id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,951,650 | (a) Accused Seenuvasan and the deceased Kasi are cousin brothers.P.W.1 Ramayee is the wife of the deceased Kasi.(b) On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 22.3.2001 at about 3.00 p.m., accused Seenuvasan came to the house of the deceased Kasi and requested him to come along with him to the rice mill so that he could assist him in hulling the paddy kept in the rice mill.Accordingly, the deceased accompanied the accused to the rice mill.P.W.1 Ramayee, the wife of the deceased Kasi also went to the rice mill along with her husband.(c) While hulling the paddy, there was a wordy altercation between the deceased Kasi and the accused Seenuvasan.All of a sudden, the accused took a wooden log which was used as an engine basement found available near him and beat the deceased on his head.When P.W.1 Ramayee intervened, the accused threw away the wooden log and gave hand-blows on the face and nose of the deceased.The accused then took the iron rod which was available in the rice mill and holding the iron rod, he gave a threat to the deceased.Thereafter, the accused escaped from the scene of occurrence.(d) The deceased-victim, who sustained injuries on the head, was immediately taken to Kallakurichi Government Hospital.He was admitted on 22.3.2001 at about 5.10 p.m. Thereafter, he was referred to Salem Government Hospital.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.Seenuvasan, the appellant herein, had been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 506 (Part-II) IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment respectively.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused.Brief facts could be stated as under:(e) On 23.3.2001, on receipt of the intimation, P.W.10 Head Constable came to the Salem Government Hospital and recorded Ex.P-1 complaint from P.W.1 Ramayee, the wife of the deceased at about 11.00 a.m. and registered a case for the offences under Sections 294, 323 and 506 (Part-II) IPC.(f) P.W.11 Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence; observed all the formalities and recovered M.O.1 wooden log and M.O.2 iron rod.Intimation was sent to the Police Station.P.W.11 Inspector of Police took up further investigation and altered the F.I.R. into one under Sections 302 and 506 (Part-II) IPC.He conducted inquest and examined the witnesses.(h) On 28.3.2001, P.W.11 Inspector of Police arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody.In the meantime, the body was sent for conducting post-mortem.(i) P.W.8 Doctor conducted the post-mortem and issued Ex.P-5 post-mortem certificate giving an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to head injuries.(j) After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences referred to above.During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-9 were filed and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked.The plea of the appellant/accused during the course of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is one of denial.The trial Court, after analysing the evidence available on record, concluded that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the offences referred to above and thereby convicted the accused and sentenced him thereunder.According to the prosecution, the deceased Kasi was taken to rice mill by the accused Seenuvasan and in the mill, there was a wordy altercation between the accused Seenuvasan and the deceased Kasi.Accused Seenuvasan took the wooden log found available in the rice mill and attacked the deceased on his head, which resulted in his death in the Salem Government Hospital.P.W.1 Ramayee is the wife of the deceased Kasi.P.W.4 Govindan and P.W.5 Subbu were present in the rice mill at the time of occurrence.As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, all the prosecution witnesses except P.W.3 Murugesan turned hostile.Merely because the prosecution witnesses except P.W.3 turned hostile, it cannot be contended that the evidence of P.W.3 Murugesan also has to be brushed aside.On the other hand, if we go through the evidence of P.W.3 Murugesan, it is clear that P.W.3 Murugesan is a natural and independent witness, who was present in the rice mill as he happened to be the owner of the rice mill when the occurrence took place and has given clear narration of the incident which took place.The evidence of P.W.7 Dr. Premkumar who gave treatment to the deceased Kasi initially and P.W.8 Dr. Vallinayagam who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased, would indicate that the deceased sustained injuries on the head, which resulted in his death.The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'.As a matter of fact, the accused himself came to the house of the deceased and took him to the rice mill so as to assist him in hulling the paddy.The deceased also willingly went to the rice mill to help the accused.On the other hand, a wordy quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased while the hulling work was on.So, out of heat of passion, the accused took the weapon which was found available in the scene of occurrence and gave a single blow on the head of the deceased.Of course, it is true that P.W.8 Dr. Vallinayagam who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased, would mention in Ex.P-5 post-mortem certificate about the injuries sustained by the deceased.The evidence of P.W.8 Doctor adduced before the Court would indicate that the death was due to the injuries caused on the head of the deceased.The deceased died in the Salem Government Hospital only on 27.3.2001, i.e. after four days to the occurrence.Under those circumstances, we are of the view that the accused Seenuvasan, in a sudden fight and out of heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel, took the weapon which was found available near him and gave a single blow on the head of the deceased.Ultimately, the accused is liable to be convicted only for the lesser offence, namely Section 304 (Part-I) IPC.Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC are set aside and instead, he is convicted for the offence under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 506 (Part-II) IPC imposed by the trial Court are confirmed.The sentences imposed on the appellant/accused shall run concurrently. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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. |
195,168,042 | Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE vinay Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 28/02/2019 17:38:48Heard on the point of admission.Applicant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections451 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year along with fine in the sum of Rs.200/-, under Section 354 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year along with fine in the sum of Rs.200/- and under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year along with fine in the sum of Rs.200/-.Perused the statement of witnesses recorded before the Court below.Victim and applicants are the near relatives.There was a rivalry between the victim's family and applicant's family.Criminal and civil cases are pending in the Courts among them.This revision is having arguable point, therefore it is admitted for final hearing in due course.Heard on I.A.No.1499/2019 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 09.04.2019 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 28/02/2019 17:38:48 2 CRR-438-2019 regard, the remaining part of the custodial sentence imposed upon the applicant shall stands suspended and he shall be released on bail. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,180,762 | Second supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.It is further submitted that there is criminal history of four cases against the applicant, which is explained in the second supplementary affidavit.He is languishing in jail since 10.6.2019 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. | ['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. |
1,951,809 | Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Since, the only question involved in this appeal iswhether learned Single Judge was right in reducing thesentence, as imposed by the trial court on respondent,detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary.Respondent faced trial for alleged commission ofoffences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 341 of the 1 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC').He wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, sixmonths and six months respectively for the aforesaid threeoffences.The reason hasnot only to be adequate but also special. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,185,477 | ^^1- ;g fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;ksxh ds }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k dh mDr dEiuh eSllZ fMokbZu ¼bf.M;k½ bUnzkLV~Dpj izk0 fy0 ds }kjk foKfIr lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 5&12&2004 dks ,d feuh ,e0vkbZ0th0 QySV la[;k&9 fLFkr ch Cykd fMokbZu O;w ikdZ vikVZesUV vHk; [k.M r`rh; bUnzkiqje xkft;kckn esa cqfdax /kujkf'k vadu 50]000@& :i;s dk Hkqxrku dj cqfdax djk;h Fkh ftldh jlhn la[;k 093 fnukafdr 5&12&2004 mDr dEiuh ds vf/kd`r gLrk{kjh fnus'k dqekj ds }kjk lEifRr Lfky ij fLFkr {ks=h; dk;kZy; ,&1 fMokbZu ikdZ O;w vikVZesUV vHk; [k.M r`rh; bUnzkiqje xkft;kckn ls tkjh dh x;h FkhA 2- ;g dh izkFkhZ@vfHk;ksxh ds }kjk mDR cqfdax ls igys fnukad 4&12&2004 dks vfHk;qDrx.k jktho 'kekZ o fnus'k dqekj ls mDr {ks=h; dk;kZy; ij gh lEidZ dj ds tc mDr lEifRr o Hkou vkfn ds lEcU/k esa iwNrkN dh x;h Fkh rks vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk izkFkhZ dh iRuh Jherh lhek xzksoj o Jh jktsUnz dqekj ds lkeus gh crk;k x;k Fkk fd mDr lEifRr gj rjg ls fookn jfgr gS rFkk vxys 4 ekg esa gh QySV dh jftLV~h vkids uke ij dj nh tk;sxhA vkSj mDr lEifRr dks [kjhnus ds fy;s gkse yksu vkfn Hkh izkFkhZ dks fnyok nsus dh ckr djrh Fkh vkSj ;s Hkh crk;k Fkk fd ;fn vfHk;ksxh pkgs rks dgha ls Hkh gkse yksu ys ldrk gsA 3- ;g fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds crk;s vuqlkj djhc 15 fnu ds ckn fnukad 21-12-2004 dks izkFkhZ@vfHk;ksxh iqu% vfHk;qDrx.kksa ls feyk rks vfHk;qDrx.k us izkFkhZ@vfHk;ksxh dks ,xzhesUV Vw lSy MhM@bdjkjukek fnukafdr 3-12-2004 dh QksVks dkih nsdj dgk fd mlds vk/kkj ij vki yksu ys ldrs gSaA 4- ;g fd mDRk ,xzhesUV Vw lsy MhM@bdjkjukek ds vk/kkj ij dbZ cSadksa ls lEidZ djus ij irk pyk fd mDr MhM ds vk/kkj ij yksu ugha fey ldrk D;skafd mDr MhM ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDrx.k mDR lEifRr ds ,d ek= Lokeh ugha gS vkSj uk gh mUgs QySV vkfn cspus dk vf/kdkj gSA tSlk fd MhM dh /kkjk 7] 8 esa fy[kk gSA 5- ;g fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;ksxh us fnukad 27-1-2005 dks okil vkdj mDr ckrs vfHk;qDr jktho 'kekZ dks crk;h rks vfHk;qDr izkFkhZ ls ukjkt gks x;k vkSj dgus yxk fd geus rsjh cqfdax dSfUly dj nh gS vkSj cqfdax /kujkf'k tCr gks x;h gS vc rq>ls tks gks dj ysukA 6- ;g fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;ksxh ds }kjk dbZ ckj lEidZ djus o fnukad 8&4&2005 dks fyf[kr uksfVl fnyokus ds ckn Hkh vfHk;qDrx.k mijksDr us u rks izkFkhZ@vfHk;ksxh ds uksfVl dk dksbZ tcko fn;k vkSj uk gh izkFkhZ@vfHk;ksxh dh cqfdax /kujkf'k okil dh gSA 7- ;g fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk /kks[kk/kMh djds csbZekuh ds bZjkns ls izkFkhZ@vfHk;ksxh dh /kujkf'k vadu 50]000@& :i;s cqfdax ds uke ij tek djkdj gMi yh x;h gSA 8- ;g fd vfHk;qDrx.k dks cafdax /kujkf'k tCr djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA 9- ;g fd vfHk;qDrx.k dk mDr d`R; Hkkjrh; n.On this, the accused got displeased with the applicant and started saying, "We have cancelled your booking.The booking amount has been seized.Now, you may do whatever you can."1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State-respondent.This application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by applicants seeking quashing of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3713 of 2005 pending in Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/A.C.J. (C.D.), Court no.3, Ghaziabad.Copy of complaint is Annexure-VI to application and contents thereof from para 1 to 10 reads as under:Muh; vijk/k gSA ftldh lwpuk izkFkhZ ds }kjk fnukad 29-4-05 dks ,l-,l-ih- xkft;kckn dks jftLV~h ds }kjk ns nh x;h gSA vr% Jheku~ th ls izkFkZuk gS fd ckn ysus lcwr o vko';d tkap ds vfHk;qDrx.k dks ryc Qjek;k tkdj nf.That on the basis of the information advertised by Messrs Divine (India) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. of the accused persons, the applicant/complainant got booked a mini MIG flat No. 9 situated at B - Block Divine View Park Apartment, Abhay Khand - III, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad after paying an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the receipt no. 093 dated 05.12.2004 of which was issued by Sri Dinesh Kumar, authorised signatory at the regional office located at property site A-1 Divine Park View Apartment, Abhay Khand III, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad.That the applicant/complainant, before the aforesaid booking, on 04.12.2004, contacted the accused persons, Rajiv Sharma and Dinesh Kumar at the aforementioned regional office and enquired about the aforesaid property and building etc., whereupon in the presence of Seema Grover, wife of the applicant/complainant and Shri Rajendra Kumar, the accused persons told them that the aforementioned property is free of all disputes and the flat would be registered in in his favour in 4 months.They also gave an assurance to manage home loans etc. to the applicant for the purchase of the afore-mentioned property and also stated that, if the complainant desired, he can take home loan from elsewhere.That, as informed by the accused persons, the applicant/complainant again met the accused persons after 15 days on 21.12.2004, and the accused persons, handing a photocopy of the agreement to sale deed/agreement dated 03.12.2004, stated that he could take loan on the basis thereof.That on contacting several banks on the basis of the aforesaid agreement to sale deed/agreement, it came to be known that loan cannot be obtained on the basis of the said deed because the accused, as per the said deed, are neither absolute owners of the said property nor have rights to sell flat etc., as alleged in paras 7 and 8 of the deed.That the applicant/complainant returned on 27.01.2005 and stated the said facts to the accused Rajeev Sharma. