived at the scene and he is also said to have seen the appellant Ishwar Singh stabbing the deceased.An attempt was made by Shiv Dayal PW-8 to catch the accused but the accused managed to escape.The deceased Sukh Dayal fell in the lane.Ram Piari tried to stop the bleeding of deceased by putting a cloth bag on his wound and then both of them removed the deceased to J.P.N. Hospital.A copy of this report marked Ex. PW. 2/A was handed over to ASI Ram Murti PW-14 for spot inquiry.ASI Ram Murti accompanied by constable Anand Singh PW-2, Prem Kumar, Devinder Kumar and Dara Singh immediately there after went to the scene where he learnt that the injured had already been removed to the hospital.He thereafter leaves behind three constables at the scene of occurrence and accompanied by constable Anand Singh rushes to JPN Hospital where he meets Ram Piari.In the hospital Ram Piari, PW-6 made the statement Ex. PW-6/A before Ram Murti ASI and on the basis of this statement FIR No. 1218/80, Police Station Gandhi Nagar was brought into existence.After recording the statement of Ram Piari, PW-6 in the hospital and after forwarding the same to the police station for registration of F.I.R. ASI Ram Murti returns to the scene of occurrence and conducts father investigation of the case.He also prepares the site plan EX.On post-mortem he discovered that injury No. 1 had entered the chest cavity and after cutting the second left costal cartilage it went through the lung by making a cut of 3 cm on the surface of the upper front and the same was 4 cms.deep in the substance of lung in collapsed state.The simple fact that ASI Ram Murti has lied that he used the vehicle No. DHC 7168 which was in fact used by the SHO from 6.30 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. by itself is not sufficient to distrust him particularly in view of the fact that the dagger was recovered at the instance of the appellant.JUDGMENT Sharief-Ud-Din, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment D/- April 7, 1982 of Shri P. K. Bahri, Additional Sessions Judge, Shahadara Delhi by which he has found the appellant Ishwar Singh guilty of offence under S. 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.The appellant along with one Mangat Ram were tried for an offence under S. 302/34 I.P.C. but the learned trial Judge acquitted Mangat Ram for the reasons mentioned in his judgment.Since there is no acquittal appeal we are not concerned with Mangat Ram.We may give a brief resume' of facts that led to the prosecution of the appellant and Mangat Ram.Mangat Ram acquitted accused is the son of landlord.PW14/A at the instance of Shiv Dayal.On the following day i.e. on 6th of August 1980 he prepares the inquest paper Exs.30 a.m. on 6th August P.W. 7 on conducting the post-mortem of the deceased found the following injuries on the person of deceased :Incised punctured wound 4.5 x 1.4 cm., oblique on the upper front left side of chest, in second inter-costal space, lower inner end 2 cm.from mid line while upper outer end 5.5 cm.from mid line.Both the margins were clean cut and upper margin was slightly bevelled.Both the angles were actually cut.This injury was chest cavity deep and was 129 cms.above left heel.Abrasion 3 x 1 cm.over top of right shoulder.Abrasion 0.8 x 0.8 cm over outer part of right elbow.Incised wound 2 x 0.3 cm.bone deep, horizontal, on the back of right ring finger-over proximal inter-Phalyngeal joint (defense wound).Incised wound 1.5 x 0.2 cm., horizontal, in line with injury No. 4 over the back of right little finger just above to proximal inter-phalyngeal joint (defense wound).The total depth of this injury was about 7 to 8 cms.Death according to the doctor was due to haemorrhage and shock consequent to injury and the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.He also opined that injury Nos. 4 and 5 were defense wounds.A corresponding cut on shirt Ex. P-4 of the deceased was also noticed.Doctor's report is Ex. PW-7/A. P-1 vest, P-2 underwear, P-3 towel, P-4 shirt and P-5 Bush-shirt found on the dead body were converted into a parcel and were handed over to constable Anand Singh together with the sample blood of the deceased and the sample seal of doctor Bishnu Kumar and these were deposited in Malkhana as per memo Ex. PW2/B.The prosecution case farther is that on 6-8-80 appellant Ishwar Singh was arrested from a hotel belonging to one Pasi.At the instance of Shiv Dayal PW-8 and on interrogation in the presence of constable Udaivir Singh and Constable Jogi Ram PWs.3 and 4 he is said to have made a disclosure statement to the effect that the weapon of offence (dagger) has been buried by him near a kikkar tree situated near the wall of house of one Kamal Singh in village Gonda.His disclosure statement Ex. PW3/A came to be recorded near the hotel itself and consequent to this disclosure statement appellant Ishwar Singh is stated to have led the police party to the site and dug out the dagger P. 4 which was wrapped in polythene paper.The blade of the dagger was found bloodstained.A sketch Ex. PW3/B of the dagger was drawn and after converting the same into a sealed parcel a Memo Ex. PW3/C was duly prepared and the seal was handed over to constable Udaivir Singh.The case property was also got examined by C.F.S.L. and the report of the forensic expert marked Exs.PW4/D, E and F was received which indicated that the blood lifted from the spot and blood contained on the cloth bag and the clothes of the deceased and also on the dagger tallied with the sample blood of the deceased.The bloodstained earth and the control earth also tallied with each other in respect of their density gradient distribution of particles and other physical characteristics.The statement of PW-7 Dr. Bishnu Kumar is also important.Besides this, apart from the report of forensic expert the important witnesses in is case are PW 14 ASI Ram Murti, PW-3 Udai Vir Singh constable and PW-4 Jogi Ram Constable.We have heard the learned counsel at length and we have carefully gone through the record.Before we deal with points raised by Bawa Gurcharan Singh on behalf of the appellant we may state that the learned Addl.Sessions Judge while convicting the appellant is disbelieved the presence of PW-8 Shiv Dayal and has also disbelieved the disclosure statement of the appellant and the consequent recovery of the dagger P-1 at the instance of the appellant.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge has also rather indirectly said that there has been a delay in sending the report to the Magistrate concerned and also in holding the inquest proceedings and that both these lapses have not been explained by the prosecution.He has however attributed the lapses in this regard to the incompetence and inexperience of the investigation officer ASI Ram Murti.As for the effect of these lapses on the case is concerned the learned Judge has made the following observations :"At any rate these lapses of the I.O. in the present case have not adversely affected the credibility of testimony of Ram Piari, She being the most natural witness could have hardly any reason to allow the real assailant to go scotfree and implicate an innocent person for the murder of her husband."He has further submitted that the statement of Ram Piari PW-6 in fact has been recorded by one Anand Singh constable who has also scribed the inquest papers and the FIR was purported to have been taken to the local Magistrate by one Kishan Chand constable and both these persons have not been examined at trial.He has further submitted that even Ram Piari PW-6 has said that two to three papers were got thumb impressed by the police from her but she does not know what those papers were.He further submits that there is evidence on record that PW-6 Ram Piari and PW-8 Shiv Dayal went to the hospital on 6-8-80 in a police van along with Ram Murti ASI and other constables and that it is reasonable to infer that they brought the FIR into existence at that time and then simultaneously sent it to the Magistrate as well as to the doctor who conducted the post-mortem.He wants us to consider all these facts as also the fact that there is no entry in the hospital record that Ram Piari got the deceased admitted to the hospital and on this basis to hold that the FIR in this case was not in existence on 5th of August and the assailants of the deceased were not known on 5th.He has also submitted that even though in the statement of Ram Piari, Mangat Ram has been named as one of the accused, there is no mention of him by name in the inquest paper and that the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn by the court on the basis of these facts would be that the FIR is ante-timed and ante-dated.We have given our careful thought to what has been argued before us.As already stated, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that there has been a lapse on the part of the investigation officer to explain the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and the delay in drawing the inquest proceedings but after considering the facts of the case the learned trial Judge has found that these lapses in no way can discredit the testimony of PW-6 Ram Piari and the lapses have been attributed to the incompetence of the investigating officer.Bawa Gurcharan Singh learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on in order to put across his point that if FIR is found to have been written after inquest report was prepared the FIR shall lose its authenticity.Immediately ASI Ram Murti PW-14 together with four constables reached the spot.He finds nobody present at the scene of occurrence.Next we come to the disclosure statement made by the appellant and the recovery consequent to it.These events are witnessed by PW-14 ASI Ram Murti, PW-3 Udaivir Singh and PW-4 constable Jogi Ram.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge has disbelieved the prosecution evidence on the ground that even though Ishwar Singh was arrested from Pasi's hotel at the instance of Shiv Dayal (he ?) has not been associated with the disclosure statement and the recovery.That it is impossible to believe that immediately after pointing out Ishwar Singh, he left.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge has further observed that no public witnesses have been associated with the disclosure and the consequent recovery and it is not possible to believe the explanation of ASI Ram Murti that the public witnesses did not respond to join the investigation.He has further disbelieved the recovery on the ground that the vehicle No. DHC 7168 which ASI Ram Murti is supposed to have used from 5.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on that date in going and coming back from village Gonda, the place wherefrom the recovery was made, was in fact used by SHO from 6.30 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. as revealed by the records of the police station.The learned Sessions Judge has felt that since ASI Ram Murti has lied it is not possible to believe that Ishwar Singh made the disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the dagger.The evidence that the dagger was found to be stained with the blood group of the deceased has been brushed aside by him as immaterial.Sessions Judge.In the first place we may point out that ASI Ram Murti has clearly explained that even though he asked public witnesses to get associated with the disclosure and the recovery, none came forward.Ishwar Singh was found to be smeared with the blood group of the deceased.This fact together with the fact that it was recovered on the next day of the occurrence goes to show that there is nothing unfair in the investigation of this case and we do not find any sufficient reasons to disbelieve PW-3 Udaivir Singh and PW-4 Jogi Ram constables who have also testified in this regard.This calls for an examination of the defense evidence.The defense evidence in fact concerns this aspect of the case.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge has not made any reference to it as he felt it was unnecessary to do so in view of his finding on this aspect of the case.Two witnesses Shri Surinder Pal clerk of Shri G. D. Dhaunka Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahadara, D.W. 1 and Shri P. L. Bahl, advocate D.W. 2 have been examined.D.W. 2 Shri P. L. Bahl has said that the applications DA/1 and DA/2, which in fact are the same about which mention has been made by DW 1 were presented by him before the Magistrate and the accused Ishwar Singh was present.That since it was lunch hour he made the accused to sit in the court room.That within minutes he was informed that the accused has been taken by the police and he wrote this fact in the application before presenting the same.He has identified Ishwar Singh in the court as the same person.The testimony of Mr. Bahl suffers from a number of infirmities.We believe Mr. Bahl must be a very busy man catering to a large number of clientage.From his own account Ishwar Singh came to him for the first time on that date.This clearly goes to show that only signed application for bail was brought to him and when the necessity for making application DA/2 was felt it was signed by Mr. Bahl.If the accused were present he would have definitely signed this application also.The accused has set up a positive case regarding his arrest from a place other than the one set up by the prosecution.Having set up a positive case about the manner and place of arrest one would expect him to prove so by cogent evidence.In her very first statement Ex. PW-6/1 which formed the basis of FIR in this case Ram Piari, PW-6 has said that when her husband was stabbed Shiv Dayal, younger brother of the deceased also reached over there.In her statement at trial however she says that at the time of occurrence Shiv Dayal was present in her house but then goes on to say that during those days Shiv Dayal was living in Lane No. 4 with his wife and three children.Shiv Dayal himself in his statement has said that at the time of occurrence he was present in the house of the deceased and that in the first instance only deceased and his wife came out and he only came out when the deceased cried "Maar Gaya".We in our observations stated above have concurred with the observations of Sessions Judge though to our mind it appears that he did appear at the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident and with the help of Ram Piari carried the deceased to JPN Hospital.The other point raised is that she is an interested witness as the father of Mangat Ram acquitted accused was cited as witness against her, her deceased husband and Shiv Dayal in a murder case and that there had been an attempt on their part to hide this fact though PW-8 Shiv Dayal has ultimately admitted it.She has only testified to what happened in her presence.If she were really interested to take revenge on her landlord then she would definitely bhave attributed a more serious role to accused Mangat Ram son of the landlord.In fact all she has said is that Mangat Ram accompanied by appellant Ishwar Singh came to their house and asked her husband to vacate the tenanted premises and that even though she offered to vacate, it was Ishwar Singh immediately stabbed her deceased husband.The absence of evidence regarding motive only calls for a minute and close scrutiny of other evidence.Appeal dismissed. | ['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. |