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,191,897 | (Order of the court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN.J.,) The matter was heard through "Video Conferencing".2.The Wife of the Detenu has filed this Petition challenging the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent against her husband in Memo No.BCDFGISSSV 871 of 2019 dated 16.12.2019, branding him as 'Goonda' as the Detenu has got six adverse cases apart from one ground case registered against him.It has been observed in the detention order that a case registered at S-15, Selaiyur Police Station in Cr.No.47 of 2018 under Sections 341, 294 (b), 392, 397, 336, 427 and 506 (ii) of Indian Penal Code, bail was granted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu in Crl.BCDFGISSSV 871 of 2019 dated 16.12.2019 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The detenu viz., Boopathy Raja @ Karthik Raja @ Raja S/o.Mayilvanan, aged 25 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.AND V.M.VELUMANI, J.1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Fort St.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.H.C.P.No.45 of 20204.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.45 of 2020 Dated:21.07.2020 5/5http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,193,537 | M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 2 of 106 Section 376 (g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and summoned the petitioners / accused, namely, Sarat Chander, Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur under Section 204 Cr.P.C.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 3 of 106The investigation of the above-noted FIR was undertaken by Special Investigation Team (Crime Branch).Case of the petitioners is that ld.ACMM has taken the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 376 (g) IPC and summoned the petitioners / accused under section 204 Cr.P.C. completely ignoring the fact that Special Investigation Team (Crime Branch) has thoroughly investigated into the allegations leveled by the complainant.Further it is stated that systematic and thorough investigations were carried out by recording statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C of independent persons, conducting medical examination, collecting FSL reports, polygraphs test, DNA profile, collecting and examining call details of the respondent no. 2 / complainant, petitioners and other related persons.Mr. Sanjeev Kr.Dubey, ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur, has submitted that Praveen Bhagava is aged about 54 years and is residing at S-177, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi.He is an Engineer by profession and has been working with Delhi Jal Board since 1983 in various capacities and presently posted as Superintending Engineer (Project) Water-I with Delhi Jal Board .M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 4 of 106Petitioner Ramesh Thakur, is aged about 52 years and is residing at B-27, Sagar Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi.He is also an Engineer by profession and has been working with Delhi Jal Board since 1989 and presently posted as Superintending Engineer (Northwest Circle) with Delhi Jal board.Third petitioner Sarat Chander is also an Engineer by profession and presently staying at E-14/3, DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana and posted as Chief Engineer (Projects) in Delhi Jal Board.Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the investigation has revealed that the respondent no. 2 / complainant is an educated working lady and living with her family, i.e., mother, brother etc. at her permanent address at 80/A, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi (as given by her in her complaint).She is an MBA and also pursued a course of CCTV Report Reading and Paper Report Making from UK.On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 08.10.2006, she was in employment with Kaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd. controlled and operated by one Vijay Kataria, a Contractor with Delhi Jal Board where the petitioners are working.This is the First introduction and educational background of respondent no. 2 / complainant.Further investigation reveals that on interrogation of Sarat Chander he disclosed that the complainant came to his office and introduced herself as Ms. Shivani, claiming to be a student of Journalism and she wanted to collect data to write a story on Sonia Vihar Treatment Plant Project.This fact reveals that the complainant concealed her original identity and had Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 5 of 106 introduced and named herself as Shivani and a student of Journalism.This is the Second introduction of the complainant.M.L. Sharma, owner of B-136, IInd Floor, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, i.e., the alleged site of occurrence and Sh.Sunil Kumar, a property dealer, through whom the said premises were taken on rent by one Ms. Ruby Thakur, another employee of Kaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd. has revealed that Ms. Ruby Thakur had introduced complainant as her sister, who was Doctor and had come to Delhi to complete her internship in Geetanjali Hospital.The complainant was stated to be married and her husband usually live out of town.This is the Third introduction of the complainant.Further investigation revealed that complainant, as per the CD / manual transcript prepared in Hindi of the conversation of petitioner Sarat Chander and Mr. Vijay Kataria, Kaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd. (when the complainant was employed) which was also recorded by petitioner Sarat Chander on his mobile phone and filed with the Cancellation Report, revealed that Vijay Kataria informed Sarat Chander that complainant was a model and doing modeling work.This is the Fourth introduction of the respondent no. 2 / complainant.Mr. Dubey further submitted that undisputedly, complainant was working with above mentioned M/s. Kaveri Infrustructure Pvt. Ltd. as is evident from the appointment letter dated 20.06.2005 collected during investigation.After serving the said Company, the complainant claims to have resigned from the said company w.e.f 22.05.2007, however her call Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 6 of 106 details and her repeated dialogue on phones and SMS with Mr. Vijay Kataria on his mobile phones establishes her constant, continuous affinity with him.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 6 of 106On 24.05.2007, complainant chooses to submit a complaint before Commissioner of Police, New Delhi for the alleged offence on 08.10.2006 inter alia alleging that on the said date, while she was at her friends, i.e., Ms. Ruby Thakurs, tenanted premises at B-136, Second Floor, Shivalik, New Delhi for helping her in shifting to this premise.It was visited by one Sarat Chander, accompanied by two persons, whom he introduced as his colleagues / friends namely Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur (Petitioners herein) all officials working with Delhi Jal Board and said that they would help her in getting a job in Delhi Jal Board.It is further stated that, they were carrying some pastries, which they offered her to eat.After eating the pastries, she felt drowsy.Thereafter, she was physically exploited by all.These persons had sexual intercourse with her one by one without her consent.Thereafter, she regained her consciousness and when her friend Ruby Thakur arrived there, everything was told to her.Counsel for the petitioners submitted that shockingly, the complainant despite such a serious offence, which she alleges has taken place on 08.10.2006 chooses not to file any complaint of any nature till 24.05.2007 either before the Police or any other law enforcing agency and even no plausible explanation of such an enormous delay of more than 8 months has been furnished in the complaint or even subsequently in her protest petition.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 7 of 106He further submitted that although in the complaint dated 24.05.2007 she has made allegations of commission of offences of gang rape, which allegedly took place on 08.10.2006 at Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, whereas she also made complaint of other offences of molestation, extortion, threat etc. which falls under section 354/384/506/34 IPC, which allegedly took place on 09/10.10.2006 at the Office of Delhi Jal Board, Jhandewalan, New Delhi.As per the said complaint, the above said offences were allegedly committed by Senior Officials of Delhi Jal Board, i.e., Ramesh Thakur, Praveen Bhargava, Sarat Chander and B.M. Dhaul.It is pertinent to mention here that in view of the nature of the complaint and repeated allegations, Commissioner of Police marked the said complaint for conducting an enquiry by the Vigilance Department of Delhi Police.Investigation was undertaken by the Special Investigation Team and was assigned to Ms. Jawant Kaur, Inspector (Crime Branch) who recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and statement of Ms. Ruby Thakur under Section 161 Cr.P.C.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 8 of 106Statements of Sh.M.L. Pandey, erstwhile landlord of Ms. Ruby Thakur and owner of premises bearing no. C-34, Malviya Nagar and Sh.M.L. Sharma, owner of the premises bearing no. B-136, Second Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi (the place of alleged incident) which was taken on rent by Ms. Ruby Thakur with effect from 01.10.2006 at a monthly rent of Rs.22,000/-, were recorded.Statement of Sh.Sunil Kumar, property dealer was also recorded.The complainant has claimed that petitioner Sarat Chander had acquaintance with her and called her on 08.10.2006 (on the date of alleged incident) inviting her to come to Tivoli Garden, Mehrauli on the pretext of giving her interview call letter.She had told him that she could not come to the said place as she was helping her friend Ms. Ruby Thakur to shift into B- 136, Second floor, Shivalik, New Delhi.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 9 of 106 Bindu Sharma, W/o, Late Sh.Arvind Sharma reveals that Praveen Bhargava along with his wife had come to visit her ailing husband at Sunder Lal Jain Hosptial, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.The mobile phone location of the petitioners during the said date / time has also been mentioned in the police report.It is bound Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 11 of 106Counsel submits that it is thus quite clear and apparent that the sole aim for making of the complaint and initiation of criminal proceedings at such a belated period of time are and were actuated by the complainant with ulterior motive and sole intent to cause harm to the petitioners by securing their arrest in a totally false and fabricated case FIR knowing fully well that allegations made by her are not only false but at the same time were made under a conspiracy and at the behest of some other persons namely, Vijay Katria etc.He further submitted that right from the starting both the petitioners had cooperated and joined the investigations.They were interrogated, examined and were also asked to submit their blood samples for their DNA profiling.They were also subjected to the polygraphs test (lie detection test).All these persons had been asked to disclose all the information including mobile phone numbers used by them at the relevant time.The FSL vide its report dated 29.02.2008 required the presence of the complainant as also of all suspects for collection of blood samples for matching the DNA profiling generated from the bed sheet.Whereas, as a matter of fact, complainant although had implicated the petitioners and other DJB officials in her complaint / FIR, yet she refused to cooperate with the investigation carried out by the police.She refused to give her blood samples for DNA profiling to match / compare and co-relate with the evidence provided by her, i.e., her clothes and bed sheet despite notice dated Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 12 of 106 09.03.2008 served upon her.On 10.04.2008, this Court while issuing notice to the respondent no. 1 / State directed that the status report be filed within four weeks and by way of interim relief directed that the investigation conducted at this stage will be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition.Counsel further submitted that the pursuant to the above directions respondent no. 1 filed two status reports dated 23.05.2008 and 13.08.2008 before this court.The report dated 23.05.2008 reveals as under:(b) The clothes i.e. Trouser, shirt and underwear stated to have been worn by the petitioners on the day of incident were taken into police possession and was sent for examination at FSL.Result was obtained.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 13 of 106(c) On 21.08.2007 the respondent no. 2 gave one bed sheet having blood stains, claiming the same to be on bed on the day of incident and it was sent to FSL Rohini for examination.Admittedly, this CD was never produced nor submitted, although it is available with Mr. Vijay Kataria (as per audio recording between Sarat Chander and Vijay Kataria).The details of investigation into the issue are also stated in the cancellation report.The conduct of the complainant on the one hand submitting that she was unconscious and her explanation after the alleged incident that she was traumatized and therefore she did not reveal the incident to anyone does not match.Whereas the call details analysis of her mobile phone no. 9818185579 has revealed that she had received an incoming call from Mobile No. 9910222660 at 8.07 PM on the date of incident, i.e., immediately after the occurrence of the incident and the conversation lasted for 290 seconds with Mr. Vijay Kataria.R.P. 208/2012 Page 17 of 106The police in Para 52 of the Cancellation Report noted as under:-It also proves that Ms. Vani Whig was in telephonic contact with Vijay Kataria on the alleged day of incident i.e. 08.10.2006 and had called him up immediately after she had sexual intercourse with Sarat Chander at B-136, Shivalik, Delhi.This finding shows that Ms. Vani Whig and Vijay Kataria were together involved in a conspiracy to lure Sarat Chander to B-136, Shivalik, Delhi on a Sunday evening to implicate him in the present case."It is also stated in the Cancellation Report that relationship between Kataria and the officials of DJB was turning sour, therefore, Mr. Vijay Kataria was making complaint to Lt. Governor against four engineers of DJB.On the issue relating to CD, it is stated in the investigation report that Sant Ram and complainant gave different versions regarding the CD played in the office of Delhi Jal Board.From the finding of the police it is revealed that ex facie motive of complainant is to harass the petitioners and said motive does not require any further evidence in view of the fact that on the one hand she has been insisting for arrest of the petitioners before all forums, Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 18 of 106 on the other hand, she has not been cooperating with the investigation conducted by the officials of respondent no. 1 and monitored by Ld. ACMM.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 18 of 106Petitioner Ramesh Thakur was also interrogated who disclosed that on 08.10.2006, he was at his residence at Rohini.It was Sunday and he visited Sunder Lal Jain Hospital to meet a sick colleague, who suffered heart attack and later died on the same night.Mobile phone records of petitioner Ramesh Thakur were analysed.The Cell ID analysis revealed that on 08.10.2006 he was present in the area of the Rohini during the day time.During the alleged time of incident, i.e., between 06.30 PM till 8 PM on 08.10.2006 his Cell ID location was Rohini, Delhi.During this period, calls were made by him and received by him on his mobile phone.The persons who had spoken to him over that telephone on that day during this period were examined."a. During the course of investigation it has been found that Vijay Kataria has been connected in various capacities i.e. MD/Business and Financial Advisor with Kaveri Infrastructure and is / was a contractor with Delhi Jal Board.b. Vijay Kataria has strained relations with Praveen Bhargava, Ramesh Thakur, Sarat Chander and B.M. Dhaul.Vijay Kataria had filed complaints against these officers with the office of Hon'ble L.G., Delhi.The Engineers themselves had previously filed complaints at various police stations apprehending implication in false cases by Vijay kataria.d. Ms. Vani Whig met Sarat Chander under a fake identity of a report named "Shivani"e. Ms. Vani Whig called Sarat Chander seven times on the day of the incident.f. The accommodation B-136, Shivalik, Delhi was hired by another employee of Kaveri Infrastructure named Ms. Ruby Thakur for which she falsely introduced Ms. Vani Whig as her married sister and for which Ms. Ruby Thakur paid Rs.88,000/- as advance rental for four months.As discussed in detail earlier, neither Ms. Vani Whig nor Ms. Ruby Thakur have offered any plausible reason for hiring this relatively expensive accommodation and the source of funds for the same has also not been disclosed.She was using 9810021490 to call Sarat Chander while she used 9818185579 to keep in regular touch with Vijay Kataria.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 20 of 106h. One the day of the incident at 08.17 pm.Ms. Vani Whig received a call from mobile phone number 9910222660 (Vijay Kataria) and this call lasted for 290 seconds.The cell ID location analysis of mobile phone number 9818185579 (Ms. Vani Whig's phone) reveals that this call began at Cell ID 40661 which is Malviya Nagar, Shivalik, Delhi (Place of occurrence) and ended at Cell ID 8941 which is Malviya Nagar, Delhi (Ms. Vani's residence).She also spoke with someone who called her from her Malviya Nagar residence number 011-65634607 (probably her mother) at 07.56 p.m. (incoming call for 15 seconds) i.e. immediately after the incident, but she chose not to disclose this incident as alleged.He submitted that the analysis of the call details in respect of mobile phone No. 9818185579 on 08.10.2006, which is part of record, is as under:-Date Time Call Type Called - Calling Dur.Cell 1 I Cell 2 -in sec Location 08.10.06 10:37:00 SMS Out 9910222660 - Vijay 1 08941-Malviya Nagar Kataria (VK} 08.10.06 10:37:08 SMS Out 9910222660- (VK) 1 08941 - Malviya Nagar 08.10.06 11:20:10 Outgoing 9810798109- (VK) 13 08941 I 08941 -Malviya Nagar 08.10.06 11;20:39 Outgoing 9910222660- (VK) 159 08941 I 08941 -and found to be used by Vijay Kataria) with relevant details are at page 613 written at bottom of the page with TCR.ii) In respect of phone No. 9818998187 (in the name of Jai Sai Communication - and found to be used by Vijay Kataria) with relevant details are at page 669 to 679 written at bottom of the page with TCR.(iii) In respect of phone No. 9810798109 (in the name of Vijay Kataria) with relevant details are at page 687 written at bottom of the page with TCR.Learned counsel further submitted that the analysis of the call details of these mobile phones have been stated in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Cancellation Report (at pages 95 to 96 of the petition).v) The thorough investigations conducted and conclusions stated in the final report based upon the cogent and clinching material collected not only belies the allegations, but also demolishes the entire stand of the complainant that on the said date she became unconscious after eating the pastries with sedatives.Rather the call record details and the Cancellation Report, conclusively establish that the allegations made by complainant are false.Even if considered to be occurred between 6-8 p.m. as stated during course of arguments, she spoke with someone from her residence at 7.56 p.m, also called Sarat Chander at 8.09 p.m and then was also found to be in constant touch with Vijay Kataria through a call (lasting 290 seconds and also through SMS on the same very mobile number 9910222660) which she denies before the investigating authorities.It is only on the basis of the said Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 44 of 106 sound digital evidence which cannot be found fault with, the conclusion has been given by the investigating agencyM.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.A bare perusal of the call details undoubtedly made investigating agency to establish and conclude about the presence of the petitioner at his residence at Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi, on the date of alleged incident, i.e., 08.10.2006 and during the period of the alleged time of occurrence between 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm, as claimed by her during the course of hearing.It is a matter of record that no exact time of the alleged occurrence has been mentioned by her at any stage and all through.Relevant Call Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 45 of 106 Details Chart in respect of the petitioner's aforesaid number 9818241666 from page No. 815 written at bottom of page of TCR is reproduced as under:-M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 45 of 106Date Time Call Type Called -Calling Dur in Cell 1I Cell 2-M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 46 of 106During all these period of calls, the location of the petitioners and his said mobile number is also shown at cell Tower ID No- 23253 (i.e Ashok Vihar), as would be clear from the cell location as is found stated in the last column of the call details/ chart.Relevant call details chart in respect of the petitioner's aforesaid number 9811195078 from page No. 825 written at bottom of page of TCR is reproduced as under:-At this stage, it is pertinent and worthwhile to submit that the call details of the user/subscriber of the particular mobile number identifies person's location at the time of his receiving incoming call and making an outgoing call.In the present case, it is undoubtedly clear from the mobile phone call record in respect of petitioner Praveen Bhargavas mobile No. 9818241666 that on the date of alleged incident on 08.10.2006 (a Sunday), he has been present at his residence at G.K-1 and had received various calls and Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 47 of 106 also made some outgoing calls.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 47 of 106The said call records also establish that he received an incoming phone call on 08.10.2006 at 20:32:30 from 9818133783 (used by Ramesh Thakur).At that point of time, the location of said petitioner with his mobile phone was found at Palika Place near Panchkuian Road/Motia Khan, while he was on his way to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar.All these call records, when seen and read with submissions made by the investigating agency in paragraphs 22 to 25 of the Cancellation Report at page 100-101 and then also at paragraphs 64 to 66 of the Cancellation Report at page 116-117 of the petition become very relevant in order to establish the factum of petitioners being falsely implicated in the present case.Then, at para 24 of the Cancellation Report there is also a reference to the revelation made by Smt. Bindu Sharma w/o Late Mr. Arvind Sharma that on 08.10.2006 in the late evening the petitioner and his wife had come to visit her late husband at Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 49 of 106He submitted that the above call records/analysis clearly establish that even this petitioner Ramesh Thakur, too on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 08.10.2006 ( a Sunday ) was within the vicinity of area Rohini between 6.00 pm to 9.00 pm.The approximate distance between Shivalik, Malviya Nagar (the alleged place of occurrence) and Rohini - Pitam Pura (place Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 50 of 106 where Ramesh Thakur is found present) is about 25 - 30 kms by road.As such, this material fact as established from the call detail records/evidence categorically goes to prove that even petitioner Ramesh Thakur was nowhere present near or at the place of the alleged occurrence [i.e. B-136, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi ] on the alleged date ( 08.10.2006 ) and time of the alleged incident (7-8 pm).M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 50 of 106Learned counsel submitted that during arguments, as per the respondent No.2, the mobile No.9818133783 in respect of petitioner Ramesh Thakur was not investigated and therefore it was argued that his presence may be presumed at place of occurrence on 08.10.2006 at the time of alleged commission of offence.Prem Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sarat Chander has submitted that the respondent No.2 made complaint after about eight months of the incident directly to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.In her complaint, she had alleged that on 08.10.2006 at B-136, 2nd floor, Shivalik, New Delhi, the petitioners had sexual intercourse with her against her will or consent and even made a CD of rape.The alleged motive of making the CD was to force her to file a complaint with the police against the M.D. of her company and also to provide them with confidential documents of the company.The complainant thus sought legal action against the petitioners for committing gang rape on her and on one Mr. B.M. Dhaul for molesting her and also for giving her threats.In the complaint, respondent No. 2 stated that the aforesaid apartment Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 51 of 106 was of her friend Ruby, who was in the process of shifting from her old place to the new one in Shivalik.The learned ACMM ignored the fact that thorough investigation has clearly shown that sufficient evidence has come on record to establish that it was the culmination of a well planned conspiracy hatched to implicate the petitioner with the ulterior motive of subjecting him to undue pressure and influence.During investigation it was revealed that Mr. Vijay Kataria had great influence and control over the prosecutrix, which is amply clear from the audio tape recorded conversation between the petitioner Sarat Chander and Mr. Vijay Kataria.The conversation leaves no room for doubt that the prosecutrix has been acting completely at the behest of Mr. Vijay Kataria and has falsely got implicated the petitioner by giving a totally false statement to the police.However, the police itself has exposed the illegal design of the prosecutrix in making out a false case against the petitioner and that is why the police has clearly stated of its intention of lodging proceedings against her U/s 182 IPC.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 52 of 106Vijay Kataria had strained relations with Praveen Bhargawa, Ramesh Thakur, Sarat Chander and B.M. Dhaul.Vijay Kataria had filed complaints against these officers with the office of Hon'ble L.G. Delhi.The Engineers themselves had previously filed complaints at various police stations apprehending implication in false cases by Vijay Kataria.She met Sarat Chander under a fake identity of a reporter named 'Shivani.' v. She called Sarat Chander seven times on the day of the incident.The accommodation B-136, Shivalik, Delhi was hired by another employee of Kaveri Infrastructure named Ms. Ruby Thakur for which she falsely introduced complainant as her married sister and for which Ms. Ruby Thakur paid Rs. 88,000/- as advance rental for four months.Neither complainant nor Ms. Ruby Thakur have offered any plausible reason for hiring this relatively expensive accommodation and the source of funds for the same have also not been disclosed.It was Sunday.He visited Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar to meet a sick colleague, who had suffered a heart attack and had later died the same night.He had stayed with the family in the hospital.In the morning, the next day, he had attended his colleague's funeral at Nigam Bodh Ghat, Delhi.The other accused Praveen Bhargawa remained in the area of Greater Kailash Part-I, i.e., at his residence, throughout the day.According to him, late in the evening he had received information about the illness of his colleague, who suffered a heart attack and he left for Sudner Lal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, after 8.30 PM on 08.10.2006 to visit him.