1,928,207 | Case diary of Crime No.170/2010 registered at Police Station Kolar District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC is perused.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid crime.The prosecution story in short is that the present applicant is the President and Director of one Sarva Dharam Grih Nirman Samiti and with the help of the Director of Swadesh Builder, he has not allotted the plots to the members of the Society.He is selling the land and causing wrongful loss to the members of the society and gaining wrongful advantage for his own purpose by way of cheating.He is the President and Director of concerned Housing Society.At present the grievance made by the members only with respect to E-Sector.He further submits that some of the members approached the Consumer Forum and the Hon'ble Consumer Forum directed to return money with interest, therefore in General Body of the Society, it was decided that some lands should be sold and by selling the same, amount be returned to the concerned members of the Society, who seek money back and to remaining members plots may be allotted.At present a sum of Rs.1,71,22,981/- is refunded to 320 members and remaining 431 members are not interested to receive money back, because they require allotment of plots.At present, 12.94 acres of land are available with the Society to allot the same to the members of the society.The average size of plot is of 1000 sq ft. approximately and the Society is capable to allot plots to remaining 431 members.He has collected the money from the members and using the same in his own use.761 members have booked the plot depositing the sum in five figures, but the applicant has returned the money only 314 members of the Society, therefore, in such circumstances anticipatory bail may not be granted.Heard both the parties. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,822,545 | dated 18th May 2009 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, convicting the appellant, who was the accused in Sessions case No.720 of 2008 tried by the learned Additional avk 1/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 ::: 1-APPEAL-662-2009.doc Sessions Judge, of offences punishable under Sections 489B of the IPC and 489C of the IPC.The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years, on each of the said two counts.Additionally, he also imposed a sentence of fine with respect to the offence punishable under Section 498B of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::When the appeal came up for final hearing, it was revealed that the appellant was released from prison after having undergone the sentence.Shri Kocharekar, the learned counsel for the appellant, nevertheless, submitted that the appellant has a good case on merits and he would argue the appeal notwithstanding that the appellant has served the entire sentence awarded to him.3 I have heard Shri Kocharekar, the learned counsel for the appellant.I have heard Smt.M.R.Tidke, the learned APP for the State.I have gone through the evidence adduced during the trial and the impugned judgment.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::That Rajan Sharma (PW1) owns a bar and restaurant at Bandra.That, on 13 th August 2008, the appellant, who had visited the said bar and restaurant, gave a currency note of Rs.500/- to Santosh Poojari (PW2) - a waiter in the said bar and restaurant - for making payment of the bill in respect of the food consumed by him.Santosh Poojari (PW2) handed over the said currency note of Rs.500/- to Rajan Sharma (PW1) who was at the counter.Rajan Sharma, as per his practice, checked the currency note.He noticed certain features thereon which created a suspicion in his mind that the said note was counterfeit.He, therefore, asked Santosh to call that customer i.e. the appellant.The appellant was accordingly called at the counter.Ranjan Sharma (PW1) and Santosh (PW2) then bought the appellant to Bandra Police Station.Ranjan Sharma handed over the counterfeit currency note that had been given to him by the appellant, to the police.P.S.I.Dattaji Sawant (PW6), who was on duty at Bandra Police Station at that time, called two panchas and avk 3/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 ::: 1-APPEAL-662-2009.doc took charge of the counterfeit currency note from Ranjan Sharma (PW1) in the presence of panchas, one of whom is Sayyed Ismail Sayyed Jalal (PW3).Sawant (PW6) then took personal search of the appellant in the presence of another set of panchas; and Neel Baro (PW4) is one of the panchas, in whose presence, the personal search of the appellant was taken.In this personal search, seven notes were found with the appellant, which notes were also believed to be counterfeit and taken charge of.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::In the course of investigation, the notes in question were sent to Nasik Currency Press.They were taken and delivered there by Maruti Aawhad (PW5).The report received from the Currency note Press, Nasik, showed that the notes were counterfeit.Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant, who came to be prosecuted and convicted as aforesaid.5 Mr.Kocharekar contended that there were a number of discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and the the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in holding that the prosecution case had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::Indeed, I find that there are a number of discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution case.6 In the first place, the prosecution case is that the appellant was brought to Bandra Police Station at about 7.30 p.m. The First Information Report (FIR) shows that the offence took place at about 6.30 p.m. and was reported to the Police station at 7.30 p.m. However, Ranjan Sharma (PW1) categorically states that the incident took place at about 10.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. It is, at that time, that Santosh Poojari (PW2) brought the currency note, said to have been given to him by the appellant, to Ranjan Sharma.Ranjan Sharma is not making a mistake in the time, in as much as, inspite of pointing out that the FIR records that the incident had taken place at about 6.30 p.m. he categorically claimed that it was wrong, that he never said so to the police, and that he could not assign any reason as to why it was so recorded.7 In his evidence, Santosh Poojari (PW2) did speak about the incident.However, there is some confusion as to what avk 5/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 ::: 1-APPEAL-662-2009.doc had actually happened, and this confusion cannot be resolved from the evidence of Santosh Poojari.Santosh Poojari (PW2) states that 'one customer' had given one note to him, one week before the incident.According to him, that customer had given a currency note of Rs.500/- to Santosh Poojari (PW2) for purchasing a cigarette packet from the adjoining shop.The cigarette packet was accordingly brought and given to the customer.The cost of the cigarette packet was Rs.30/- and Santosh Poojari returned the remaining amount of Rs.470/- to the customer.The owner of the cigarette shop perhaps realized that the note was counterfeit, and handed it back to Santosh Poojari.Santosh Poojari then collected the amount from the said customer, returned the counterfeit note to him, and paid the amount collected from the customer, to the owner of the cigarette shop.The evidence of Santosh Poojari does not show that, that customer was the appellant.On the contrary, the evidence shows that, that customer was not the appellant .::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::8 The evidence of panch Sayyed Jalal (PW3) shows that the currency note, that was taken charge of by the police in his avk 6/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 ::: 1-APPEAL-662-2009.doc presence, was with Ranjan Sharma, and that, the police took it from Ranjan Sharma.He does not speak of any note being recovered in his presence from the appellant.Moreover, he says that the panchnama (Exhibit 16) was drawn between 8.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. or 9.15 p.m.; but as aforesaid, this is mysterious, as the incident had taken place between 10.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. 9 The next witness Neel Baro (PW4) is a panch in respect of the personal search of the appellant, which appears to have been taken immediately after the panchnama at Exhibit 16, in which panch Sayyed Jalal (PW3) had taken part, was over.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::Now, when Sayyed Jalal and the other panch, who was called with him were available, why P.S.I. Sawant (PW6) should ask them to go, call a different set of panchas for the personal search, is rather mysterious.According to Neel Baro (PW4), five notes were avk 7/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 ::: 1-APPEAL-662-2009.doc recovered from the pant pocket of the appellant.The prosecution case is that seven counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the appellant.Anyway, Neel Baro (PW4) does not say that the notes were sealed in his presence.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::An interesting aspect of the matter which needs to be noted is that, nothing except the counterfeit currency notes were found with the appellant.No ordinary articles such as handkerchief, comb, wallet etc. or even genuine currency notes, were found with the appellant.10 In my opinion, the discrepancy about the timing and about the number of notes recovered from the appellant was sufficient - in the light of some improbabilities and infirmities from which the prosecution case, even otherwise suffers,-to create a serious doubt about the truth of the matter.The learned Additional Sessions Judge noticed the discrepancy about the time when the appellant gave a counterfeit currency note to Santosh Poojari (PW2), but dismissed it as 'minor discrepancy.' The learned Additional Sessions Judge was very much impressed by avk 8/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 ::: 1-APPEAL-662-2009.doc the fact that panch Sayyed Jalal (PW3) had remembered the serial number of the fake note and identified the note on that basis, without realizing that this was quite improbable and indicated that the panch was a tutored one.The panch even did not say that he remembered the number of the note to have been recorded properly in the panchnama, but stated categorically that he remembered the number.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::11 The learned Additional Sessions Judge also did not realize the artificiality in the prosecution case in calling a different set of panchas for the personal search of the appellant, when one set of panchas was already available in the Police station.12 The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found nothing suspicious or improbable in, that, except the counterfeit currency notes, nothing else was found with the appellant.13 The learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to have accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses only because avk 9/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 ::: 1-APPEAL-662-2009.doc the appellant was unable to state as to why the prosecution witnesses were deposing falsely against him.There can be various reasons for the witnesses - who seemingly are independent - to stick to the prosecution case, for proving which they are called.Merely because the prosecution witnesses cannot be shown to be having a motive to implicate the appellant falsely, their evidence cannot be accepted as true.The evidence has to be judged for its intrinsic value, by considering whether it is in consonance with the probabilities, consistent with other evidence and fits in with the material details of the case.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::14 The learned Additional Sessions Judge despite observing the weaknesses in the prosecution case, held the appellant guilty and in this process, his reasoning appears to have been influenced by a consideration of the seriousness of the offences.The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed in paragraph 38 of the impugned judgment as follows :::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::Therefore, it would not be just to acquit the accused solely as a result of defective investigation."There was no question of acquitting the appellant solely as a result of 'defective investigation', and nobody appears to have claimed so.The issue of 'defective investigation' is raised and / or arises in criminal trials on the consideration, whether in view of the 'defective investigation', the requisite degree of satisfaction that the appellant was guilty of the offence, could be arrived at in a given case.The seriousness of the offence had nothing to do in the process of judging whether the accused before the court had indeed committed the offence; and if this aspect is brought into discussion in the process of reasoning undertaken for adjudicating upon the guilt or innocence of an accused, it would only show that the court feels obliged to see that a serious offence does not go unpunished.The court cannot accept unsatisfactory evidence, or hold the case as proved without there being satisfactory and avk 11/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 ::: 1-APPEAL-662-2009.doc reliable evidence, because of the seriousness of the alleged offence.The necessity of having clear, satisfactory and reliable evidence against an accused before he is held guilty - cannot be dispensed with on the ground that the offence alleged is a serious one.On the contrary, the seriousness of the offence would require the court to examine the evidence cautiously and carefully, because of the severity of the punishment likely to be given to the accused, if found guilty.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::This was particularly important in this case, in as much as, an attempt was made to prove the existence of such knowledge on the part of the appellant, by saying that the appellant had even previously, attempted to pass off a counterfeit currency note; but this attempt has failed, and Santosh Poojari (PW2) has not related the said avk 12/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 ::: 1-APPEAL-662-2009.doc incident :- i.e. 'of giving counterfeit currency note for purchasing cigarette', to the appellant.It related to some other customer, and had taken place a week before.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::16 Thus, failure of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to put this incriminating circumstance to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code, also renders the conviction bad.17 The prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.This was a case where there certainly was a doubt about the truth of the prosecution case.The appellant was entitled to the benefit of the said doubt, and ought to have been acquitted.18 The appeal is allowed.The impugned judgment and order is set aside.The appellant stands acquitted.Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 :::Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment /Order.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2016 00:01:27 ::: | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,822,950 | Heard on leave application.The applicant has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the respondents relating to judgment dated 23.6.2016 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in S.T. No. 270/2010 whereby the respondents No.1 to 4 have been acquitted from the charge of Section 498-A, 302 r/w 34, 304-B and 201 of IPC whereas the respondent No.5 has been acquitted from the charge of Section 302 r/w 34, 304- B and 201 of IPC.The facts of the case in short are that on 11.2.2010 Shivcharan (PW-1) father of the deceased Papita had lodged a report Ex.P1 that his daughter Papita had married with respondent No.5 Subhash since 6 to 7 years prior to the incident.On 11.2.2010, an intimation was received on mobile phone that Papita had died.Before Shivcharan and his relatives could reached to the spot, funeral of the deceased Papita was already done by her husband and other respondents.Thereafter the police investigated the matter and on the evidence given by the various witnesses, the charge sheet for aforesaid offences was filed.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very much apparent that the State did not file any leave application against the MCRC No.8018/2016 (Shivcharan Dhakad vs. Rajaram & Ors.) judgment.If evidence given by the prosecution is considered, then it is alleged by Shivcharan (PW-1) father of the deceased in his case diary statement Ex.D1 that marriage of the deceased Papita took place seven years prior to the incident and, therefore, the trial court has rightly found that the document Ex.Hence, the trial court has rightly acquitted all the respondents from the charge of Section 304-B of IPC.It is admitted fact that three days prior to the concerned incident, the deceased had delivered a child and it was the defence that in the consequence of delivery, she could not survive.Various witnesses namely Shivcharan (PW-1), Bhagwatibai (PW-2), Shivram Dhakad (PW-3), Surendra Dhakad (PW-4), Ravindra Singh Dhakad (PW-5), Hotam Singh (PW-6), Virendra Singh (PW-7), Jitendra Singh Dhakad (PW-8) etc. were examined to show about the overt act of the respondents.However, the witness Shivram, Surendra, Ravindra Singh and Virendra Singh who were the relatives and friends of the witness Shivcharan were not asked about any harassment done by the respondents to the deceased Papita.If they were near and dear of Shivcharan, then they should have the knowledge that the deceased Papita was harassed by the respondents for dowry demand or otherwise.Hence, after considering the evidence of Shivram, Surendra, Ravindra and Virendra, it would be apparent that Shivcharan, his wife Bhagwatibai (PW-2), MCRC No.8018/2016 (Shivcharan Dhakad vs. Rajaram & Ors.) Hotam Singh brother of the witness Shivcharan and Jitendra Singh (PW-8) have stated only on the basis of imagination otherwise if the deceased Papita was harassed for dowry demand etc. then either Shivcharan would have informed these witnesses about the fact of harassment.Hence, looking to the silence of witnesses Shivram, Surendra, Ravindra, Virendra, it is clear that the trial court has rightly found that deceased Papita was never harassed for dowry demand or otherwise during her lifetime and, therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents No.1 to 4 from the charge of Section 498-A of IPC.When the respondents No.1 to 4 could not be convicted of offence under Section 498-A of IPC, then there was no possibility that they would have been convicted of offence under Section 306 of IPC as the respondent No.5 was convicted.It is an admitted fact that on 8.2.2010 the deceased Papita delivered a male child and delivery took place in the hospital.A birth certificate (Ex.D7) was produced in the defence in which it is clearly mentioned that the delivery took place in Community Health Centre, Kailaras.Thereafter it was for the prosecution to prove as and when the deceased died and when the information of her death was given to Shivcharan etc. When a child borns to a particular woman then father, mother and other relatives of that woman are expected to visit the house of that women at that time and, therefore, it is expected that on 8.2.2010 Shivcharan etc. would have visited the house of the respondents No.1 to 5 when child was born and they should know about the complications.If they had good relations MCRC No.8018/2016 (Shivcharan Dhakad vs. Rajaram & Ors.) with the deceased and respondents then there was no possibility that the deceased Papita would have been cremated without timely given intimation to the witnesses Shivcharan etc. Possibility cannot be ruled out that after attending the cremation, a false FIR was lodged before the police Station to create a case against the respondents No.1 to 5, the witnesses Shivcharan, Bhagwatibai, Hotam Singh and Jitendra Singh kept silence to the fact as to whether they visited the house of respondents on 8.2.2010 or not.It is stated that a mobile call was received on 11.02.2010 where the deceased Papita was already cremated.Possibility cannot be ruled out that they had received the information of death of deceased Papita prior to that date of allegation and when Shivcharan etc. had attended her funeral, they kept silence and thereafter a delayed FIR was lodged by Shivcharan.Under these circumstances, there is no evidence to establish that the respondents No.1 to 5 had killed the deceased Papita.It is possible that she would have died due to complication of delivery.The trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents No.1 to 5 from the charge of Section 302 of IPC.Similarly it was not established beyond doubt that no intimation was given to Shivcharan etc. within time or the dead body of the deceased Papita was cremated to destroy the evidence.Copy of the order be sent to the court below for information. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,829,348 | The informant directly went to the house of Anita and learnt that Anita was no more.He states that at about 8 pm, the relatives and the villagers performed the last rites i.e. funeral of Anita.The informant states that he was asking them "to wait as the relatives of Anita were yet to arrive".Challenge is to judgment and order dated 31.7.2002 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Trial 21::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 ::: jcrapeal425of02.odt 2 of 1998 by and under which the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") are convicted for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 03 years, 07 years and 02 years respectively, in addition to payment of fine.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::2 The counsel for the appellants has neither collected the paper book nor has appeared on 23.8.2017, 4.9.2017 and 5.9.2017 on which dates the appeal was listed for final hearing.With the assistance of learned APP Shri.A.V. Palshikar, I have scrutinized the original record and I propose to decide the appeal on merits consistent with the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh Vs.3 The case of the prosecution as emerges from the First Information Report (for short "FIR") (Exh. 27) lodged by Hari Rathod (PW 1) dated 22.12.1997 is thus:-Anita, the daughter of Hari Rathod (PW1) and Ramrao (accused 1) entered into wedlock sometime in 1995 (FIR states that the marriage was solemnized two years prior to the FIR).::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 ::: jcrapeal425of02.odt 3 The informant states that 5 to 6 months prior to lodging of the FIR, he learnt that Anita was being harassed by accused 1- (husband), accused 2 - (brother of the husband) and accused 3 (sister in law of the husband).The informant states that the harassment was due to "family matters" and the accused were asking Anita to bring an amount of Rs. 3000/- from the informant.The informant further states that since Anita refused to oblige, the accused picked up quarrel with her.It is further stated in the FIR that the informant and his wife (mother of the deceased Anita) visited the matrimonial home of Anita and met Anita's in-laws.The informant further states that at 5 pm on 21.12.1997, he was told by the nephew of accused 1 that Anita was not well.He then states that Anita was beaten and harassed by the accused and Anita committed suicide due to the illtreatment.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::4 On the basis of the said FIR, offence punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 read with section 34 of IPC was::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 ::: jcrapeal425of02.odt 4 registered, investigation ensued and ultimately charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pusad who committed the case to the Sessions Court.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh. 9, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The defence of the accused is of total denial.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::5 Concededly, Anita died within 7 years of marriage.Sine quo non of offence under section 304-B is the proof of cruelty or harassment meted out to the woman by her husband or any relative of her husband soon before her death, for or in connection, with any demand for dowry.Section 304-B of IPC reads thus:-"304-B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstance within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::Explanation - For the purposes of this section, "dowry death", shall have the same meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 ::: jcrapeal425of02.odt 6 6 Section 304-B is introduced in the Indian Penal Code by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986, with the avowed object of curing and curbing the menace of dowry death.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::The necessary ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are as follows :It is imperative, for invoking the aforesaid legal presumption, to prove that "soon before her death" she was subjected to such cruelty or harassment.Here, what the::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 ::: jcrapeal425of02.odt 7 prosecution achieved in proving at the most was that there was persisting dispute between the two sides regarding the dowry paid or to be paid, both in kind and in cash, and on account of the failure to meet the demand for dowry, Neelam Rani was taken by her parents to their house about one and a half years before her death.Further evidence is that an attempt was made to patch up between the two sides for which a panchayat was held in which it was resolved that she would go back to the nuptial home pursuant to which she was taken by the husband to his house.This happened about ten to fifteen days prior to the occurrence in this case.There is nothing on record to show that she was either treated with cruelty or harassed with the demand for dowry during the period between her having been taken to the parental home and her tragic end."::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted by Act::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 ::: jcrapeal425of02.odt 8 46 of 1983, with the object of preventing torture and ill-treatment to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.In order to bring home the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, it would be necessary for the prosecution to prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty as defined in the explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 'Cruelty' is defined to mean any willful conduct, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) and harassment of a woman whether such harassment is with view to coercing or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::8 It is well settled that not every kind of cruelty constitutes an offence under section 498-A of IPC.Cruelty for the purpose of Section 498-A of IPC may be different from cruelty necessary to establish a matrimonial misconduct or offence.The evidence needs to be evaluated on the touchstone of the settled legal position enunciating the scope and ambit of the aforesaid provision.PW 1 who is the father of the deceased has::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 ::: jcrapeal425of02.odt 9 deposed that Anita was treated well for a year and then, Anita informed PW 1 that her husband - accused 1 demanded Rs. 3,000/- as marriage expenses.PW 1 has further deposed that accused 1 and 2 used to harass Anita due to household reasons and for refusal to bring money from the parental home.PW 1 states that said harassment was disclosed by Anita during her visit to parental home after Diwali.PW 1 then states that although he asked the accused to wait for arrival of his relatives, the accused hurriedly performed the funeral.PW 1 was declared hostile and was cross examined by the learned APP during the course of which PW 1 has answered every suggestion in the affirmative.He further denies the suggestion that due to dispute relating to distribution of crop, he has falsely implicated accused::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::He admits that he reached Amla within 15 minutes of receiving the message that Anita was not well.He further admits that within 30 to 45 minutes, his wife reached Amla.PW 1 also admits that Maroti Rathod, the uncle of the deceased Anita also reached Amla.He admits that Kana Mahadu and Devkibai also reached Amla.PW 1 states::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 ::: jcrapeal425of02.odt 10 that funeral was performed at 9 p.m. He denies the suggestion that he did not ask the accused to wait for arrival of relatives.He denies the suggestion that between 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. all relatives had arrived in Amla.PW 2 states that his wife told him about Anita's discloser as regards the demand for Rs. 3,000/- to 4,000/- and the alleged harassment.The said evidence is however hearsay and must be discarded.PW 2 then states that accused performed the funeral without informing him and therefore, he suspects that the accused killed Anita.PW 2 denies the suggestion that he was present at the time of funeral.The evidence of PW 2 is of no assistance to the prosecution.She states that dowry of Rs. 5,000/- was given in connection with the marriage.She states that after marriage, Anita faced harassment and was asked to bring Rs. 3,000/- for household expenses.She states that Anita disclosed to her about the harassment.She further states that she and PW 1 reasoned out with accused 2 and was told by accused 2 that dispute shall be resolved between Anita and accused.Smt. Savitribai, who is examined as PW4 states that one year after marriage, Anita was asked by the accused to bring Rs. 3,000/- and the accused used to illtreat, harass and beat Anita.She claims that this was disclosed to her by Anita.Accused did not pay any heed and continued to beat Anita.In the cross examination, the statement that she accompanied the parents of Anita to the matrimonial home of Anita is brought on record as an omission.She admits that when she reached the house of accused 1 after the death of Anita, PW 1 had already reached.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::9 The crucial question is whether the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the deceased was subjected with cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A explanation (a) and(b) of IPC.I am of the considered opinion, that the evidence on record is grossly inadequate to record a finding that Anita was subjected to cruelty.The evidence of PW 1 that he was told by Anita that accused 1 demanded Rs. 3,000/- as marriage expenses, is inconsistent with the evidence of PW3 that according to Anita the accused asked her to bring Rs. 3,000/- for household expenses.The allegation that accused 1 and 2 used to harass Anita is not supported by any particulars or details of the alleged harassment.Be it noted, that PW 1 has not deposed, unlike PW 4 that Anita disclosed physical illtreatment or assault.Neither PW 1 nor PW3 who is the mother of the deceased have deposed that::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 ::: jcrapeal425of02.odt 12 according to Anita she was physically beaten or assaulted.The common thread in evidence of the father and mother of the deceased (PW 1 & PW 3) is that they learnt from Anita that she was asked to bring Rs. 3,000/- and was harassed.I have already noted that while PW 1 states that said amount was asked as marriage expenses, according to PW 3 the said amount was towards household expenses.Be that as it may, the evidence of PW1 and PW 3 is not sufficient to record a finding that Anita was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of section 498-A of IPC nor is the evidence sufficient to establish that alleged cruelty was to coerce Anita or her family to fulfill demand for dowry.The evidence of PW 2 is hearsay since is deposing on the basis of what his wife allegedly told him.PW 4, in my considered opinion is not a reliable witness.She has, very obviously, indulged in exaggeration and her deposition that Anita was beaten, that she accompanied PW 1 and PW 3 to the house of the accused, that accused did not see reason and physically illtreated Anita, is inconsistent with and is falsified by the evidence of PW1 and PW::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::As a fact, PW 3 does not state that she was accompanied by PW 4 nor does PW 3 claim that Anita was physically beaten or assaulted.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 ::: jcrapeal425of02.odt 13::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::10 One more common thread in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is that the accused were asked to wait for the arrival of relatives of the deceased and accused went ahead and performed the funeral hurriedly.Be it noted, that it is not the case of the prosecution, that any witness noticed anything suspicious about Anita's death.None of the prosecution witnesses claimed that at any point of time, any complaint or grievance was made that the death is suspicious.The funeral, according to PW 1 was performed at 9 pm.Concededly, PW 1 (father ), PW 3 (mother), uncle and other relatives were present at the time of the funeral.The prosecution witnesses have not disclosed as to which relative was to arrive.I am not inclined to attach any weight or give any importance to the grievance that although the accused were asked to wait, the funeral was hurriedly performed.11 I am not inclined to agree with the learned APP that the prosecution has proved the offence under sections 304-B, 498- A, 201 read with section 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.Since the principal offences have not been proved, consideration of section 201 of IPC rendered is redundant.The judgment impugned is set aside.The appeal is allowed.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 ::: jcrapeal425of02.odt 14 The accused are acquitted of punishable under sections 304- B, 498-A, 201 read with section 34 of IPC.Fine, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded.JUDGE Belkhede::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 00:56:36 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,928,338 | Arun Kohli is the brother of the petitioner Anil Kohli.He was having his independent business in Germany under the name of M/s S.KLERE, Mode, Gmbh.Anoop Sabharwal and Ashish Srivastava approached Arun Kohli somewhere in the year 1991 when he visited India.Complainant sought held from Arun Kohli for setting up business of export of garments in Germany.Arun Kohli, brother of the petitioner was having well established business in Germany.Negotiations were held between Arun Kohli and complainants, thereupon Arun Kolhi entered into business transaction with Anoop Sabharwal and Ashish Srivastava for the export of garment and fabric.Anoop Sabharwal and Ashish Srivastave formed a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Aman Creation having its registered office at Delhi.M/s Aman Creation started exporting garments to the firm of petitioner's brother pursuant to the order placed by the petitioner's brother for himself or for on behalf of various business houses at Germany.Goods worth Rs. 15 crores were exported during this period by M/s Aman Creation.In respect of the goods exported by M/s Aman Creation several complaints in respect of quality, delay and billing were raised by the firm petitioner's brother Arun Kohli.These complaints were lodged during the course of business by writing the debit notes.Those debit notes were duly accepted and confirmed by M/s Aman Creation.When Arun Kohli demanded adjustment of amount of debit notes in the payments which were being regularly made to M/s Amar Creation in respect of the exports, the partners of M/s Amar Creation i.e. Shri Anoop Sabharwal and Ashish Srivastava requested not to make deduction of the amount of the debit notes and other trade discounts on the plea that they were facing financial crises.They, however, assured that adjustment of the due amounts in future transactions would be made.Thus large amount became due from M/s Aman Creation to the firm of petitioner's brother which remained unpaid and for which M/s Aman Creation agreed and compromised to adjust in future transaction.Because of the defective and poor quality and delay of shipments by complainant, his brother had to discontinue business transactions with M/s Aman Creation.He stopped business transaction in the year 1997 and sought settlement and finalisation of accounts.The accounts were finalised on 10th August, 1997 and sought settlement and finalisation of accounts.The accounts were finalised on 10th August, 1997 and partners of M/s Amar Creation acknowledged that they owed a sum of DM 3,53,702.75 and also admitted that this amount was due to petitioner's brother's firm.Complainant also maintained their claim against petitioner's brother.Petitioner's brother realised that complainant had not reflected the discounts, debit notes and other deductions in their accounts hence he brought these facts to the notice of the complainant repeatedly.Ashish Srivastava, partner of M/s Amar Creation had also borrowed a sum of Rs. 21,70,000/- from petitioner's brother for his other concern namely M/s Nouvel Bearing (P) Ltd. This was paid in respect of some disputed consignment which was of poor quality and were unsellable in the market.Petitioner's brother was not willing to accept the delivery of such consignment comprising of defective goods with the result it led to disruption of future business transactions between petitioner's brother and M/s Amar Creation.Mr. Arun Kohli also promised that he would make the entire balance payment on reaching Germany.On 24th February, 1998, we received a fax letter from mr. Arun Kohli stating therein that a sum of M.M. 350000.00 is owed by us towards them as debt.This letter clearly shows that they had no intentions to pay the balance amount i.e. D.M. 703092.00 approx.We have not received a single penny from them.All the business transactions were made through proper bank documents and as there was export of goods, Reserve Bank of India who also informed of the transactions.Goods were exported by the complainant to the brother of the petitioner at Germany, accounts were settled by them, some money was owed by the petitioner's brother to the complainant and some money was owed by the complainant to the petitioner's brother.These were business transactions of purely civil nature.There was no question of fraudulent inducement in the facts of this case.Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi contended that from the facts narrated above and as admitted by the complainant in the complaint, it is apparent that export business between the petitioner's brother and complainant continued for almost seven years.Because of the serious complaints lodged by petitioner's brother in respect of quality, billing and delay in shipments, debit notes in respect of discounts, reduction of price commission etc. were raised.This was brought to the notice of the complainant in due course of business vide various communications addressed to the complainant.The respondents entered into a lease agreement with appellant whereby the appellant agreed to finance the respondents for purchase of hydraulically-operated dental chairs.As per agreement, the respondents were liable to pay rentals quarterly and till such time the entire hire-purchase amount is paid, the appellant would have sole and exclusive right, title and interest in the dental chairs supplied by the appellant.The respondents committed default in making regular payments of the Installments and even the cheques issued by them got dishonoured.The chairs supplied by the appellant were also found missing from the premises of the respondents.There was inducement to cheat, hence, case under Section 420 IPC is made out.Counsel for the complaint supporting the prosecution contended that the complainant was forced to sign blank papers.The petitioner thus committed forgery beside cheating the complainant.A dispute arose when petitioner's brother indicated that no amount was due in respect of any consignment much less the disputed consignment of defective goods.When the petitioner's brother did not yield to their pressure in making payment in respect of defective consignment, partners of M/s Aman Creation came forward with a proposal that they would approach their bank to seek permission for waiver of DM 2,68,13,542 which would be treated as part adjustment of their liability towards the aforesaid debit notes, trade discounts etc. After giving this assurance they asked the petitioner's brother to make payment so that bank liability to some extent could be eased out and bank would feel comfortable to sanction the waiver of the said amount.This was to be treated as an additional loan given to M/s Nouvel Bearing (P) Ltd. In spite of the account having been settled and accepted by the complainants they did not make the payment due to the petitioner's brother but insisted that Arun Kohli should resume giving of fresh orders and resume business with the complainant and pay more amount shows outstanding invoices in their bank account of defective goods.This they insisted because bank was not willing to sanction waiver of the said amount when the business had been discontinued.When the petitioner's brother refused to do any further business with them, the complainant started extending threats to his life and the life of his family members.He then filed a complaint with the Embassy of India, Bonn, Germany alleging that the petitioner's brother has refused to pay due amount of DM 70,000 to M/s Aman Creation in respect of export consignment made by them.Negotiations were still in progress between M/s Aman Creation and the firm of the petitioner's brother for resumption of business when Mr. Anoop Sabharwal lodged this complaint with Police Station Farash Bazar alleging cheating.Before we deal with the question of cheating as alleged by the complainant, we would like to go through the FIR to find out as to whether the case of cheating at all is made out or not.The relevant extracts of the FIR are as under:-"From 1991-97, we had business dealing with above mentioned persons.We sent goods worth approx.Rs.4.5 Cr., but in return got very small amount from Mr. Arun Kohli.He kept on delaying the payments on one pretext or the other and we were compelled to send more and more goods as we had no other option since huge amount was to be collected from him.We were totally dependent on Mr. Arun Kohli's payment as we had already life-long earning for exporting the goods and rather borrowed money from market and bank (Canara Bank, chandni chawk) also.Mr. Tulsi dew our attention to the letter dated 20th november, 1996 written by Arun Kohli to complainant indicating that goods with DM 33,000 had been rejected by the customers, therefore, complainant should deduct DM 36,822.90 from his bill. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,928,367 | Indeed they have already served out their sentences.The learned Counsel of both sides agree that the only question that arises in this appeal is whether the lower Court should have convicted both or either of the respondents under S. 302/34, I.P.C. We shall, therefore, restrict our discussion to this particular aspect only, and it is not necessary to refer to all the details in extenso.The first respondent was at that time armed with a Rampuri knife.They first tried to relieve the two eye-witnesses of their cash, but it turned out that Vinod P.W. 5 was known to them."Accused No. 2 (respondent No. 2) took out something from the bushshirt pocket of that person (deceased).That person tried to wave his hands.The accused No. 2 caught hold of his bushshirt.The accused No. 1 (respondent No. 1) thereafter stabbed that person on his stomach with the knife.Thereafter that man (deceased) started shouting and running away.When he started running away, the accused No. 1 again stabbed that person (deceased) on his back."The lower Court's findings are not disputed, that the first respondent was carrying a naked Rampuri knife in his hand and that after the second respondent had relieved the deceased of Rs. 15/-, he caught hold of the deceased by his neck, and thereafter the first respondent gave a knife blow on the abdomen of the deceased.The deceased started shouting and ran away.Thereafter the first respondent chased him and again stabbed him and gave him a second knife blow on the back.Here we note that the only part assigned to the second respondent is that he relieved the deceased of the cash and thereafter held the latter by his neck when he tried to wave his hands.No further overt acts are attributed to him.JUDGMENT Khatri, J.The two respondents were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Shri T. R. Desai, on charges under sections 392/34, 397 and 302/34, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 11th February, 1975 in the Lalbaug Market locality, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Bombay, they, in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of cash worth Rs. 15/- belonging to one Daji Baloo Gharge and also committed his murder.The learned Judge has convicted both respondents under S. 304/34, Part II, and sentenced the first to 7 years' R.I. and the second to 2 years' R.I. The first respondent was further convicted under S. 392/397, I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 50/- while the second Respondent was convicted under S. 392/34 and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 50/-.Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.The State has come up in appeal against this acquittal.Neither of the respondents has challenged the convictions and/or sentences recorded against them by the lower Court.As such the respondents did not bother them.As the two respondents moved away, they saw the deceased Daji Baloo Gharge and accosted him.It is an admitted position that both respondents were apprehended on the spot itself by Constable Sawant P.W. 7 with the help of the two eye-witnesses.Before that the deceased was operated upon around 1.15 a.m. Dr. Dewoolkar P.W. 19 had assisted Dr. Rajdeo, who actually conducted the operation.Dr. Dewoolkar affirms that the deceased had two external incised wounds as follows :1) Incised wound infra umbilical region about 2' x 1/2" x ? deep.Small intestines protruding out.2 perforations of 1" in size seen over small intestines.2) Incised wound over the inter-scapular regioall the left side of midline at T-2 - T-3 size 1" x 1/2" x ? deep.Some air bubbles coming out through the wound.On opening the abdominal cavity, they found three litres of dark blood in it.There were also five multiple perforations over the small intestines.The patient's condition continued to deteriorate and ultimately he developed cardiac arrest and breathed his last on the next early morning.Dr. (Mrs.) Mittal P.W. 22 carried out the autopsy over the dead body on 11th February 1975 around 9.30 a.m. Her evidence shows that there were two incised external wounds as mentioned above.Obviously the second injury which necessitated the operation in the umbilical region was in sutured state, at the time of the autopsy.On internal examination, she detected five perforations on the small intestines.The left lung was found shrunken and there was adhesion of the right lung with the pleura.Both doctors have given their categorical opinion that the two external injuries were fatal, even taken singly.The learned trial Judge has substantially accepted the evidence of the two doctors.He, however, thought it unsafe to accept the opinion of the two doctors that the injuries were necessarily fatal, because Dr. Rajdeo who had actually performed the operation, was not examined.At the highest, the learned Judge went on to hold, the prosecution had established that this respondent had knowledge that his act of inflicting the two injuries was likely to cause death.We are conscious of our limitations in disposal of appeals against acquittal.However, on consideration of the relevant evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel of both sides, we are satisfied that the present is a case where the learned Judge's finding that the case does not attract S. 302 virtually borders on perversity.We proceed to give our reasons for this view.We have already described the nature and extent of the injuries along with the internal damage caused by them.The small intestine were perforated at as many as 5 places.The internal haemorrhage was so extensive that three litres of blood was found in the abdominal cavity when the deceased was on the operation table.The injury on the scapular region had caused substantial damage to the lung.In fact air bubbles were coming out of the injury.Even in absence of an express opinion of a doctor in so many words, all this data was more than enough to compel the Court to record a finding that the two external wounds were fatal not only cumulatively, but also individually.We are not impressed by the submission of Shri Rajadhyaksha for the respondents that the evidence of Dr. Dewoolkar does not deserve credence because of the omission of the prosecution to examine Dr. Rajdeo who had conducted the operation.Nor are we impressed by the reasons given by the learned trial Judge that Dr. (Mrs.) Mittal's evidence is also unsafe, because she had relied on some medical papers relating to the operation and that her post-mortem notes were prepared on the basis of rough notes taken by her students while the autopsy was on.This doctor has stated that while she was doing the autopsy, she was dictating her observations to her students who were taking them down.Immediately after the autopsy was over, the doctor prepared her own post-mortem notes after verifying the correctness of the students' notes.Now simply because the rough notes, having been destroyed, are not available, it cannot be said that Dr. (Mrs.) Mittal's findings are wrong.The learned trial Judge fell into a grave error in holding that the prosecution had failed to establish that the two injuries were fatal individually, or that the cumulative effect was necessarily fatal.Shri Rajadhyaksha next draws our attention to the evidence of Dr. Dewoolkar P.W. 19 that the treatment of the deceased was interrupted for some time when the Police Officer turned up to enquire about the condition of the deceased.He also points out an observation in the post mortem notes that the liver of the deceased was fatty and enlarged.Dr. Dewoolkar has further stated in his deposition that the second injury which was on the scapular region was not probed by him and that he had put vaseline guage dressing over it.After inspecting the record, we find that although the State had taken steps to get the Respondents served, they could not be served till 1984, because their current address was not readily available.The main reason, if not the sole, why this appeal could not be heard earlier is that the Court had no time to hear it.In the circumstances, we do not think that the Respondents can press in aid the Patna Full Bench decision.The result is that this appeal succeeds partly so far as the first Respondent is concerned.The appeal is partly allowed.The appeal is dismissed as against the second Respondent. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,840,400 | CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 1 of 35It is the case of the prosecution that on a report, at about 12:05 AM, on the night intervening 8/9.10.2008 --- recorded by S-50 through wireless set--- an information of a quarrel at C-10, Lal Kuan was received, which was registered as DD No.38 (Ex.PW.7/A) at Police Post Pul Prahladpur Police Station- Sangam Vihar; and on the basis of which FIR No.560/2008 dated 09.10.2008, under Sections 376/506 IPC was subsequently registered at the Police Station Sangam Vihar.Head Constable Prahlad Singh PW-12 testified that on 09.10.2008, when he was posted at Police Post Pul Prahladpur, Police Station - Sangam Vihar, on receipt of the said DD No.38 Ex.PW.7/A, he along with Constable Sanjay Kumar PW-13 went to the spot at C-18/B, Lal Kuan, Chungi No.13, New Delhi.The minor prosecutrix X PW-1, aged about 11 years, along with her father Upender Yadav PW-2 and mother Sunita Devi PW-6, met him at the spot, where several public persons had also gathered.The father and the CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 2 of 35 public persons handed over to the police, the respondent Amar Pal, son of Chanda Ram, who had been beaten up by them; and whose name was revealed upon sustained enquiry.Upender Yadav PW-2, the father of the minor victim X simultaneously gave a complaint to the effect that, the respondent Amar Pal had committed rape upon his minor daughter, prosecutrix X. On this complaint, Head Constable Prahlad Singh PW-12, informed the In-charge of Police Post Pul Prahladpur, Sub-Inspector Nirbhay Kumar; and thereafter took the minor victim X along with her parents, as well as, the respondent to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'AIIMS') for their medical examination.Head Constable Prahlad Singh PW-12 was accompanied by Constable Sanjay Kumar PW-13, at that time.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 2 of 35The minor victim X was medically examined at the AIIMS vide MLC Ex.The respondent Amar Pal was also medically examined vide MLC Ex.W/SI Satish CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 3 of 35 Bhati PW-16 recorded the statement of the minor victim X and prepared the rukka Ex.PW.16/A, which was sent to Police Station Sangam Vihar through Constable Sanjay Kumar PW-13 for the registration of the subject FIR.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 3 of 35The respondent was also sent to the Police Station along with Head Constable Prahlad; and the minor victim X was taken to the scene of crime, where the site plan Ex.PW.16/B was prepared.The subject rukka , which was exhibited as Ex.PW.16/A recorded the complaint of the victim as follows:-" 'minor victim X' (sic) d/o ` R/o C-10 B .3 ` 11 ` 8/9.10.2008 11.30 @ ( ) s/o r/o CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 4 of 35 , [CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 4 of 35CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 5 of 35The same is true and correct account of statement made by 'the minor victim' (sic) d/o Upender voluntarily to me.Nothing has been added or substracted by me in recording the statement of 'the minor victim' (sic).10.10.08 The record of the proceedings be sent to the court concern in a sealed cover bearing the seal of N.K.The exhibits qua the respondent and the minor victim X were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and results therefrom were obtained vide Ex.PW.10/A and Ex.PW.10/B respectively.W/SI Satish Bhati also had the bone age x-ray of the minor victim X conducted at the AIIMS and the results thereto were obtained vide Ex.PW.4/A.The birth certificate qua the minor victim X, was also obtained from the school first attended by her i.e. Municipal Corporation Primary School, Lal Kuan Gaon Chungi No.2 --- Girls, vide seizure memo Ex.PW.2/A, accompanied by the certified school certificate Ex.PW.2/B, issued by the CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 7 of 35 Principal of the said school.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 8 of 35CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 8 of 35The respondent, chose to examine DW-1 Smt. Meera Devi on his behalf in his defence, who testified as follows:-"17.03.2011/DW.1 DW-1 : Statement of Smt. Meera Devi w/o Sh.Rambilas Shah, Aged about 40 years, R/0 C-18, Near Chungi No.3, Lal Kuan, New Delhi, Education: Illiterate, Profession: House wife.On SA.On 08.10.2018 at about 11.00 pm.I was standing at the door of my above house.A young boy in a drunken condition came from Chungi no. 03 and pass through our Gali as he reached at the edge of Gali, an altercation took place in between some local boy standing at the edge of the Gali with the drunken person, the accused present in the court today.The altercation turned into a quarrel and beating meanwhile, some local residents also joined the fray.In the quarrel, the said drunken person sustained injury on his person.Someone made a call to the police.The police personnel arrived at the spot C-18, near Chungi No.3, Lal Kuan, New Delhi, took the injured person to the police chowki.Later on, some local resident also went to the police chowki.Since, the liquor shop situated at Chungi No. 3, Lal Kuan, nearby the locality, such type of quarrel frequently took place between the local resident and drunken persons.XXXX by Sh.S.K. Raghuvanshi, Ld. Addl.It is correct that although quarrel used to take place frequently but no case of this type ever registered after quarrel.