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.This leaves the accused totally defenceless.Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 610/2007 was registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar.The said complaint was against Mr. Sarat Chander, Chief Engineer, Mr. Praveen Bhargav, Superintending Engineer, Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Superintending Engineer and Mr. B.M. Dhaul, Chief Engineer of Delhi Jal Board.It was alleged in the complaint that complainant in the year 2006 was working with a contracting firm dealing with Delhi Jal Board.Thereafter, Mr. Sarat Chander became friendly with her and continued to meet her on subsequent dates.It was alleged that accused Mr. Sarat Chander offered to extend his help in getting good job to the complainant in Delhi Jal Board.It was alleged that on this pretext, Mr. Sarat Chander took her mobile number and started calling her on her mobile phone.In the end of September, 2006, Mr. Sarat Chander met her in a restaurant, called Ruby Tuesday at District Centre, Saket.Mr. Sarat Chander gave a gift of pen set to her and also collected her CV for the purpose of arranging an interview for better job.Further alleged, that on 08.10.2006, Mr. Sarat Chander asked the complainant on mobile phone to come at Tivoli Garden for collecting interview letter of Delhi Jal Board.Complainant has alleged that at that time, Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 64 of 106 she was at her friend's place at B-136, IInd Floor, Shivalik, New Delhi and was busy in helping her friend in shifting the house from old residence.Accoridingly, she expressed her inability to come to Tivoli Garden.The falsehood and fabrication of the statement of Ms. Ruby Thakur is evident from the following facts:-(a) The complainant and Ruby Thakur were working in Kaveri Infrastructure and are well educated.None of them was able to Crl.(b) As per the allegations, the incident occurred at B-136, Shivalik.When the matter was investigated it was found that taking of premises No. B-136, Shivalik, on rent was in itself a mysterious circumstance.During her examination, Ruby Thakur has stated that she had taken the premises on rent because the lease of the earlier premises C-34, Malviya Nagar, where she was already residing was expiring soon.During investigation, Mr. M.L. Sharma, owner of said house, B-136, Shivalik and Sunil Kumar, property dealer were examined.They revealed that this premises had not been taken on lease by the employer company of the complainant and Ruby Thakur, i.e., Kaveri Infrastructure, rather this premises was taken on rent by Ruby Thakur on her own and she had deposited Rs.88,000/- as security on her own.This premise had been taken on rent only eight days before the alleged incident took place.Further this premise is very close to the parental house of the complainant.So there was no explanation as to why she has chosen to live in this accommodation, when her own house was so close by.He submitted that both the complainant and Ruby Thakur have tried to build up the story that after the incident till the complainant reached her house she remained afraid and perplexed.When the C.D.R. of these numbers were analyzed, it was found that soon after the incident at about 7.56 PM, complainant received a call from the landline number of her house, thereafter, at about 8.17 PM she had a conversation with a person using mobile No. 9910222660 for about 290 seconds (5 minutes approx.).As per the cell ID chart, these conversations started from Shivalik and ended at Malviya Nagar.Again at about 8.27 PM, 9.55 PM and at 10.20 PM, complainant sent the SMS to this number.For the same reason even the allegations leveled by the accused of having been administered some intoxicant in a cold drink (Pepsi) cannot now be established by cogent evidence.Tenthly, the factual position indicated in the charge-sheet dated 28.6.2007, that despite best efforts made by the investigating officer, the police could not recover the container of the cold drink (Pepsi) or the glass from which the - complainant had consumed the same.It was for this reason, that neither the vaginal smear was taken, nor her clothes were sent for forensic examination."R.P. 208/2012 Page 75 of 106Learned senior counsel further submitted that right from inception of receiving the complaint of the Complainant made to the Commissioner of Police, the needle of suspicion kept pointing towards her.The entire investigation was carried out, treating her to be an accused.The record reveals the influence and the clout, which the accused persons have in high rungs of the Government, be it bureaucracy or the police.Every effort was made, at every level of the Government machinery to scuttle rightful legal action on the complaint of the complainant and when they were forced to register an FIR, since the complainant had already moved to the Court for registration of the same, every attempt was made to save the accused persons by referring to some extraneous material.Learned senior counsel further submitted that no action was taken by the Police on the complaint of the complainant.Rather the complaint was sent to the Vigilance department for inquiry and the Complainant was harassed, humiliated and embarrassed by the male Police officials, who asked indecent questions from the complainant.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 76 of 106 before entertaining her complaint, the police was already briefed.It was later on transpired that the DCP (Vigilance) was in fact wife of DCP (South).Instead of sending the complaint to the concerned Police Station, the same was referred by the Commissioner (Vigilance) to the Vigilance Department, which is an unusual course of action.R.P. 208/2012 Page 76 of 106On 04.06.2007, when the case came up for hearing before the learned ACMM, the action taken report was called from the DCP by the said Court for 18.06.2007.Thereafter, FIR in question was registered on 09.06.2007 at PS Malviya Nagar.The Complainant was very drowsy and therefore helpless and unable to stop these people from having sexual intercourse with her, which they did one by one, without her will and consent Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 77 of 106 and forcibly.The next day of the incident, Sarat Chander threatened the Complainant that if she dare open her mouth, her life will be ruined by exposing the C.D., which they had made while committing rape on her.He threatened the Complainant that he and Bhargava know various police officers.After 3-4 days, the Complainant had gone to DJB Office to get back the C.D. The accused B.M. Dhaul misbehaved with her by pressing her breast with his hands, forcibly.Threats were extended of dire consequences by exposing the CD.The Complainant gathered courage and lodged complaint with Commissioner of Police.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.There allegedly being some pre-established link between Kaveri Infrastructure, Ruby Thakur and complainant for having taken up accommodation at B-136, Shivalik, Delhi, on rent, for some specific purpose.The complainant could not give any plausible explanation as to why she had made 7 calls to Sarat Chander on the date of incident.She was in constant touch on 08.10.2006, the date of incident, with Sarat Chander and Vijay Kataria.Her call pattern does not co-relate well with the allegation of being gang raped.The location of Ramesh Thakur's phone on 08.10.2006 shows that Ramesh Thakur's phone (9811168133) was either at his residence at Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 78 of 106 Rohini or at Ashok Vihar.Available evidence indicate that both Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur were not even close to the place of occurrence at the alleged date and time.She made false allegations against Ramesh Thakur and Praveen Bhargava in a conspiracy to falsely implicate them in a rape case.The clothes worn by the Complainant were sent to FSL, Rohini and the report mentioned that no semen could be detected on these exhibits, thus, the forensic examination of these clothes remained un-corroborative to support the allegation of rape.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 78 of 106According to FSL Report dated 26.09.2007, human blood stains and human semen stains were found on the given bed sheet.FSL was requested to generate DNA profile from the bed sheet.The persistent resistance on the part of complainant to provide her blood sample for DNA analysis was found to be intriguing.The blood samples and the bed sheet were sent to CFSL, Lodhi Colony.The report mentioned that no female fraction DNA could be generated from the source of bed sheets; DNA profile generated from the female fraction DNA obtained from the bed sheet (four different areas) is not consistent with the DNA profile of complainant; the reason why no male DNA fraction was found at CFSL, Lodhi Colony, was because the entire area on the bed sheet containing semen stains had been used up at FSL, Rohini.The blood and semen stained bed sheet provided by the complainant failed in the scientific DNA test, to connect the accused persons with the crime.The factum of bleeding could not be established by the forensic examination of the exhibits provided by complainant herself.The results of DNA tests raise Crl.Counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the police have though mentioned about the statement of B.M. Dhaul, recorded by Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 81 of 106 them, but the same has not been placed on record.Admittedly, B.M. Dhaul had seen the C.D. He would definitely be in possession of C.D. apart from accused persons, which was deliberately not recovered by Police from him.C.D. would have established the factum of rape by three accused persons on Complainant.Ms. Subhra Chakraborty''.] He submitted that the call records as per Trial Court in FIR No. 610/2007, PS Malviya Nagar are as under:-M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 87 of 106M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 88 of 106He also submitted that the record of calls made by accused Praveen Bhargava to Higher Ministry and police official is as under:-M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 89 of 106(PRAVEEN 24623025 5Since, the complainant made the complaint for a gang rape belatedly for eight months and that too against Senior Officers of Delhi Jal Board, therefore, the Investigating Authority investigated the case in-depth before taking any legal action on the complaint.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 90 of 106During investigations, the police recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of independent and material witnesses, conducted medical examination, polygraphs tests, DNA profile and examined call details of the petitioners, complainant and other related persons.Inquiries and investigations were made in respect of presence of petitioners, i.e., Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur on the date of incident, i.e., 08.10.2006 at the alleged place of offence, i.e., B-136, Second Floor, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.After the inquiries and investigations, on the basis of available evidence the police came to the conclusion that petitioners, Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur were not even found close to the place of occurrence on the alleged date, time and place of occurrence.The finding of the police is that the complainant made false allegations against two of the petitioners named above with a conspiracy to implicate them falsely in a gang rape case with some ulterior motive.It is also on record that the doctor, who examined the complainant vide MLC No. 1247/2007 recorded the findings on the submissions of the complainant herself that "the patient c/o attempted rape about eight months back".Thus, the complainants information to the doctor was attempt to rape.Accordingly, doctor also observed that as the matter was reported later by eight months, no corroboration by way of medical examination could come on record.Thereafter, on 16.06.2007, complainant handed over her clothes, i.e., trouser, shirt and underwear to the IO stated to be wearing on the date of incident.On a later date, i.e., on 21.08.2007, after more than two Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 91 of 106 months, complainant had handed over one bed sheet to the IO stated to be used on the bed on the date of incident.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 91 of 106All the petitioners were interrogated, examined and they also submitted their blood samples for their DNA profiling.They all were also subjected to polygraph tests.Their call details were verified.It is pertinent to mention here that the FSL vide its report dated 29.02.2008 had required the presence of complainant for collecting of blood samples for matching the DNA profile generated from the bed sheet.However, she refused to give her blood sample for DNA profiling to match/compare and co-relate with the evidence provided by her.Rather, in protest, the complainant filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 463/2008 and sought directions from this Court to scrap the entire blood sampling, DNA profiling and comparison process being conducted in violation of law and insisted on the arrest of the accused persons.The aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.08.2008, whereby this Court directed the IO, namely, Inspector Jaswant Kaur to accompany the complainant to the CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road, CGO Complex, New Delhi on 18.08.2008 at 11.00 am, where she had to give her blood sample.