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 9 of 35In fact the Trial Judge ought to have considered the full testimony of the prosecutrix and also the other facts that accused was arrested from the spot and that the other prosecution witnesses PW2 and PW6 have supported the case of the prosecution that they had seen accused committing rape and he was apprehended at the spot.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 11 of 35D. The Ld. Judge failed to appreciate the testimony of PW-10, Dr. Dhruv Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, who proved the FSL reports Ex.PW.10/A and Ex.PW.10/B.E. The Ld. Judge failed to appreciate the testimony of PW-12 HC Prahlad Singh who deposed that on CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 12 of 35 receipt of DD No.38, he proceed to the spot where he met the prosecutrix and her parents who explained the commission of rape and the accused was handed over to the police.The crowd from neighbourhood was also gathered there and they had also given beatings to accused.H. The Ld. Judge failed to appreciate the testimony of PW-1, the prosecutrix, whose testimony was cogent, coherent, reliable and truthful.I. The Ld. Judge failed to appreciate that accused could not offer any valid explanation, enemity or feud with the father of prosecutrix which could have lead to falsely implicating respondent.The respondent was a total stranger for them.The Ld.M. The Ld. Judge failed to appreciate the testimony of PW-5, Sh.Naresh Kumar Malhotra, MM, who recorded statement of prosecutrix and that in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 10.10.2008 she had specifically named the respondent having committed rape on her and her statement was duly proved as Ex.This witness has deposed that on 08.10.2008 at about 10:30 PM he came back home along with his wife, the door of the house was locked from inside but it was not bolted from outside.There was space in the door in which one could see through the gap.He peeped inside from the gap and saw one boy was committing rape upon her daughter Baby X. He saw that one boy was lying over her daughter Baby X and committing rape.The light of the room was on.He started knocking the door.He could not tell the exact distance in meters or kilometers.He has admitted that number of people are living in his neighbourhood and so many people gathered there but they refused to join as witness.Duty Officer, PS Sangam Vihar, New Delhi 12.30 SI Tele Mobile IC PP .D-3630 SHO ^ H.NO.C-10/B .3, minor ` HC .577/SD Ct..848/SD ^ SI AIIMS, New Delhi victim 'prosecutrix X' (sic) d/o ` r/o C-10/B, .3 MLC No.CS 89425/08 victim ` medical examination alleged person s/o r/o , medical examination MLC No.CS89426/08 exhibits MLC [u/s 376/506 IPC Ct. .848/SD [ ` ^ SI: 08.10.08 at about 11.30 a.m. : H.NO.C-10 B, .Satish Bhati, SI No.D-1221 PIS No.28850055 Dt. 09.10.08 CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 5 of 35 DD No.38A at 05.15 a.m. FIR 560/08 u/s 376/506 IPC Sd/-ASI/DO PS Sangam Vihar Dt. 09.01.08."W/SI Saitsh Bhati PW-16 then went to Police Station and arrested the respondent vide arrest memo Ex.On the very next day i.e. the 10.10.2008, the statement of the minor victim X, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide Ex.PW.5/A, which reads as follows:-"Statement of 'minor victim' X (sic) d/o Upender Yadav, r/o Lal Kuan, Chungi No.3, Sangam Vihar, Delhi.08.10.2008 11.30 , @ (Under Wear) @ @ @CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 7 of 35After recording the statement of the witnesses and completion of the investigation, charge sheet for the commission of the offences under Sections 376/506 IPC was prepared and filed against the respondent, by the prosecution.The trial court vide its order dated 18.03.2009, framed charges against the respondent for the commission of offences under the provisions of Sections 376/506 IPC, to which the latter pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to establish its case against the respondent beyond doubt, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, in all.The statement of the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded thereafter, wherein he denied the case of the prosecution in toto and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.It was the admitted case of the respondent that, although he was present at the spot where the commission of the offence is stated to have occurred, he was there owing to a quarrel between him and a local person at about 11:00 p.m. on 08.10.2008; and that he had suffered injury on his person, as opined vide MLC Ex.PW.11/A, as a consequence thereof.Public Prosecutor for State.On SA.XXX by Sh.S.K. Raghuvanshi, Ld. Addl.Public Prosecutor for State.It is correct that although quarrel used to take place frequently but no case of this type ever registered after quarrel.The learned trial court having considered the evidence on record and heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, opined that the minor victim X appeared to be tutored witness and resultantly, it was not safe to rely on her testimony.The State, aggrieved by the impugned judgment, assails the irregularity, legality and correctness thereof, inter alia, on the following grounds:-A. That the impugned judgment/order passed by the CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 10 of 35 Ld.The Ld.Trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence on record and erred in acquitting the respondent of the offences under Section 376/506 IPC although clear and cogent evidence was brought on record to prove that offence was committed by respondent.The reason advanced by her in detail was that the relatives of accused who were present outside court on 21.05.2009 had threatened to kill her if she identified the accused in court.This explanation of the prosecutrix appears to be most reasonable and appeals to prudence.The accused as well as the prosecutrix were then taken to AIIMS where the samples for medical examination were taken by the doctors and MLC of both was prepared.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 12 of 35F. The Ld. Judge failed to appreciate that accused was caught red handed from the spot i.e. house of the prosecutrix which was the place of occurrence.Trial Judge ought to have considered that since there is no enemity between prosecutrix who was barely eleven years old and the accused or his any other family member, of the nature so as to falsely implicate the accused and let the real culprit go scot-free particularly when it is established in the MLC of prosecutrix Ex.PW.14/A that rape was committed on her and hymen was ruptured.J. The Ld. Judge failed to appreciate that respondent was seen committing rape by father of prosecutrix CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 14 of 35 PW-2, who was an eye witness, through the gap in the door and on his repeatedly knocking the door, the respondent opened the door and was apprehended at the spot by the parents of the prosecutrix and prosecutrix at the same time identified the accused as well as the offence whereupon the police was called and samples for medical examination of both were lifted.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 14 of 35K. The Ld. Judge failed to appreciate that medical evidence on record totally supported the commission of offence and the accused being offender.FSL report Ex.PW.10/A and Ex.PW.10/B as well as MLC Ex.PW.14/A proved beyond reasonable doubt commission of rape.L. The Ld. Judge totally overlooked the well established principle of law that in a case like the present one, unrebutted and reliable testimony of prosecutrix duly supported by medical evidence could be solely relied upon as the basis of CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 15 of 35 conviction.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 15 of 35PW.5/A and Ex.PW.5/B.N. The Ld. Judge erred in drawing adverse conclusion on account of PW-6, mother of prosecutrix, not accompanying her to the police station and hospital along with the father without appreciating that there was another minor daughter with her aged about 9 years to be looked after at home and that she specifically deposed that the trauma was such that she herself became unconscious and in these circumstances it was her husband alone who accompanied the prosecutrix to the police station as well as the hospital.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 16 of 35Mr. Ashish Dutta, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State would invite our attention to the testimony of the minor victim X PW-1, as well as, that of her parents Upender Yadav PW-2 (father) and Sunita Devi PW-6 (mother), to urge that the same is reliable and trustworthy and clearly establishes both the commission of rape on the minor victim X, as well as, identification and culpability of the respondent, as the perpetrator of the subject sexual offence.It would also be urged, by relying on the testimony of PW-12 Constable Prahlad Singh, PW-13 Constable Sanjay Kumar and W/SI Satish Bhati, the Investigating Officer that, the respondent had been apprehended by Upender Yadav PW-2 and Sunita Devi PW-6, the parents of the minor victim X, during the commission of the offence itself and handed over to the police immediately thereafter.Mr. Ashish Dutta, learned APP for the State would emphasize that upon a conjoint reading of the aforesaid CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 17 of 35 testimonies, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that none other than the respondent was guilty of having committed sexual assault upon the minor victim X.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 17 of 35In this behalf, it would also urged that, the medical evidence on record, including the FSL report Ex.PW.10/A and Ex.PW.10/B, as well as, the MLC Ex.PW.14/A, totally supported the case of the prosecution, qua the commission of the sexual offence on the minor victim X, and the respondent as being indubitably the perpetrator thereof.It would be urged on behalf of the respondent that the learned trial court came to a conclusion that the minor victim X had been completely unable to identify the accused initially and did so later, under the tutoring of the prosecution at a subsequent stage of the trial.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would also allude to the major contradictions found by the learned trial court in the testimony Upender Yadav PW-2 and Sunita Devi PW-6 in relation to the occurrence of the rape.Our attention was invited by defence counsel, to the following paragraphs of CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 18 of 35 the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2011, in order to buttress this contention:-CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 18 of 35"32. PW-1 Baby X in her statement recorded on 21.05.2009, though narrated the incident but not identified the accused.She is not disputing the incident, however, as far as identity of accused is concerned, she has failed to identify the accused.She has stated that she do not know the name of that person.She did not know him earlier, therefore, she did not tell the name of that person to the police.She did not see the face of that person because the light was switched off.She came to know the name of that person when he was arrested by the police.PW-1 Baby X was further examined on 08.06.2009, but that day also she did not utter even a single word about any threat etc., if any extended by to her.On 21.05.2009 as well as 08.06.2009 her statement was deferred for want of case property, which was sent to FSL.It is pertinent to mention that on 09.11.2009, after receipt of FSL result/case property from FSL, when again her statement was recorded, she has identified the accused.Ms. Madhulika Mohta, Advocate from Delhi Commission for Women was also standing besides her.On that day, PW-1 Baby X has stated that "MAINE PICHLI TARIK PAR ACCUSED UNCLE KO ISLIYE NAHI PEHCHANA THAT KYUNKI INKE RISHTEDAR JO COURT KE BAHAR THE, UNHONE MANA KIYA THA, UNHONE KAHA THA KI TUM ANDAR JAKE BOLNA KI VO NAHI HAI DOOSRA HAI'.On that day, the court had asked the following questions:-"Court Question:- How do you know that, that person was relative of accused? Did you know his name?Answer:- No. VO HONGE SHAYAD.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 19 of 35why did not you apprise the court about that relative of accused, who had as per you asked you not to identify the accused, in the court earlier?your life by that relative of accused to anyone?PW-1 Baby X has denied the suggestion that she had identified the accused on 09.11.2009 at the instance of her father because he had been asked by the enemies of the accused to falsely implicate him.She has also denied the suggestion that earlier she had not identified the accused and at that time she did not have any threat.It is pertinent to mention that a perusal of record shows that on 14.05.2009 PW-2 Upender Yadav, the father of victim Baby X had appeared along with Women Sub-Inspector Satish Bhati, the investigating officer of this case and moved an application mentioning the fact that in the morning when he left for the court, the persns of accused party did not permit his daughter to appear in the court.investigating officer was directed to do the needful in order to ensure the protection/security of the victim as well as other public witness.on 21.05.2009 Women Sub-inspector CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 20 of 35 Satish Bhati.PW-2 Baby X was present with her father PW2 Upender Yadav.PW1 Baby X was partky recorded.Order dated 21.05.2009 clearly shows that the court had referred to the application which was moved on 14.05.2009 and it was submitted before the court by PW2 Sh.Upender Yadav that they did not have any kind of threat and pressure and they had come to the court on their own.He had also submitted before the court that his daughter PW1 Baby X also did not have any kind of pressure.He did not have any objection for recording of testimony of her daughter PW1 Baby X on 21.05.2009 in the court.After recording these submissions, the statement of PW1 Baby X was recorded.Now, dspite unequivocal statement of PW2 Sh.Updender Yadav on 21.05.2009 before this court, his daughter PW1 Baby X has stated before the court on 09.11.2009 that the relatives of the accused had asked her not to identify the court.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 20 of 35The court question put to PW1 Baby X on 09.11.2009 also clearly show that this witness on 09.11.2009 was under some influence to identify the accused, who is not certain about the relatives of the accused.She did not know whether on09.11.2009 the relatives of the accused were present outside the court room or not.She had even gone to the extent stating that they had threatened to kill her.She has admitted that her father was with her.considering the court record, especially the order dated 14.05.2009 and 21.05.2009, it is clear that on 21.05.2009 when the accused was not identified by PW1 Baby X, her father PW2 SH.Upender Yadav had clearly submitted before the court that they did not have any kind of threat or pressure.They had come on their own.PW2 Sh.Upender Yadav had moved an application on 14.05.2009 submitting that accused party did not permit him to appear in the court and on CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 21 of 35 21.05.2009 he had submitted that they do not have any kind of pressure or threat.It is not clear why PW1 Baby X has taken summersault on 09.11.2009 while identifying the accused.On one day she has not identified and on other day she had identified giving explanation of threat and coercion which is not believable in the facts and circumstances of this case as court had specifically asked on 21.05.2009 about any threat or coercion, reason being that on 14.05.2009 an application in this regard was moved.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 21 of 35Even Women Sub-Inspector Satish Bhati, Investigating Officer was directed to do the needful in order to ensure the protection/security of the victim as well as other public witness.No such threat or coercion was brought before the court extended on 09.11.2009 when this statement of PW1 Baby X was recorded.As regards the testimony of PW-2 Sh.He knocked several times and after sometime, the door was opened and he saw the accused was inside.There were only Baby X and accused in that room when he saw them inside the room.He apprehended the accused at spot with the help of his wife and informed the police on 100 number.During the course of his cross-examination PW- 2 Sh.Upender Yadav has deposed that the distance between his house and shop may be covered within CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 22 of 35 five minutes on foot.He has also admitted that his neighbours Hori Lal and Ashok Sharma, who lives on right and left side of his house, their families were available but no one joined the investigation.He has deposed that he did not call the Pradhan of the colony.