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 92 of 106Having no option, complainant, on 04.02.2009 provided her blood samples for the DNA test at AIIMS, New Delhi.On the delay of filing the complaint, the case of the respondent No.2/complainant is that while committing the gang rape upon her, the petitioners had prepared a CD and threatened her not to disclose to anyone.Further they insisted to make complaint against Vijay Kataria, i.e., her former employer.It is alleged in the complaint that the said CD was played on 09.10.2006 in B.M. Dhauls office at Delhi Jal Board, Faiz Road, Delhi, which was seen by one Sant Ram.The police thoroughly investigated on the issue of CD by examining said Sant Ram and B.M. Dhaul.Police has concluded in its final report that although the aforesaid CD was available with Vijay Kataria (as per audio recording between Sarat Chander and Vijay Kataria), however, the said CD was never produced by anyone.It is important to note that the complainant was working with M/s Kaveri Infrastructure Private Limited, a company in which Mr. Vijay Kataria has been a Director.The police also examined Mr. Vijay Kataria and his details of mobile numbers between September, 2006 till December, 2006, which found that one mobile instrument bearing IMEI No. 358061003458460 was used to operate all three mobile numbers, i.e., 9910222660, 9810798109 and 9818998187 at different points of time.The police has established that the aforesaid telephone numbers were used by Mr. Vijay Kataria.The investigation further revealed that the complainant had used number 9818185571 on handset bearing IMEI No. 357926008481870 on 25.10.2006 from 07.06 pm to 07.56 pm and the same handset being IMEI No. 357926008481870 was also used to operate the mysterious telephone number 9910222660 on 25.10.2006 from 10.17 am to 06.19 pm.Importantly, the same IMEI number was used between 01.10.2006 to 31.12.2006 by Mr. Vijay Kataria on his mobile No.9810798109 (except on 25.10.2006) from 10.17 am to 08.09 pm.On the basis of above, in cancellation report the police has established that the complainant and Vijay Kataria were in constant touch with each other.She was in contact on phone with Vijay Kataria on the alleged date of Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 94 of 106 incident, i.e, on 08.10.2006 and had called him up immediately after the alleged incident.The cancellation report has also established that the relationship between Vijay Kataria and officials of Delhi Jal Board were not cordial, therefore, Vijay Kataria had been making complaint to Lieutenant Governor against four engineers of Delhi Jal Board.On the issue relating to CD, the investigation has established that Sant Ram and complainant gave different versions regarding CD played in the office of Delhi Jal Board.In addition to the systematic independent scientific analysis such as DNA test, polygraph tests, call details of the complainant and all the alleged persons and some other persons who have bearing on the case, the IO also recorded the oral evidence in the form of statements.The statements of Mr. M.L. Pandey, Ms. Ruby Thakur, Mr. M.L. Sharma and Mr. Sunil Kumar, recorded by the police, as discussed above, were found to be at variance.Therefore, the police has concluded that Vijay Kataria is in conspiracy with the complainant in implicating the petitioners.All the petitioners were examined, interrogated and their call details were verified.The petitioner Parveen Bhargava was at his residence in the evening when he received information on his mobile from Sh.Ramesh Thakur from his mobile who is a resident of Rohini that their office colleague Mr. Arvind Sharma, Executive Engineer aged about 43 years had suffered a Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 95 of 106 heart attack and was admitted at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.The petitioner Parveen Bhargava left for the said hospital after 8.30 PM.The mobile phone record of the petitioner using Mobile no. 9818241666 revealed that no calls were recorded between 6.15 PM till 8.30 PM.His being at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital has been confirmed by Smt. Bindu Sharma, wife of Late Sh.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 95 of 106The police has recorded its observations in para-83 of the cancellation report after the in-depth investigation that the accommodation B-136, Shivalik, Delhi was hired by another employee of Kaveri Infrastructure named Ms. Ruby Thakur for which she falsely introduced Ms. Vani Whig as her married sister and for which Ms. Ruby Thakur paid Rs.88,000/- as advance rental for four months.As discussed in detail earlier, neither Ms. Vani Whig nor Ms. Ruby Thakur have offered any plausible reason for hiring this relatively expensive accommodation and the source of funds for the same has also not been disclosed.She was using 9810021490 to call Sarat Chander while she used 9818185579 to keep in regular touch with Vijay Kataria.One the day of the incident at 08.17 pm.Ms. Vani Whig received a call from mobile phone number 9910222660 (Vijay Kataria) and this call lasted for 290 seconds.The cell ID location analysis of mobile phone number 9818185579 (Ms. Vani Whigs phone) reveals that this call began at Cell ID 40661 which is Malviya Nagar, Shivalik, Delhi (Place of occurrence) and ended at Cell ID 8941 which is Malviya Nagar, Delhi (Ms. Vanis residence).She also spoke with someone who called her from her Malviya Nagar residence number 011-65634607 Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 96 of 106 (probably her mother) at 07.56 p.m. (incoming call for 15 seconds), i.e., immediately after the incident, but she chose not to disclose this incident as alleged.First three petitions amongst the above noted four petitions have been filed under Section 482/483 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned ACMM, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby the learned Judge has taken the cognizance of the offence punishable under Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 2 of 106Vide the above noted petitions, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 13.05.2011 and FIR No. 610/2007 registered at PS-Malviya Nagar, Delhi.Revision Petition No. 208/2012 has been filed by the State for quashing the order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned ACMM in the complaint case No. 77/2007 filed by the complainant.Since the petitioners are seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 13.05.2011 and FIR No 610/2007 vide all the above noted petitions, therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of all the petitions by a common judgment.Thereafter respondent no. 2 / complainant filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 02.06.2007 before the learned ACMM, Saket Courts, New Delhi.Meanwhile, FIR No. 610/2007 was registered on 09.06.2007 for the offences Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 3 of 106 punishable under Sections 376 (g)/354/506/384/34 IPC against all three petitioners noted above.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 5 of 106During investigation, on recording the statements of Sh.Thereafter, petitioner Sarat Chander along with other two petitioners had come to the aforesaid address and raped her.Counsel further submitted that the call details of the complainant and petitioner Sarat Chander were collected, examined and investigated.The analysis of call details, Cell ID locations, Cell ID Chart reveals that no plausible explanation was furnished by the complainant and it shows some startling facts of the two mobile phone numbers of the complainant and the involvement of one Vijay Kataria.Their call records were obtained and analysed accordingly.The fact of examination of one Smt. Crl.The conclusions of the police, stated to have found in Para 25 of the cancellation report, are as under:-M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 9 of 106"During investigation sufficient evidence came on record to establish that the allegations of Ms. Vani Whig that Sarat Chander along with Ramesh Thakur and Praveen Bhargava raped her at Shivalik on 08.10.2006 evening is not proved.Available evidence indicates that both Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur were not even close to the place of occurrence at the alleged date and time.This particular finding not only proves that Ms. Vani Whig has made false allegations against Ramesh Thakur and Praveen Bhargava but also points towards a conspiracy to implicate them falsely in a rape case with some ulterior motive."On 15.06.2007, complainant was also got medically examined at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital by the IO and the observations / findings of the Doctor is in MLC no. 1247/2007 wherein complainant herself submitted to be "the patient c/o attempted rape about 8 months back".However why she has stated so was not clear.It was observed by the Doctors that "as the matter was reported late by about 8 months, no corroboration by way of medical examination could come on record." Thereafter on 16.06.2007, complainant also handed over her cloths, i.e., trousers, shirt and underwear to the IO which she was stated to be wearing on the date of the incident.On a later date, i.e., on 21.08.2007, after more than 2 months, complainant also handed over one bed sheet to the IO stating that the said bed sheet was used Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.All the seized materials were sent to FSL by the Police.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 10 of 106Counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite the above position of the investigation being in progress, the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 77/2007 filed by the complainant before ld. ACMM continued and were not even stayed by the Ld. ACMM in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 210 (1) Cr.P.C. The records would reveal that the proceedings of the said complaint case were continued all through by the Ld. ACMM, New Delhi at the instance of the complainant in gross violation of the said mandatory provisions.However, on 13.03.2008, all the suspects including the petitioners, gave their blood samples for DNA test.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.Report of FSL was received.(d) The bed sheet was again sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi for DNA profiling and the report was received.The blood samples of alleged persons namely Sarat Chander, Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur have been deposited at FSL Rohini for DNA profiling and opinion thereof is still awaited."Whereas the other Status report dated 13.08.2008 states as under:"The complainant of the present case was served a notice on 09.03.2008 to join the investigation for providing blood sample for DNA profiling but neither she joined the investigation nor she has replied to the notice due on which the blood sample of the petitioners could not be collected at FSL Rohini for DNA profiling, whereas the Director FSL Rohini has explained his inability to give any opinion without blood sample of the petitioners"On 14.08.2008, this Court while disposing of the said Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 463/2008 passed order as under:-"Insp.Jaswant Kaur, IO, who is present in the Court, is directed to accompany the petitioners Ms. Vani Whig to the CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road, CGO Complex, New Delhi on 18th August, 2008 at 11 a.m. where she will give her blood sample.After doing so, necessary test may be got conducted from there by the police.State is directed to file a final report in the trial court as early as possible.With the above directions, this petition stands disposed of.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 14 of 106Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in spite of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, she did not accompany the IO on 18.08.2008 to appear before CFSL, CBI, New Delhi for giving her blood samples on the pretext of viral fever.The authorities again fixed the next date on 26.08.2008 for the same purpose, but complainant again refused to appear before CFSL on the pretext of her illness.Subsequently, she informed respondent no. 1 that she has obtained a stay from the Honble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 6306/2008 against the above referred order passed by this court.However, even the above referred Special Leave Petition was finally dismissed on 16.01.2009 with observations as under:-"Heard ld.Counsel for the parties.The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed."Having no option, complainant on 04.02.2009 provided her blood samples for the DNA Test at AIIMS, Delhi, i.e., almost a year after she first requested on 09.03.2008 by the IO.All the contents discussed above have been stated in the Cancellation Report.On receiving the report from the FSL, the Scientific and Forensic evidence did not support the version of complainant.The blood and semen stained bed sheet provided by the complainant failed the scientific DNA Test to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime.However, the DNA extracted from the blood stains of the bed sheet does not match the DNA profiling.This fact has also been mentioned in cancellation report filed by the police.With regard to the so called CD containing a vital piece of evidence allegedly a video recording of the alleged rape being used to threaten Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 15 of 106 complainant and played on 09.10.2006 and allegedly seen by one witness Sant Ram as per summoning order and as per the complaint at B.M. Dhauls Office at Delhi Jal Board, Faiz Road, Delhi.These facts were also thoroughly investigated and examinations of said Sant Ram and B.M. Dhaul are available on CD.On the basis of material, the police concluded that Vijay Kataria is involved in a conspiracy with the complainant to implicate the petitioners.The audio version also proves that the CD was in possession of the said Vijay Kataria and not with Sarat Chander and others, as alleged by the complainant.The examination of call details established that the complainant was in constant touch with Mr. Vijay Kataria on the one hand and also with Mr. Sarat Chander throughout the day of incident i.e. on 08.10.2006 on the other hand.There were 11 calls / SMSs Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 16 of 106 between them.This fact has also been collected in the Cancellation Report.Findings of investigations reinforces their conclusion that complainant has made false allegations against two petitioners, i.e., Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 16 of 106During investigation and on examination, the complainant has refused to have any knowledge about the above mobile phone no. 9910222660 and also its identity whereas investigations reveals that respondent no. 2 / complainant was working with M/s. Kaveri Infrustructure Pvt. Ltd., a company in which Mr. Vijay Kataria has been a Director.The examination of Mr.Vijay Kataria about use of mobile numbers between September, 2006 till December, 2006 were also obtained.It was found that one mobile instrument bearing IMEI No. 358061003458460 was used to operate all three mobile numbers, i.e., 9910222660, 9810798109 and 9818998187 at different point of time.Counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the basis of above mentioned pleas, it leaves no iota of doubt that all three numbers were being used by one person having custody of mobile bearing IMEI No. 358061003458460 and both telephone nos. 9810798109 and 9818998187 admittedly belonged to and were used by Mr. Vijay Kataria.This fact has also been mentioned in cancellation report filed by the police.The investigation further reveals that complainant had been using no. 9818185579 on the handset bearing IMEI No. 357926008481870 on 25.10.2006 from 07.06 PM to 07.56 PM and the same handset being IMEI No. 357926008481870 was also used to operate the mysterious telephone no. 9910222660 on 25.10.2006 from 10.17 AM to 06.19 PM.The same Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 17 of 106 IMEI No. 357926008481870 was used between 01.10.2006 to 31.12.2006 by Mr. Vijay Kataria on his mobile phone no. 9810798109 (except on 25.10.2006) from 10.17 AM to 08.09 PM.This fact has been noted in the cancellation report filed by the police.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.All of them confirmed that they spoke to him on his mobile.Counsel for the petitioners submitted that based upon the investigation of oral evidence, systematic scientific analysis of various material, i.e., DNA profiling, polygraphs test, FSL report, CFSL Report, call details analysis Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 19 of 106 made following observations at Para 83 of the cancellation report, which is as under:M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 19 of 106Even after returning home no family members observed any abnormality in her behavior.i. During the alleged time of occurrence Ramesh Thakur's Cell ID location was at Rohini.On the alleged day of incident it was Sunday and Praveen Bhargava was at GK-I (his residence) the entire day and was later at Sunderlal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar attending to a sick colleague who died at 11.30 PM that day.j. The allegation of molestation by Sh.B.M. Dhaul at DJB office is not proved.Statements of Sant Ram and Ms. Vani Whig are at variance.Sant Ram and Vijay kataria are close friends and have common criminal cases amongst them k. The conduct of Vijay Kataria is suspicious and points towards a deep conspiracy to malign the Engineers of DJB.The CD was in Vijay Kataria's possession who showed it to Sh.B.M. Dhaul who in turn reported it to two very senior officers of DJB who have corroborated the same in their statements.l. Vijay Kataria and Ms. Vani Whig have gone to great lengths to prevent any links between them from surfacing.They have used multiple mobile phone numbers to hoodwink the investigation agency regarding their interaction with each other.However, as discussed in detailed earlier, their inks have been established from the different numbers and handsets they have used over a period of time and them being together at the cell phone based location of Faiz Road, Karol Bagh (Office of DJB).M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 21 of 106Further both of them did not disclose true facts during investigation of this case.m. The DNA tests have proved beyond doubt that the allegations of the complainant in this case are not proved.The investigations conducted so far reveal that the complainant, Ms. Ruby Thakur, Vijay Kataria, Sant Ram and possibly some others have hatched a deep rooted conspiracy to implicate the alleged accused persons in a false case and hence Cancellation Report is being filed.The learned ACMM has made observations in the impugned order dated 13.05.2011 as under:-"....As far as the presence of other two accused persons are concerned, it was seen by Ms. Ruby Thakur.Further, the presence of other two accused when sexual activity on complainant was going on, as depicted in CD was seen by one independent witness, namely, Shri Sant Ram ...."R.P. 208/2012 Page 26 of 106 above co-accused Sarat Chander that subsequent to the above sexual relations between him and the prosecutrix, he was told by the prosecutrix that she had received some calls from some persons while claiming that they had made a CD of their above acts.R.P. 208/2012 Page 27 of 106M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 34 of 106Further, in addition to the above and in support of his arguments, reliance was also placed on the judgment delivered by this Court in Alok Kumar Vs.This Court, after dealing with the facts, at para 8, made the following observations as under:No male fraction DNA could be generated from the source of Exhibit 4- bed sheet.The DNA profile generated from the female fraction DNA obtained from the source of Exhibits - 4: Bed sheet (four different area) is not consistent with DNA profile of Ms. Vani Whig (source of Exhibit- 6: Liquid blood sample).No DNA profile could be generated from the source of Exhibits -1 (pants), 2 (Shirts) and 3 (underwear)."To match DNA profiles with the DNA profile generated from semen stains on the bed sheet in FSL, Rohini, the remnants of respondents No. 2 blood sample were again sent to FSL, Rohini, for a conclusive report.Learned counsel submitted that during investigation, it was found that the concerned persons were using the following numbers at the relevant period and time:-Ms. Vani Whig- 9818185579 and 9810021490Above mentioned mobile numbers are extracted from the evidence collected and reference was drawn to the communication letter No F-DJB I AC(CTB)/lnf/07- 67 dated 25th June 2007 received from office of Delhi Jal Board and also on the basis of a document/chart prepared by the Investigating Agency with the heading "Official no's list given by DJB" and then "Subscriber Detail of phone numbers"(which is at page No. 509 written at bottom of the page with TCR).Learned counsel submitted that it will also be relevant, at this stage, to give some call detail analysis from the mobile phone call records/documents available in the TCR which is re-produced as under:-"Call Details Analysis of the two phone Nos. used by complainant (w. e. f 01.10.2006 to 31.12.2006).M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 37 of 106Malviya Nagar 08.10.06 14:11:05 Outgoing 9910222660- (VK) 17 08941 - Malviya Nagar I 03042 08.10.06 14:22:49 Incoming 9910222660- (VK) 7 40663 I 40663- B Block, Shivalik 08.10.06 16:31:05 Incoming 9910222660- (VK) 47 40663 I 40663- B Block, Shivalik 08.10.06 16:41:58 Incoming 9910222660- (VK) 23 20781 I 20781 - Main Mkt.Malviya Nagar 08.10.06 19:56:58 Incoming 01165634607 (Resi 11 40663 I 40663- B No of Resp no -2) Block, Shivalik Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 38 of 106 08.10.06 20:17:38 Incoming 9910222660- (VK) 290 40061 I 08941-M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 38 of 106Malviya Nagar 08.10.06 20:27:48 SMS Out 9910222660- (VK) 1 08941 I 08941 -Malviya Nagar 08.10.06 21:55:39 SMS Out 9910222660- (VK) 1 08941 I 08941 -Malviya Nagar 08.10.06 22:20:39 SMS In 9910222660- (VK) 1 08941 I 08941 -Malviya Nagar The above call records chart shows that the complainant has been in constant touch with Vijay Kataria and she has made calls and received various calls on her above mobile number on 09.10.2006 and 10.10.2006 and thereafter from 9910222660 (used by Vijay Kataria) at short intervals.The analysis of the call details in respect of the second mobile phone No. 9810021490 of complainant on 08.10.2006, which is also part of record, is as under: -Date Time Call Type Called-Calling Dur in Cell 1 I CellM.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 39 of 106Perusal of the contents of paragraphs 12 to 18 of the Cancellation Report become very relevant in order to appreciate the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Agency on the basis of mobile phone call records as above referred.He also produced the call details in respect of three mobiles numbers found to be used by Vijay Kataria, i.e., 9810798109, 9818998187 and 9810222660 as under:-M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 40 of 106He submitted that the relevant call details analysis of these Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 41 of 106 three mobile Nos., viz., 9810798109, 9818998187 and 9810222660 found to be used by Mr. Vijay Kataria on the date of alleged occurrence, i.e., 08.10.2006 and then on 09.10.2006 as under :M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 41 of 106i) In respect of phone No. 9810222660 (in the name of Kirti Chandwani-The exact chart prepared on the basis of call details analysis of two telephone numbers used Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.All this clearly shows the prior meetings of mind between the complainant and Vijay Kataria and further becomes very relevant and gives startling facts to establish that:-M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 42 of 106i) The respondent No. 2 was and has been working with M/s Kaveri Infrastructure of which Vijay Kataria was the Financial Advisor ( please see Para 47 at page 110 of the petition).Complainant has been in constant touch with Vijay Kataria.This would be clear from the frequency of the calls between her and Mr. Vijay Kataria even at odd hours and even on holidays.ii) These call details prove the proximity of respondent No.2 and Vijay Kataria from analysis of call details.The frequency of calls between complainant and Mr. Vijay Kataria even on the date of incident - 08.10.2006 and thereafter undoubtedly shows the close proximity between them and also establishes that for implicating the petitioners- DJB officials, the complainant was working at the behest and on instructions of Vijay Kataria.Strangely, the same very instrument with Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 43 of 106 same IMEI No. 357926008481870 is being used by Mr. Vijay Kataria on his mobile No. 9810798109 between 01.10.2006 to 25.10.2006 and thereafter upto 31.12.2006 (please see page No. 713-714 of the TCR).Besides, Vijay Kataria was also found using another instrument with IMEl No. 358061003458460 for his said very mobile No. 9810798109 on 25.10.2006 (page No. 713-714 of the TCR).M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 43 of 106iv) The propensity of the complainant to tell lies is proved from the fact that during investigations, she denies having any knowledge of telephone No.9910222660 whereas as a matter of fact, she was found to be in constant touch with Vijay Kataria on the alleged date of incident on this very mobile number.R.P. 208/2012 Page 44 of 106Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 1 / State has also collected the call detail records/ print outs in respect of call details of the mobile phone Nos. 9818241666 and also 9811195078 of the petitioner both used by petitioner - Praveen Bhargava.The call details in respect of mobile No. 9818241666 is available from page No. 811 to 823 written at bottom of the page with TCR and whereas the call details of the phone No. 9811195078 is available at page No. 825 written at bottom of the page on TCR.The photocopies of the said call details are also being enclosed herewith and are respectively marked as Annexure-Y as at pages 215- 221 & Annexure Z as at page No.222 of the index in vol.2 filed with the written submissions.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 48 of 106 Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.This fact was confirmed by respondent No. 1 by referring the case diary from the police file.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 48 of 106Learned counsel also submitted that the analysis of the call details in respect of the mobile phone No.9811168133 (Vodafone) used by Ramesh Thakur (petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2019/2011) on the date of alleged incident, i.e., 08.10.2006 [from instrument bearing IMEl No. 353766006556100].All call details (made & received) on 08.10.2006 and 09.10.2006 is reproduced as under:-M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 51 of 106As per the closure report of the police, the present case is of deep rooted conspiracy hatched by Mr. Vijay Kataria, Managing Director of Kaveri Infrastructure/the employer of the complainant involving the complainant, another employee Ms. Ruby Thakur and Mr. Sant Ram, who is facing various criminal cases in the Courts of law.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 53 of 106She was using 9810021490 to call Sarat Chander while she used 9818185579 to keep in regular touch with Vijay Kataria.On the day of incident there were 11 calls/ SMS between Ms. Vani and Mr. Vijay Kataria.The first call began at 10.37 AM and the last call was 10.20 PM in the night.On the day of the incident at 08:17 pm complainant received a call from mobile phone No. 9910222660 (Vijay Kataria) and this call lasted for 290 seconds.The Cell ID location analysis of mobile phone number 9818185579 (complainants phone) reveals that this call began at Cell ID 40661 which is Malviya Nagar, Shivalik, Delhi (place of occurrence) and ended at Cell ID 8941 which is Malviya Nagar, Delhi (complainants residence).She also spoke with someone who called her from her Malviya Nagar residence number 011-65634607 (probably her mother) at 07.56 PM (incoming call for 15 seconds), i.e., immediately after the incident, but she chose not to disclose this incident as alleged.Vijay Kataria and complainant have gone to great lengths to prevent any link between them from surfacing.They have used multiple mobile phone numbers to hoodwink the investigating agency regarding their interaction with each other.However, as discussed in detail earlier, their links have been established from the different numbers and handsets they have used over a period of time and being together at the Cell phone based location of Faiz road, Karol Bagh (office of Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 54 of 106 DJB)., Further both of them did not disclose true facts during investigation of this case.