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 22 of 3542. PW-6 Smt. Sunita, the mother of PW-1 Baby X has deposed that on the day of the incident, she was at the shop of her husband leaving her daughters at home.It was winter season.On the day of incident at about 10:00 PM/10:30 PM, she left her daughters at home and went to shop to call her husband.Her husband closed the shop and came to the house on his bicycle and she came on foot.As per the testimony of her husband PW-2 Sh.Upender Yadav he has deposed that he came back home with his wife.concerned, this witness (PW6) is hear say, as she has deposed that her daughter PW-1 Baby X had told that she was raped by accused.47. PW-6 Smt. Sunita has deposed that it took total fifteen minutes for her to leave the house and reach her husband's shop and return home, meaning thereby that within a span of fifteen minutes rape has been committed upon PW-1 Baby X as PW-6 has deposed that it took five minutes for her to reach her husband's shop from their residence and again it took five minutes for returning home from her husband's shop and she stayed at her husband's shop for five minutes.She has also admitted that her husband reached prior to her.She volunteered that her husband came on bicycle.However, as per PW-2 Sh.Upender Yadav he came along with his wife.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 23 of 35If the entrance of the room opens in the room and her husband was knocking outer door of the house which was locked and she opened the main door in presence of public, who gathered there, however, PW-2 Sh.Upender Yadav peeped inside and saw the accused committing rape.It is also fortified as PW-6 Smt. Sunita has deposed that if they see from the outer gate one can see the open space and if they go inside, they can see the gates/doors of the rooms.If the outer gate was closed, how PW-2 Sh.Upender Yadav peeped inside the room which was inside.52. PW-2 Sh.Upender Yadav has deposed that the light was on in his room, however, PW-1 Baby X has stated on 21.05.2009 that she did not see the face of that person because the light was switched off, meaning thereby that there are two versions about the visibility in the room.Upender Yadav to peep in and see in darkness as the time was around 10:30PM/11:00 PM in the night and that too in the month of October.If the light was on, as per the testimony of PW-2 Sh.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 24 of 35We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and given our anxious consideration to the evidence on record, including the medical evidence.The two critical issues that arise for consideration in the present appeal are:-a) Whether the minor victim X was subjected to rape on the night 08.10.2008;b) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the respondent for the commission of the sexual offence.The MLC Ex.PW.14/A further opines that the minor victim X, was yet to attain the age of puberty.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 25 of 35CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 25 of 35Further, in this regard, a plain reading of the FSL reports, Ex.PW.10/A and Ex.PW.10/B show that it was clearly opined therein that human semen was detected from her vaginal swab and blood was detected on the underwear worn by her at the time of commission of the offence.In this behalf, it would also be pertinent to observe that the trial court fell into grave error in not returning any finding in relation to the commission of rape on the minor victim X.That brings us to the equally critical issue of the identification of the respondent as the perpetrator of the crime.We are unable to concur with this finding arrived at by the trial court, as above extracted for the following reasons:-(i) Firstly, the respondent, including in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., does not deny his presence at the scene of crime i.e. at C-18/B, Lal Kuan, Chungi No.13, New Delhi.(ii) Secondly, on a conjoint reading of the testimonies of Upender Yadav PW-2 and Sunita Devi PW-6, the father and mother of the minor victim X, insofar as they relate to their arrival during the commission of the offence by the accused; and his immediate apprehension, from the room where the same was committed, is unrebutted.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 27 of 35(iii) Thirdly, the detailed explanation given by the minor victim X on 04.11.2019 to the effect that, the relatives of the respondent, who were present outside the court on 21.05.2009 (when she did not identify the respondent), had threatened to kill her, if she identifies him in court --(iv) Lastly, the testimony of the minor victim X, which by itself was consistent, cogent, coherent and inspires confidence, was further corroborated by the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses PW-2 and PW-6 and the irrefutable fact that the respondent was arrested red-handed from the spot.In this behalf, it would be relevant to observe that the testimony of the parents to the effect that, the respondent opened the door of the room where he was alone with the minor victim X from inside --- upon the incessant knocking on the door by the former --- has gone unchallenged.There is further no manner of doubt that it was the respondent who opened the door at the scene of crime from inside.The indubitable facts, that the parents of the minor prosecutrix X physically subdued the respondent at the spot and called the police; as well as the physical beatings admittedly received by the respondent from public persons, who simultaneously gathered at the spot at the time of the commission of the crime; are clear, categorical and untraversed in the relevant cross examination.There can also be no quarrel that the medical report qua the respondent Ex.PW.11/A, which opines that a reddish fresh abrasion 2x2 cm was present over his left shoulder, as well as, the FSL reports Ex.PW.10/A and Ex.PW.10/B, which detected semen on his underwear, establish his culpability in the commission of the offence on all fours.In addition, a plain reading of the respondent's response to the incriminating circumstances and material put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. demonstrates, that he has offered no cogent explanation, qua his presence at the scene of crime on the fateful day and time, nor has he denied his apprehension from the spot and his subsequent handing over to the police, by the parents of the minor victim X, immediately thereafter.Last but not the least, the accused has completely failed to explain why he has been falsely implicated in the case on behalf of either the minor CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 31 of 35 victim X, her parents or the police.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 31 of 35The testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses also corroborate that of the minor victim X, as does the clinching medical evidence elaborated hereinabove.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 32 of 35It is trite to state that, it is necessary for the Courts to have a sensitive approach when dealing with cases of child rape.The effect of such a crime on the mind of the child is likely to be lifelong.A special safeguard has been provided for children in Article 39 of the Constitution of India, which inter alia stipulates that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the tender age of the children is not abused and the children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 33 of 35 conditions of freedom and dignity; and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.. [Reference: State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash reported as (2002) 5 SCC 745]CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 33 of 35In the circumstances, resultantly, the acquittal of the respondent herein in relation to the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC in relation to FIR No.560/08, Police Station- Sangam Vihar vide the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2011 rendered by the the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Designated Judge : TADA/POTA/MCOCA, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.13/09, titled as 'State vs. Amar Pal'; is set aside, and the respondent herein is convicted for the proved commission of the offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC; and is further directed to be taken into custody forthwith.CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 34 of 35CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 34 of 35With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent convict forthwith.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE) I.S. MEHTA (JUDGE) DECEMBER 09, 2019 dn CRL.A.1309/2013 Page 35 of 35 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,841,123 | Prior to it, Shri Shukla has received the information that Bhaurao has already died.(18/04/2016) This Criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 15/09/15 passed by 2nd Addl.Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.615/14, whereby the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act has been framed against the applicant.Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 13/01/13 sale-deed for a consideration of Rs.10,11,000/- was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Indore for registration.In the sale-deed, the executor was named as Bhaurao S/o Rambhau, r/o - 35, Barabhai, Indore.Sale-deed bears the signature of purchaser and seller along with their photographs.Seller and purchaser also appeared before the Sub-Registrar office along with the witnesses Milind, R/o - 49, Srinagar Main, Indore and Yogendra Dubey, R/o- 92, Roopram Nagar, Indore.They have identified the seller.As per the sale-deed, the size of plot No.97, admeasuring 50 X 36 Ft.On 22/01/03, when the inspection of the plot was conducted, it came to the notice that Bhaurao S/o Rambhau has died 8 years 2 ago.On 23/01/03, seller Bhaurao S/o Rambhau and purchaser Mahavir came to Sub-Registrar office for taking back the documents and information was sought from them regarding the property which has been sold, but they have not furnished the correct information.It was suspected that some other person in place of seller has sold the plot.He disclosed his name as Sunil, R/o - Rahul Gandhi Nagar, Indore.After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.Being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred.It is prayed that impugned order be set aside.Learned Govt. Advocate supported the impugned order and submitted that prima facie there is sufficient evidence to frame the charges against the applicant.I have perused the record.S.S.Aparoriya and Prabhu Prakash in their case-diary statements have stated that on 13/01/03, son of Ramswaroop has submitted a sale-deed for registration.In the sale-deed, the name of Bhaurao, S/o Rambhau was mentioned as seller.Witnesses as well as purchaser and seller appeared before the registrar office.Milind and Yogendra Dubey have identified the seller.During inspection, it was found that Bhaurao have died 8 years ago.On 23/01/03, seller and purchaser came to collect the document, then he enquired about the property and seller disclosed his name as Sunil, R/o - Rahul Gandhi Nagar, Indore.Sanjeev Lada stated that on 23/01/03, Mahaveer and Milind came to him.They shown the photostat copy of agreement and sale-deed executed by Bhaurao.Mahaveer has purchased the stamp and he has drafted the sale-deed.When he enquired regarding seller Bhaurao, Mahaveer told him that he is coming, but seller did not come.After completing the documents, Mahaveer and Milind have gone.Later on, he came to know that Sunil has submitted a sale-deed posing him as Rambhau S/o Bhaurao before the Sub Registrar.Digamber Pujari is a notary, who stated that on 22/01/03, one person came to him and disclosed his name as Rambhau S/o Bhaurao, he shown the affidavit and notarized the same from him.Later on, he came to know that Sunil posing himself as Rambhau S/o Bhaurao and presented the sale-deed in the registrar office for registration.Due to deficiency of stamp, time was granted to submit the same.On 23/01/03, Mahavir and Rambhau came to take back the document. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,989,402 | The respondents contend that the proceedings for confiscation under Section 59 of the Excise Act are independent of the prosecution proceedings and thus, pendency of the said proceedings do not preclude confiscation of his vehicle under Section 59 of the Excise Act. Thus, the principal question to be addressed is whether the proceedings for confiscation under Section 59 of the Excise Act can be maintained and proceeded with independent of the prosecution for committing an offence under Section 33 of the Excise Act.The petitioner is a resident of Rohtak, Haryana and claims to be a student of B.A. Pass College Rohtak.On 29.05.2011 at about 5.15 a.m., the police officials of Police Station Kanjhawala arrested the petitioner while he was allegedly transporting one hundred and fifty- two cartons of Murthal No.1 Desi Sharab and twenty-two cartons of Besto Whisky from Haryana into Delhi, without any valid permission or license.The said liquor and W.P. (C) 4760/2014 Page 2 of 29 the vehicle in question was seized on the spot.An FIR was registered (FIR No. 129/2011 under Section 279/337 of the IPC and Section 33 of the Excise Act) with Police Station Kanjhawala.The said FIR records that the vehicle in question was being driven by the petitioner.W.P. (C) 4760/2014 Page 2 of 29VIBHU BAKHRU, J IntroductionThe petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Excise under Section 73(2) of the Excise Act, 2009 (hereafter 'the Excise Act'), was rejected.By the said order dated 21.02.2013, the Commissioner of Excise had rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 12.01.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise under Section 59 of the Excise Act, whereby the petitioner's vehicle W.P. (C) 4760/2014 Page 1 of 29 was confiscated on account of being used in commission of an offence punishable under Section 33 of the Excise Act. The abovementioned orders are hereafter referred to as the impugned orders.W.P. (C) 4760/2014 Page 1 of 29The petitioner contends that prosecution proceedings are pending and he has not been convicted of committing any offence under Section 33 of the Excise Act as yet.During the course of investigation, the petitioner was granted bail by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate.Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle on Superdari.The said application was allowed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 10.01.2012 and the vehicle in question (Trux Cruiser bearing No. HR-33E-0547) was directed to be released to the petitioner on his on furnishing Superdarinama for a sum of 3,00,000/-, which was stated to be the market value of the said vehicle.In its order, the Court also observed that the vehicle had been seized by the police officials and had not been confiscated by the Delhi Excise Commissioner.In the meantime, a show cause notice dated 12.08.2011 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise under Section 59 of the Excise Act, inter alia, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the vehicle in question (Trux Cruiser bearing No. HR-33E-0547) and the seized liquor (one hundred forty two cartons of Murthal No.1 Desi Sharab and twenty two Cartons of Besto Whisky), not be confiscated.The petitioner was called upon to furnish his reply within a period of seven days from the date of the issuance of the said notice.He was further provided an opportunity for being heard at a hearing scheduled on 13.09.2011 at 3.00 p.m. W.P. (C) 4760/2014 Page 3 of 29W.P. (C) 4760/2014 Page 3 of 29The petitioner responded to the said show cause notice.He stated that he had given the vehicle in question to his friend (one Devender Kumar) resident of village Sunaria, District Rohtak, Haryana in order to enable him to attend to the last ceremonies of one of his relatives.He stated that he had received the telephone call on 29.05.2011 informing him that the vehicle had met with an accident and calling upon him to reach the police station.The petitioner stated that on arriving at the police station, he became aware that liquor had been found in the vehicle and a false and frivolous case had been lodged against him.In view of the above, he requested that the vehicle be released to him.The petitioner also attended the hearing held on 13.09.2011 and made oral submissions to a similar effect.He also directed that photographs of the confiscated vehicle and the samples of the confiscated liquor be preserved to meet the evidentiary requirements as provided under Section 60 of the Excise Act.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Excise Commissioner (Appeal No. 16/2012 W.P. (C) 4760/2014 Page 4 of 29 captioned Deepak Hooda v. Deputy Commissioner (Excise).The petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 12.01.2012 was erroneous as it had been passed without considering the fact that the trial for the offence under Section 33 of the Excise Act was pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.W.P. (C) 4760/2014 Page 4 of 29Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Excise), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner.The petitioner challenged the aforesaid impugned order dated 21.02.2013, essentially, on three grounds.First, that the liquor was being brought by the appellant from the State of Haryana and therefore, the case was not covered under Section 33 of the Excise Act. Second, that the vehicle had been released on Superdari by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate and, therefore, the vehicle could not be confiscated without prior permission of the concerned M.M. And third, that the appellant had been falsely implicated under the Excise Act.The Financial Commissioner rejected the contention that the Excise Act was not applicable, as he found that the petitioner was involved in transporting liquor to Delhi from Ladpur Village, which falls on the border of Haryana.Since the liquor had been imported into Delhi from another State without necessary licence/permission, the same fell foul of the provisions of Section 33 of the Excise Act. The W.P. (C) 4760/2014 Page 5 of 29 Financial Commissioner also rejected the petitioner's contention that any prior permission of the learned M.M. was required before confiscating the vehicle under Section 58 and 59 of the Excise Act. He reasoned that the confiscation proceedings were independent of the prosecution for commission of an offence under Section 33 of the Excise Act. And, therefore, no such permission was necessary.The Financial Commissioner also found no merit in the petitioner's contention that he had been falsely implicated.W.P. (C) 4760/2014 Page 5 of 29In view of the above, the Financial Commissioner rejected the petitioner's appeal by the impugned order dated 11.04.2014 (which is impugned in the present petition).Mr. Vimal Puggal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders, essentially, on two fronts.The owner of the said vehicle (one Narender) filed an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate for release of the vehicle on security. | ['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,992,972 | Mr. A. Majeed Memon, Advocates for the applicant.Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State- Respondent.Mr. Shishir Hiray, Advocate for Ist informant.ORDER PRONOUNCED : 7th OCTOBER, 2013 ORAL ORDER :1 The applicants are the accused in a case arising out of C.R. No. I - 63/2013 of Sheel Dahighar Police Station, Thane.The said C.R. was initially registered in respect of offences punishable under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 304 of IPC, Section 337 of IPC, Section 338 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.The applicants were arrested on 06.04.2013 by the Crime Branch, Thane and were produced before the Magistrate on 07.04.2013 for obtaining their remand in police custody.In the course of investigation, the accusation of some other offences also came to be levelled against the applicants and other accused in this case.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 :::Being aggrieved thereby, the applicants have approached this Court contending that on the expiry of 60 days from the date of their first remand in custody, they were entitled to be released on bail, as the investigation had not been completed till that time.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 :::Tilak 3/14 BA-1118-13I have heard Mr. Majeed Memon, the learned counsel for the applicants.I have also heard Smt. S.D. Shinde, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed an affidavit of the Investigating Officer, - Shri Pandit Kendre, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, - for opposing the present application.He made it clear that he was seeking bail only on the ground that the applicants had been detained beyond the maximum period ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 ::: Tilak 4/14 BA-1118-13 permitted by law, which according to him, as aforesaid, was 60 days from the date on which the applicants' detention into custody was first authorised.I have, therefore, not examined the merits of the matter i.e. the reliability of the material, said to be available against the applicants and whether a prima facie case of the alleged offences has been made out against them.I have examined the matter only from the point of view, as to whether, a right to be released on bail, mandatorily, had accrued in favour of the applicants in accordance with aforesaid relevant provisions and whether such right has been wrongly denied to them.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 :::His emphasis was on the position that even assuming that the allegations levelled against the applicants amount to an offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC, still, they would amount to an offence punishable under Part II of Section 304 of IPC and not Part I thereof.He submitted that the offence falling under Section 304 Part II is punishable with a maximum term of imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and that, therefore, the maximum period of detention pending investigation as permissible under law would be only 60 days.He submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge wrongly held the offence to be one falling ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 ::: Tilak 5/14 BA-1118-13 under Part-I of Section 304 of IPC and denied bail to the applicants on the reasoning that the period of detention pending investigation, therefore, could be upto 90 days, which period was not over when the applicants sought their release on bail by referring to the relevant provisions of law.(i) ninety days, where the ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 ::: Tilak 6/14 BA-1118-13 investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 :::Tilak 9/14 BA-1118-13I have carefully considered this matter.In order to ensure that the claim of investigation being into an offence punishable under section 467 of IPC was not baseless, and/or not made only with an object of defeating the relevant provisions of law, which provide for compulsory release of accused persons if investigation would not be completed within the specified period, I had called for the case diaries.I have glanced through the case diaries.It is not in dispute that the accusation of an offence punishable under section 467 of IPC came to be levelled on 29.04.2013 and the said offence, as also the offences punishable ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 ::: Tilak 10/14 BA-1118-13 under Section 420 of IPC, Section 467 of IPC, Section 468 of IPC, Section 471 of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC were added in the case.Subsequently, the allegation of an offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has also been levelled in the case.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 :::In the course of arguments, I have ascertained from the record, as to how the question of 'forgery' arose in a case which is basically of homicidal deaths, as a result of the collapse of a building.In order to understand this aspect of the matter, a brief reference to the facts of the case as alleged by the investigating agency would be necessary.The applicants are said to be doing the business of building construction though, they do not have the requisite qualifications/knowledge or permission.That, the applicants and the some other accused, in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched between them and/or in furtherance of the common intention of all of them, secured some land belonging to tribals, by preparing forged documents, though such transactions were prohibited by law.Thus, the allegation is of their having committed forgery of certain documents for taking possession of a certain land for the purpose of carrying out construction work thereon.That, thereafter, the applicants, without the requisite permission of the Thane Municipal Corporation, hurriedly constructed a building on a part of the land so acquired.That, the entire construction work was got done hurriedly without bothering for the quality thereof.That, such improper, illegal construction work was carried out inspite of fully ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 ::: Tilak 11/14 BA-1118-13 being aware of the fact that this could create danger to the lives and property of several persons.A number of forged documents were prepared to show that the construction work that had been carried out, was authorized and as per law.For constructing the building in this manner, the applicants had bribed the Municipal Officers.That, the building ultimately collapsed, resulting in the death of 74 person and causing injuries to 62 persons.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 :::In the facts of the case, considering the manner in which the land was acquired, construction was carried out, permissions from the concerned authorities were obtained - or falsely claimed and shown to have been obtained - the commission of an offence punishable under section 467 of IPC could very well be suspected and it, therefore, cannot be said that investigation into this aspect of the matter was not necessary.Though the offence of forgery came to be suspected while investigating into the case of homicidal deaths arising on account of the collapse of a building, the manner in which the building came to be constructed could not be taken out of the purview of the investigation that was going on.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 :::As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that, as in this case, the investigation related to offences at least one of which was punishable with imprisonment for life, sub-clause (i) of clauseThe prayer for release on bail is made by the applicants on technical grounds.When a party seeking relief purely on a technical ground, fails to get the same, also on a technical ground, all that can be said is that the Law has operated evenly.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 :::The application is rejected.(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J) ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:23:48 ::: | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,999,006 | List after four weeks. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,999,298 | Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State.Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail but could not dispute the fact .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 HIS 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.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 19.10.2020 Vikram | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,002,282 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.503/2017 registered at Police Station Cantt, District Guna for the offence punishable under section 420 of the IPC.Prosecution story, in short, is that two Buses reflecting the same registration number were seized, one of which is operated by the present applicant.In response, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application and prays for its rejection.Besides, the applicant has criminal antecedents to his discredit, inasmuch as Crime No. 583/17 is also registered against him for the offences punishable under sections 341, 294, 323, 506 and 427 of the IPC in which he is absconding.State of M.P.) of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant to the prayer made for regular bail.The application, therefore, stands dismissed, However, if the applicant moves an application for regular bail after surrendering to custody, the Court concerned would do well to consider the same, in accordance with law, on the day it is filed.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTAVA 2017.11.30 14:10:38 +05'30' | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,007,725 | sh This is third application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant e of bail.a The applicant has been arrested on 14/06/2017 in connection hy with Crime No.24/2017 registered at Police Station Crime ad Branch, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 120-B of M IPC, Section 3(1)(2)(4) of MP Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, Section 45-S/58-B(5-A) of RBI Act and of Sections 4, 5, 6 of Price Chits and Money Circulation Scheme/ rt Banning Act.ou This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant for C grant of interim bail for a period of one month on the ground of h ill-health.ig The State has filed the health report of the applicant, H according to which the applicant is found to be suffering from LT INGUINAL HERNIA and has been advised for operation of HERNIA.For the purpose of operation, certain tests are to be required and the applicant shall be sent to JA Group of Hospital, Gwalior. | ['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. |
193,010,295 | 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.43734/2020 (Nandram Sharma Vs.State of M.P.) Gwalior, Dated : 11.11.2020 Shri Lokendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Padamshri Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.Shri Naval Kishor Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant.In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.Heard on I.A.No.21452/2020, application under Section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting the Public Prosecutor in the matter.For the reasons mentioned in the said application, I.A.No.21452/2020 is allowed and Shri Naval Kishor Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 24.08.2020 by Police Station Badoni, District Datia (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.93/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 324, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and further added Sections 307 and 325 of 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.43734/2020 (Nandram Sharma Vs.State of M.P.) IPC.It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that as per the prosecution story, the allegation against the present applicant is of inflicting injury on the head of the injured Sher Singh.It is argued that initially the offence under Section 324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC was alleged and subsequently the offence under Sections 307 and 325 of IPC has been enhanced.It is argued that there is a cross-case registered at Crime No.94/2020 against the complainant wherein the present applicant is also sustained injuries.There is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicant as the investigation is over in the matter.Counsel for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution story, the applicant was armed with an Axe and there is no injury on the head by sharp cutting object.The injury on the head is said to have inflicted by hard and blunt object and it is not a case of prosecution that the injury was inflicted from the blunt side of Axe.The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this court while considering the application for grant of bail and the applicant has shown his willingness to contribute an amount of Rs.5000/- towards the High Court Bar Association Fund during the Covid-19 pandemic.Counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State as well as counsel for the complainant has opposed the application stating that there is specific allegation of inflicting injury on the head of the injured Sher Singh by an Axe which has resulted into fracture of parietal region.It is submitted that a specific query was put to the Doctor and the query reported dated 09.06.2020 has been submitted wherein it is clearly mentioned that the injury on the head is dangerous to life.It is argued that mere filing of charge sheet does not absolve the applicant from that and the same does not dilute the gravity of the offence submitted by him.Counsel for the complainant has pointed out that the accused persons armed with weapons have come to the field and caused the incident.The injuries to the accused persons are simple in nature, therefore, the offence under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC was registered as a counter blast.The aforesaid injuries are said to have inflicted owing to the fact that the complainants have tried to defend themselves then the accused persons attacked them.They have prayed for dismissal of the bail application.Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is a specific allegation against the present applicant of inflicting injury on the head of Sher Singh which 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.43734/2020 (Nandram Sharma Vs.Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is rejected.E-copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order. | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,014,155 | It is not in dispute that Mahesh (since deceased) was working in a Hotel at Village Ghunghuti with Bachhu (PW5) for the last 10 years.Prosecution case, in brief, is that against the backdrop of a recent quarrel, on 20/5/97, appellant informed Bachhu at his Hotel, that he will kill Mahesh and after a while, in the evening, Parvati (PW1) came at the Hotel and informed Bachhu that Mahesh was 2 Cr.A. No.3032/1999 brutally assaulted by the appellant with a cricket Bat.Bachhu rushed to the spot and saw that Mahesh was lying on a cot in a severely injured condition and was breathing sparsely .While he was taking Mahesh to Police Station, near the Hotel, Mahesh succumbed to the injuries thus caused.Thereafter, at 7.30 a.m. First Information Report (Ex.P/4) was lodged by Bachhu at Kotwali Shahdol, whereupon Morgue No.63/97 (Ex.P/16) was registered.Dr. Mukund Chaturvedi (PW8), who conducted the autopsy, vide his report (Ex.P/9), noted as follows:"Lacerated wound present over left maxillary region and left temporal and frontal region.Vertically directed.Frontal and temporal bones fractured bilaterally.There is fracture of left maxilla also.Fracture of right tibia and fibula compound in nature.Lacerated wound present at the mid 1/3rd of right leg anteriorly".Child witness Vinay deposed that when he along with his friends was playing in the ground situated in front of his house, a man came and after snatching the Bat from Adarsh, went to the house of Mahesh, from where they heard the sound of assaulting someone.He categorically identified the appellant as the person who had snatched the Bat from Adarsh.He also deposed that he had informed the incident to his Bua (aunt) Parvati.During investigation, Bat used for committing the offence, was seized at the instance of the appellant and as per the Forensic Science Lab report (Ex.P/18), human blood was found on the Bat.According to him, cause of death was extensive laceration of brain caused by comminuted fracture of skull vault brought about by strike by hard and blunt object associated with compound fracture of tibia and fibula.Mode of death was coma as a result of head injury.Appellant was charged with the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.Appellant denied the charge and pleaded false implication.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the judgment of conviction deserved to be set aside.She submitted that the appellant is in jail for the last more than 13 years and, therefore, his case may be considered compassionately.In response, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction is well merited.