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 54 of 106There was inordinate delay of eight months in not reporting the matter to the police or to any other authority.Neither the complainant nor Ms. Ruby Thakur who are both educated working women have provided any plausible explanation for not bringing the factum of rape to the notice of any authority or to their family members immediately after the alleged incident had taken place.Moreover, there is no logical explanation for the complainant deciding to file this complaint after a lapse of about eight months.No cogent or any plausible explanation has been submitted by the complainant in this regard either before the respondent No. 1 or even in the protest petition filed before Ld. ACMM.Whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the delay in making the complaint/ lodging of FIR often results in embellishment which is an creature of an afterthought.On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation.The delay in making complaint/ lodging the first information report has not at all been satisfactorily explained, and make the complainants version incapable of being.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 55 of 106Surprisingly complainant has her parental house No. 80-A, Nil Block, Malviya Nagar which is hardly two KMs away from the rented accommodation where only a bed, cooler and settee has been placed and neither the complainant has been able to explain as to why she needed an extra accommodation when her own house was only a couple of KMs away.This finding in the cancellation report again points towards the fact that B-136, Shivalik, Delhi was taken up on expensive rent of Rs. 22,000/- per month for a specific purpose which is different from the reason stated.That the CFSL report of the blood sample and the bed sheet does not show any male fraction DNA from the source of bed sheet and even the female fraction DNA was not consistent with the DNA Profile of prosecutrix and further no DNA Profile could be generated from the pant, shirt and the underwear.It is clear that the blood and semen on the bed sheet neither matched with that of the complainant nor with that of the petitioner.Learned counsel further submitted that the learned ACMM considered the following points to take cognizance of the offences despite Cancellation Report filed by the police:-i. There was a sexual intercourse between complainant and accused Sarat Chander.CD of the sexual intercourse was made as stated by independent witness Sant Ram.The presence of other two accused persons was seen by independent witness Sant Ram on the CD.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 56 of 106It is not digestible that in the common parlance of dignified Indian woman, prosecutrix/ complainant would offer herself as a prey to some evil designs of her employer.As there was sexual intercourse between complainant and Sarat Chander and as complainant and Sant Ram had seen CD where all three accused were doing the alleged activity, the statement of Ms. Ruby showing all the three persons hurriedly leaving the scene of crime and thereafter finding the complainant bleeding and in crying position, it suggests res gestate.As regards point Nos. i and ii, it is submitted that the learned ACMM has also ignored the fact that Sant Ram and Ms. Vani gave different versions regarding the CD being played.Sant Ramt stated that when he entered BM Dhaul's office, Ms. Vani has clearly stated that the CD was played only after Sant Ram had left.Hence the question of Sant Ram seeing the CD version does not arise at all.As regards point No. iii, it is submitted that in the tape-recorded conversation between Mr. Vijay Kataria and the petitioner Sarat Chander that took place, it has come from the mouth of Mr. Vijay Kataria that the CD is with him.Later on, Mr. Vijay Kataria stated that he got the CD from the prosecutrix and returned the same to her.The fact remains that the CD is either with the prosecutrix or with Mr. Vijay Kataria and none of them has cared to produce the same to the police during investigation.The said CD would have undoubtedly made the whole position very clear.As the said CD does not show any gang rape as admitted by the witnesses, this falsifies the Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 57 of 106 allegation of complainant of gang rape; otherwise she would have immediately rushed to the police to show the best evidence available of the alleged incident.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 57 of 106He further submitted that even otherwise, the thorough investigation of the police shows that other two alleged accused persons, namely, Ramesh Thakur and Praveen Bhargava were not seen in the CD.This finding also falsifies the allegations of gang rape made by complainant.He further submitted that the place of alleged rape is a rented accommodation @ Rs.22,000/- per month, whereas the salary of the complainant was just Rs. 10,000/- per month with Kaveri Infrastructure.Ms. Ruby Thakur, who is also working with Kaveri Infrastructure was having two accommodations simultaneously with her, namely, C-34, Malviya Nagar, and B-136, Shivalik, Delhi and the Cancellation Report shows that there was some pre-established link and prior understanding between Kaveri Infrastructure, Ruby Thakur and complainant for having taken up the accommodation at B- 136, Shivalik, Delhi on rent for some specific purpose other than the reason stated.Learned counsel further submitted that reliance of the learned ACMM on Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act is totally misconceived as provisions of the same are applicable only when the prosecutrix states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent.The stage of raising the said presumption does not arise at this stage at all as no trial has yet commenced.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 58 of 106The investigation has disclosed that complainant was in telephonic contact with Vijay Kataria on the alleged day of the incident, i.e., 08.10.2006 and had called him up immediately after she had alleged sexual intercourse with Sarat Chander at B-136, Shivalik, Delhi.This finding shows that she and Vijay Kataria were together involved in a conspiracy to lure Sarat Chander to that apartment on a Sunday evening and implicate him in the present case.Having carefully scrutinized her evidence, we find that her testimony does not inspire confidence and her conduct appears to be highly unnatural.On an overall appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix and her conduct, we have come to the conclusion that PW 1 is not Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 60 of 106 a reliable witness.We, therefore, find no reason to disagree with the finding of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal.The view taken by the High Court is a possible, reasonable view of the evidence on record and, therefore, warrants no interference.This appeal is dismissed."Had the prosecutrix lodged the complaint soon after the incident, there would have been some supporting evidence like the medical report or any injury on the body of the prosecutrix so as to show the sign of rape.If the prosecutrix has willingly submitted her to sexual intercourse and waited for seven months for filing the FIR, it will be hazardous to convict on such sole testimony."Upon this Mr. Sarat Chander told her that the matter was urgent, therefore, she should receive this letter by today itself.He offered to come at B-136, IInd Floor, Shivalik, New Delhi for delivering the letter.Thereafter, he alongwith his two colleagues, namely, Mr. Praveen Bhargav and Mr. Ramesh Thakur came at the above mentioned place.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 64 of 106It is further alleged that they offered some pastry to complainant, which she consumed and after consuming the same became semi- unconscious.In that condition, all the three persons named above committed rape with her one by one.These persons also prepared a CD of this incident.Thereafter, they all left the place.At that time, she was bleeding and traumatized.It was alleged that when they were coming down from the house, they were seen by her friend Ms. Ruby Thakur.Learned standing counsel further submitted that since the allegations leveled were very serious in nature, where an educated working woman leveled the allegation of gang rape and intimidation against four senior officers of Delhi Jal Board, the matter was thoroughly investigated impartially under the supervision of senior officers of Delhi Police.On 02.06.2007, the complainant also filed a complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned ACMM, Patiala House Court, who vide order dated 04.06.2007, called a status report.Accordingly, the learned ACMM was informed about registration of FIR, which is pending for investigation."By the investigation conducted so far, it is quite clear that Ms. Vani Whig, Ruby Thakur, Vijay Kataria, Sant Ram and possibly some others have hatched a deep rooted conspiracy to implicate the alleged accused persons in a false case.After filing the Closure Report, notice was issued to the complainant, who filed the protest petition.After hearing the arguments, vide order dated 13.05.2011, the learned ACMM, Saket took cognizance of the offence U/s 376(2)(g) IPC and summoning order U/s 204 Cr.P.C. was passed.(a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence.Moreover, if this cognizance is taken on the complaint filed by the complainant on 02.06.2007, the learned ACMM has committed a grave error, because U/s 200 Cr.P.C., without examining the complainant and her witness, the Court cannot proceed U/s 204 Cr.P.C.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 67 of 106Whereas Sant Ram in his statement has stated that when he Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 68 of 106 entered in the room of Mr. B.M. Dhaul, the CD was being played.These statements are contradictory to each other and falsify each other.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.Ruby Thakur introduced herself to the landlord as an I.A.S. aspirant and complainant as a medical student, living separately from her husband for the purpose of studies of M.B.B.S. This premises was taken on a monthly rent of Rs.22,000 /-.Learned standing counsel submitted that the total salary of Ruby Thakur and the complainant was not even sufficient to afford this rent.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 70 of 106It is further revealed during investigation that Kaveri Infrastructure paid the rent of C-34, Malviya Nagar to the owner Mr. M.L. Pandey till March, 2007, i.e., for about six months after the alleged rape incident.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 71 of 106He submitted that these facts falsify the story of being afraid and horrified.Ruby Thakur was also having a mobile and on same day at about 12 noon she had a long conversation of about 9 minutes with her employer Vijay Kataria.Meaning thereby that she was in touch with Vijay Kataria, but this alleged horrified incident was even not brought to the notice of her employer who might have reported the same to the police.By in-depth investigation it was established that this number was also being used by Vijay Kataria.These facts clearly indicate that there was some motivation behind lodging of this complaint.Learned counsel submitted that the alleged complaint was filed by the complainant upon motivation of Vijay Kataria, who was willing to settle his score with these officers.He has masterminded this conspiracy to suit his own ends.For this purpose, he used the complainant as a tool and created two witnesses to support her version of rape.Both these witnesses, namely, Ruby Thakur and Sant Ram were associated with Vijay Kataria.It is pertinent to mention here, that Sant Ram is a witness in a case FIR No. 54/2006 U/s 307 IPC, PS Chandi Nagar, Bagpat UP, which was registered on the complaint of Vijay Kataria.Learned standing counsel has relied upon a case of Prashant Bharti (Supra) wherein on the similar facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court/ in Para 20 has observed as under:-M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.He was at Noida before 7.55 pm.He, thereafter, remained at different places within Noida and then at Shakarpur, Ghaziabad,Patparganj, Jorbagh etc. From 9.15 pm to 11.30 pm on 15.2.2007, he remained present at a marriage anniversary function celebrated at Rangoli Lawns at Ghaziabad, Uttar PradeMr.An affidavit to the aforesaid effect filed by the appellant-accused was found to be correct by the investigating officer on the basis of his mobile phone call details.Secondly, verification of the mobile phone call details of the complainant/prosecuterix Priya revealed, that on 15.2.2007, no calls were made by the appellant-accused to the complainant/prosecuterix, and that, it was the complainant/prosecuterix who had made calls to him.Thirdly, the complainant/prosecuterix, on and around the time referred to in the complaint dated 16.2.2007, was at different places of New Delhi i.e., in Defence Colony, Greater Kailash, Andrews Ganj and finally at Tughlakabad Extension, as per the verification of the investigating officer on the basis of her mobile phone call details.Fourthly, at the time when the complainant/prosecuterix alleged, that the appellant-accused had misbehaved with her and had outraged her modesty on 15.2.2007 (as per her complaint dated 16.2.2007), she was actually in conversation with her friends (as per the verification made by the investigating officer on the basis of her mobile phone call details).Fifthly, even though the Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 73 of 106 complainant/prosecuterix had merely alleged in her complaint dated 16.2.2007, that the accused had outraged her modesty by touching her breasts, she had subsequently through a supplementary statement (on 21.2.2007), levelled allegations against the accused for offence of rape.Sixthly, even though the complainant/prosecuterix was married to one Manoj Kumar Soni, s/o Seeta Ram Soni (as indicated in an affidavit appended to the Delhi police format for information of tenants and duly verified by the investigating officer, wherein she had described herself as married), in the complaint made to the police (on 16.2.2007 and 21.2.2007), she had suggested that she was unmarried.The allegations made by the complainant dated 16.2.2007 and 21.2.2007 pertain to occurrences of 23.12.2006, 25.12.2006, 1.1.2007 and 15.2.2007, i.e., positively during the subsistence of her marriage with Lalji Porwal.In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the complainant could not have been induced into a physical relationship, based on an assurance of marriage.Eighthly, the physical relationship between the complainant and the accused was admittedly consensual.In her complaints Priya had however asserted, that her consent was based on a false assurance of marriage by the accused.Since the aspect of assurance stands falsified, the acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.Ninthly, as per the medical report recorded by the AIIMS dated 16.2.2007, the examination of the complainant did not evidence her having been poisoned.The instant allegation made by the complainant cannot now be established because even in the medical report dated 16.2.2007 it was observed that Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 74 of 106 blood samples could not be sent for examination because of the intervening delay.