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have perused the evidence and material on record.Parvati Bai (PW1), Vinay (PW2), Sudarshan Prasad (PW3), Shivbhajan (PW4), Bachhu (PW5), Shrinivas (PW6), Adarsh Kumar Pandey (PW7), Dr. Mukund Chaturvedi (PW8), Pannalal (PW9), C.M.Pandey (PW10), Head Constable Mahabali (PW11) and Investigating Officer S.S.Mishr (PW12) were examined by the prosecution to bring home the charges.Child witness Adarsh, though was declared hostile, yet in answer to the leading questions, admitted that appellant had snatched the Bat from him, went to the house of Mahesh and assaulted Mahesh.He further deposed that he had informed about the incident to Bua of Vinay viz. Parvati Bai.Parvati Bai deposed that on 20/5/1997 when she was going to her home at Village Ghunghuti, near her house kids Adarsh Pandey and Vinay Kumar met her and informed that one Bhatiya had snatched their Bat.She pointed in the Court towards the appellant and stated that he is also known as Bhatiya.She further deposed that she went to get their Bat back and found that Mahesh was lying injured on his cot in an unconscious condition.Then she went to the hotel of Bachhu and informed him.Bachhu deposed that FIR (Ex.P/4) was lodged by him.He deposed that Parvati Bai had come to his Hotel and informed him that Mahesh was assaulted by someone.He went to the house of Mahesh and saw that he was lying on his cot with blood oozing from 4 Cr.A. No.3032/1999 his head.Thereafter, he along with Sarpanch Satyanarayan Shivhare had gone to Police Station Shahdol and lodged the FIR.14. S.S.Mishr, Investigating Officer, deposed that he had seized the Bat at the instance of the appellant.Pannalal, witness of seizure, has admitted his signatures on the corresponding seizure memo (Ex.P/13).As per FSL Report (Ex.P/18), human blood was found on the seized Bat.Thus, it is quite vivid, that the evidence of the aforesaid material witnesses are in complete corroboration and conformity with each other.Nothing could be elicited in their cross-examination, so as to suggest that they were interested in incriminating the appellant on absolutely false grounds.Minor contradictions and omissions, that did not go to the root of the case, were rightly ignored by the trial Court.Moreover, the injuries allegedly caused by Bat were corroborated by medical evidence.In the aforesaid premises and after appreciating the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or perversity in convicting and sentencing the appellant.The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,145,870 | By committing the above described grave murder in the public in a busy residential cum business area, in the busy day time, at the centre of Chennai City, he has created alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.On the basis of this allegation Crime No. 707/2006 on the file of Periayamedu police station has been registered along with several others under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 302 and 506(2) I.P.C. Subsequently, the two detenus were in custody and remand orders have been passed from time to time.In other words, the orders of detention are passed only on a single incident indicated in the grounds of detention and there is no allegation of his alleged involvement in any other case on any earlier occasion. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,951,479 | There was no old enmity between me and Matadin and Ramsingh.This is my oral report.On it I told him, "I am a businessman and I am not showing Rangdari (over smartness).Thereupon, Matadin said, "Maro Sale Ko (Abusive term)".Immediately, Ramsingh assaulted me with knife on my stomach.WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.171 OF 1998 J U D G M E N TD.P. WADHWA, J.These two appeals have been separately filed by twoappellants against common judgment dated February 11, 1997of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) upholding theconviction of the appellants under Section 302 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') andsentence of imprisonment for life awarded to both of them.The appellant Matadin in Criminal Appeal No. 835 of 1997 andappellant Ramsingh in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1998 wererespectively arrayed as accused Nos. 4 and 1 in the trialcourt.The appellants were tried along with four others foroffences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC.Duringthe trial one of the accused died and three of them wereacquitted.The learned additional Sessions Judge held thatprosecution had failed to prove that the accused weremembers of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of commonobject of such assembly had committed the offence of riotingwith deadly weapons.He, however, held that Ramsingh (inCriminal Appeal No. 747 of 1998) and Matadin (in Criminalappeal No. 835 of 1997) committed offence punishable underSection 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each ofthem to imprisonment for life.Their conviction andsentence, as noted above, were upheld by the High Court.Aggrieved, appellants approached this Court underArticle 136 of the Constitution and this Court did grantthem leave to appeal.Conviction of the appellants is based on the dyingdeclaration of the deceased (Ashok) and the two eyewitnesses, namely, Satish Waghmare (PW-1) and Anil SinghBias (PW.2).The incident as it happened can be bestdescribed by the statement, which the deceased made to thepolice after he was attacked and consequent upon his deathbecame a dying declaration and in his dying declarationwhich was recorded at 11.30 P.M. on the same day by anExecutive Magistrate, which are as under:-1. Report lodged by the deceased with the police:-"I reside in Gaushala Ward and do the business of selling vegetables.This day 6-6-86 at about 10-00 o'clock in the night, I along with Anil Bias, Narayan Tondhare and Satish Waghmare were standing talking together in Paras Chowk.Matadin, Udelal, Shivdayal, Ramsingh and other two persons whose names are not known to me, were also present there.When I started talking with Matadin, he said to me, "Do not be a Rangdar (over smart)".On it, I replied, "How a vegetable seller like me can show Rangdari (over smartness)".On it, Matadin said, "Maro sale Ko (Abusive term)".Thereupon, Ramsingh took out knife and suddenly assaulted with it on my stomach and with the same knife assaulted on my back also.After making assault, they ran away.then, the person with me brought me to Police Station.It has been read over to me.It has been recorded correctly as per my versions.(sd) Ashok"2. dying declaration of the deceased :-"Statement K.T.S. Hospital Shri Ashok alias Chataku son of Rajasingh Chauhan, aged 25 years, by occupation Vegetable Seller, resident of Gaushala Ward, Gondia, I state on oath as under :- At about 10.00 o'clock, I along with Anil Bias, Narayan Tondhare, Satish Waghmare and others were standing in Parashar Chowk.At that time, Matadin, Udelal, shivdayal, Ramsingh and two other persons came there.Matadin talked with me and said to me, "do not try to be Rangdar (over smart)".Then, all the persons ran away.Thereafter, I took Satish and Narayan with me and came to Police Station and lodged report.Then, I was brought to hospital.There is an injury caused by knife on my stomach.I have no enmity with anybody I cannot say as to why i was assaulted." "Sd/-Executive Magistrate, Dt. 6-6-86 11.30 in the night"Both the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Courtfound enough corroboration in the statements of both the eyewitnesses to the dying declarations.Both the witnessestestified that when along with the deceased and two othersthey were sitting in the Paras Chowk, Matadin, Ramsingh,Shivdayal, Udelal and two others came there.The deceasedaddressing Matadin said "Mama, Ram Ram".Matadin retorted asto why has was showing "Rangdari" (over smartness), to whichthe deceased replied that he was a petty shopkeeper and howcould he show Rangdari (over smartness).At this Matadin, inabusing terms, said "Maro sale ko".It was then thatRamsingh, who was wearing a button knife on his waist, tookout the same and stabbed with it in the abdomen of thedeceased.While the deceased Ashok in his statement beforethe police said that Ramsingh not only assaulted him withhis knife on his abdomen but also on his back, theprosecution case was that after Ramsingh had assaulted onhis stomach he (Ashok) along with his friends startedrunning from the scene and it was Matadin who gave a blowwith 'gupti' on the back of the deceased.This giving ofblow with 'gupti' by Matadin was stated by the two eyewitnesses but this part of the version has not been believedby the trial court.However, the fact remains that thedeceased suffered injuries not only on his stomach but alsoon his back as well.The stab wound in his abdomen was ofthe size 2 c.m.deep and 1/2 c.m. wide.The deceased was inhospital for about ten days when the doctors was in hospitalfor about ten days when the doctors attending him triedtheir best to save him but he died on June 15, 1986 becauseof injury in his abdomen.On the basis of the evidence on record the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge held that Ramsingh assaulted thevictim Ashok (deceased) with knife on account of which hesustained injury to his abdomen resulting in his death andas such he committed an offence punishable under Section 302IPC.He further held that Matadin cried the words "maro saleko" and by that way instigated Ramsingh and other accused,who were with him, to assault the victim Ashok but onlyRamsingh assaulted him on the saying of Matadin on accountof use of the words "maro sale ko" and thus Matadin wasguilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 read withsection 34 IPC.Dr. Pradip (PW-3) in hisdeposition stated that the injury caused to the abdomen ofthe deceased was sufficient in the normal course to causedeath.This statement of Dr.At the time of crime he was 25 years ofage.Ramsingh was a milk vender and Matadin was a municipalcouncilor.It was at the instigation of Matadin thatRamsingh inflicted stab wound which resulted in the death ofAshok.P.C. and particularly, to proviso to sub-section (1) thereof which provides, inter alia, that in acase where an order for payment of compensation our of thefine imposed, is made the fine be realised even if theconvict had undergone imprisonment in default of paymentthereof.Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1998, filed by Ramsingh, isdismissed.Criminal Appeal No. 835 of 1997, filed by Matadin, ispartly allowed.Appellant Matadin is convicted for anoffence under Section 324 read with section 110 IPC andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the periodalready undergone by him and to a fine of Rs. 50,000/- andin default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorousimprisonment for a period of nine months.The appeals are disposed of accordingly. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,149,822 | Case diary is available.Since both the Misc.Criminal Cases have arisen from the same Crime Number (Crime No.86/2019), they have been analogously heard and are being disposed of by this common order.Heard on these first applications for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.86/2019 registered by Police Station Shikarpura, District Burhanpur under Sections 354, 354-A and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, applicant Mohammad Ali is the Upsarpanch of Village Aimagird and applicant Mohammad Anees is the President of Wakf Kabristan Committee, Aimagird.On 09.01.2019 at about 10:30 pm, they entered into the residential house of prosecutrix, aged about 35 years, situated at Shikarpura under the jurisdiction of Police Station Shikarpura, District Burhanpur, on the pretext that they allot her comparatively bigger plot in the Wakf property instead of small one, which was allotted to her, if she will facilitate them the liberty of sexual advancement.When the prosecutrix refused then they used criminal force against her and have tried to outrage her modesty by molesting her after lying down on the bed.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 12/03/2019 22:17:27 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-9867-2019 (MOHAMMAD ANEES Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) MCRC-9864-2019 (MOHAMMAD ALI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 Report of the incidence has been lodged by the prosecutrix, on that basis the aforementioned crime has been registered against the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence and have falsely been implicated in the crime.It is further submitted there is a delay of one month in lodging the FIR.The prosecutrix blackmailed the applicants to execute the rental agreement in her favour.In view of the aforesaid, a prayer has been made to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the anticipatory bail applications and submitted that the applicants have actively participated in the crime.In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail applications filed on their behalf deserve to be dismissed.On behalf of the prosecutrix, it is also alleged that prior to some days of the Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 12/03/2019 22:17:27 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-9867-2019 (MOHAMMAD ANEES Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) MCRC-9864-2019 (MOHAMMAD ALI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 incidence, applicant Mo. Anees was trying to contact her on mobile phone to facilitate him for sexual advancement.No mobile record of the prosecutrix or applicant appears to have been seized by the prosecution agency.The said crime is alleged to have been committed by the applicants in residential house of the prosecutrix where her mother, brother, daughter-in-law, grand son also appears to be stayed.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants and looking to the allegations made against the applicants, in the opinion of this Court, applicants deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail.Consequently, these first applications for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of applicants are allowed.It is directed that in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and a solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for their appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 12/03/2019 22:17:27 | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,150,500 | I have considered the submissions and perused record.Manjoo died on the spot due to rash and negligent driving of revisionist.The order-sheet shows that after admission of this revision on 19.02.1991, it has been listed in the Court for disposal only on 19.01.2015 and even then the courts below record have not been received.This is a sorry state of affairs on the administrative side of this Court.The victims continued to wait for adequate punishment to the guilty person but the system of administration of justice intervenes.Many a times at lower level the conviction and sentence takes place within a reasonable time but then on the higher level it gets delayed, some times for extraordinary longer period, like 26 years in the present case.Despite repeated query, learned counsel for the revisionists could not point out any manifest illegality in the concurrent findings of fact and also could not show that any relevant evidence has been ignored or omitted or inadmissible evidence has been relied or there is any other manifest error in the judgment. | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,152,399 | The appellant, however, jumped the bail.On coming to know of this, the learned Additional Sessions Judge issued warrants of arrest of the appellant which were received back unexecuted.He thereafter reported that the warrants of arrest of the appellant were received back with the report that the appellant was not residing in the village of which she had given the address in her bail cum surety bond.It was also mentioned in the report that the appellant did not own any movable or immovable property in the said village and she had furnished false address.The appellant was convicted under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) vide judgment dated 14.12.1999 and vide order on sentence dated 16.12.1999 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of three months.The appellant has challenged the said judgment and order on sentence by filing the present appeal.A. No.30 of2000 Page 1 of 8A. No.30 of2000 Page 1 of 8The appellant applied for interim suspension of sentence on the ground of her daughter's marriage.Vide Order dated 09.07.2002, the appellant was granted interim bail for a period of two months for the said purpose on the appellant furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount.On consideration of said report, fresh non-bailable warrants were directed to be issued against the appellant from time to time.Even directions were issued for initiating the proceedings under Section 446(2) Cr.P.C. against the sureties and that matter was referred to the Trial Court.As per the report of Shri V.P. Dahiya, SHO, P.S. Badarpur dated 18.11.2009 despite all sincere efforts, appellant CRL.A. No.30 of2000 Page 2 of 8 Kamlesh could not even be located at Saurabh Vihar, Badarpur, New Delhi address and there was no clue about the present whereabouts.The appeal was dismissed after making the aforesaid observations.The appellant jumped the bail and has been absconding for a number of years. | ['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. |
195,154,308 | /511/379/506(2)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the petitioner no. 2 while the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are their relations.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee J.) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 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.