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 73 of 106M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 74 of 106Accordingly, the chargesheet and framing of charges were quashed by the Supreme Court.Mr. R.N.Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant, submitted that the present case is a curious case of complete lack of transparency in the action of the Police, who deliberately and willfully, in apparent misuse and abuse of their official position, carried out the investigation, in a unilateral manner, only to falsely discredit the complainant/prosecutrix, by giving judgmental findings in favour of the accused persons.The final report filed by the Police completely ignored the overwhelming and clinching material on record, sufficient enough to convict the accused persons.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.It is submitted that on 24.05.2007, the respondent No.2/complainant lodged a complaint with Commissioner of Police, against the petitioners for committing rape upon her on 08.10.2006, threatening her of dire consequences and exposing a C.D. made by them during the commission of rape upon her and against Mr.B.M. Dhaul for molesting her.The Commissioner of Police was personally conveyed by the complainant that the DCP (South) is personally involved in the matter as on the day following the incident, the local SHO had called the complainant under instructions of the DCP (South).All this peculiar procedure was adopted as the call details of the accused would show that they were friendly with the DCP (South), whose wife was entrusted with the enquiry.Right from the inception, the conspiracy between the accused and the Police Officials to save them was apparent and glaring.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 77 of 106The cancellation/closure report was allegedly based on the allegations that the complaint contained extremely serious allegations by a lady victim against persons, who happened to be government servants in responsible positions.There is no logical explanation for the Complainant, deciding to file the complaint after a lapse of about 8 months.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 79 of 106 serious doubts about the authenticity of the exhibits produced by complainant herself, ten months after the incident.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 79 of 106Learned counsel further raised doubt on closure report as police alleged the difference in the version of the complainant and Sant Ram erodes the credibility of both the statements.S.M. Dhaul had seen Sarat Chander in a compromising position with a woman in the C.D., however, he did not see anyone else in the C.D. except Sarat Chander and complainant.Sarat Chander had a conversation with Vijay Kataria, which is recorded in his mobile phone; CFSL, Lodhi Colony, has authenticated the voices on the recorded material as those belonging to Sarat Chander and Vijay Kataria; this conversation proves that C.D. was in possession of Vijay Kataria and not with Sarat Chander and others, this also negates the allegation of extortion.Findings prove that complainant and Vijay Kataria were in constant touch with each other.Complainant and Vijay Kataria were together involved in a conspiracy to lure Sarat Chander to 8-136, Shivalik, Delhi, to implicate him in the case.Relationship between Vijay Kataria and accused persons had turned sour; the accused persons had filed written complaints expressing their apprehension of being implicated by Vijay Kataria in false cases.Investigation shows that C.D. was in possession of Vijay Kataria.Sant Ram and complainant gave different version regarding playing of the C.D. Sarat Chander admitted having sexual intercourse with complainant.Nothing has come on record to show that Sarat Chander had committed rape on complainant.The allegation of complainant that Sarat Chander had called her on her phone, is not Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 80 of 106 supported by her phone records.In the C.D. played in the office of Mr. B.M. Dhaul, there were only Sarat Chander and complainant in the C.D. The other two accused Ramesh Thakur and Praveen Bhargava were not seen in the CD.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 80 of 106According to Cancellation report Para 23 without obtaining the call details and location details of mobile number 9818133783, of accused Ramesh Thakur, the police could not have reached to a conclusion that on the day of incident he was in Rohini.Counsel further submitted that in para 24 of the Cancellation Report, it is mentioned that on 08.10.2006 at 08:32 p.m. and again at 09:27 p.m., Praveen Bhargava received a call from Ramesh Thakur (Cell No. 9818133783).However, without taking call details of the Ramesh Thakur's Cell No. 9818133783, which has been used at the time of incident, they cannot presume that the accused Ramesh Thakur was in Rohini.These call details have not been obtained by the Investigation Officer, apparently to help the accused persons.There is no conclusive material on record that C.D was in possession of Vijay Kataria and even if it was in his possession, nothing prevented the police from recovering the same from him.There was apparent lack of effort and interest on the part of the police to recover and place the C.D on record.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 81 of 106He submitted, the closure report totally ignored the statement of Ruby Thakur recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where she had stated that when she was going upstairs to 136, Shivalik, she saw three persons going downstairs; one of the persons collided with her.When she reached the flat, she saw that the door was open; and when she entered the bedroom she saw complainant sitting naked in semi-conscious state; at that time, she was totally naked and was crying badly; when she regained consciousness, then on asking she told Ruby that three persons have committed rape on her and she wants to commit suicide.There is nothing on record to disbelieve such statement of Ruby Thakur.Apart from the statements of prosecutrix and Ms. Ruby Thakur, the significant statement of witness Sant Ram was also totally ignored by the police.Sant Ram has stated in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that around 11-12th October, 2011 at 11:00 -11:30 a.m. when he went to the office of Mr. B.M. Dhaul, Chief Engineer, DJB, he was told by the peon that a meeting is going on, but he still went inside.He saw that a VCD is being run Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 82 of 106 on the computer, which he watched for 6-7 seconds and he saw some objectionable scenes.On seeing him, Mr. Dhaul switched off the computer and he noticed a girl there, who was crying.The witness stated that he saw that the same girl was in C.D., in unconscious stage, in an objectionable position, with Praveen Bhargava, Sarat Chander and Ramesh Thakur and in the scene Praveen Bhargava was doing the wrong thing and the remaining two were standing.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 82 of 106In the entire closure report, there is no mention of statement of complainant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; wherein she had clearly stated that she was made to eat one pastry, after which she felt drowsy and was not in her senses; she felt that three persons, namely, Sarat Chander, Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur were raping her, but she could not resist, and was unable to stop them, as she had no control over her senses.This statement of the Complainant was deliberately ignored by the police in its closure report.Minor discrepancy in the version of Complainant and Sant Ram, regarding playing of CD would not discredit their statements and the same cannot be discarded in this manner.It was not appreciated that Sant Ram is an independent witness.Mr. Mittal further submitted that petitioner Parveen Bhargava had contacted various senior police officials and senior officers in Delhi Government to take their favour so that they would be saved from not getting implicated in the present case.Moreover, Forensic report dated 26.09.2007, of FSL, Rohini, confirmed detection of blood and human semen on the bed sheet.The subsequent report of CFSL, Lodhi Colony is that no male fraction DNA could be generated cannot be relied upon or treated as Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 83 of 106 conclusive evidence for the simple reason that the DNA fraction could not be found because the entire area on the bed sheet containing semen stains had been used up at FSL, Rohini.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 83 of 106He further submitted that Sant Ram stated about the VCD being played in the computer, in the office of B.M. Dhaul, which fact was corroborated by B.M. Dhaul himself, but despite such admissions and corroborations, the forensic lab gave the finding that the CD was not played on the computer.Revision Petition No.272/2007 "Renu Vij Vs.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 86 of 106(PRAVEEN 23392005 1I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The present petitions are for quashing the impugned order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned ACMM, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby the learned Judge has taken the cognizance U/s 204 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s 376 (g) IPC and summoned the petitioners.The above named IO was further directed to file a report before the Trial Court as early as possible.The complainant, instead of complying with the directions passed by this Court, filed the SLP (Criminal) No. 6306/2008 against the order dated 14.08.2008 passed by this Court, however, same was dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2009 by the Apex Court.On the basis of investigation and material available, the police concluded that Vijay Kataria was involved in a conspiracy with the complainant to implicate the petitioners.The police also examined the call details of mobile phone number 9818185579 of the complainant which revealed that she had received incoming calls from mobile No. 9910222660 at 8.07 pm on the date of alleged incident, immediately after the occurrence of the incident.The conversation on the aforesaid phone lasted for 290 seconds with Mr.Vijay Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 93 of 106 Kataria.Thus, examination of call details established that the complainant was in constant touch with Mr. Vijay Kataria on the one hand and also with Mr.Sarat Chander throughout the day of incident, i.e., on 08.10.2006 on the other hand.In addition, there were eleven calls/SMSs between them.Therefore, the police concluded that petitioners Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur were not found even near the alleged place of offence.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 93 of 106Thus, it is proved that the complainant and Vijay Kataria were together involved in a conspiracy to lure Sarat Chander at the aforesaid place.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 94 of 106Even after returning home no family members observed any abnormality in her behaviour.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 96 of 106The allegation of molestation by Sh.B.M. Dhaul at DJB office is not proved as statements of Sant Ram and Ms. Vani Whig are at variance.Sant Ram and Vijay Kataria are close friends and have common criminal cases amongst them.Vijay Kataria and Ms. Vani Whig have gone to great lengths to prevent any links between them from surfacing.They have used multiple mobile phone numbers to hoodwink the investigation regarding their interaction with each other.However, as discussed in detailed earlier, their links have been established from the different numbers and handsets, they have used over a period of time and their being together at the cell phone based location of Faiz Road, Karol Bagh (Office of DJB).Further both of them did not disclose true facts during investigation of this case.On receipt of the said closure report, vide order dated 02.06.2010, learned ACMM directed to supply the copy of the same to the complainant for enabling her to file objection, if any.R.P. 208/2012 Page 97 of 106 but the issue is as to whether gang rape has been committed by all the petitioners?M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 97 of 106Thus, the learned ACMM has neither ignored the cancellation report filed by the police nor relied upon the same but issued summons for offence U/s 376(2)(g) IPC.Admittedly, the allegations in the complaint/FIR are pertaining to two different incidents at two different places and on two different dates.Cognizance means the point in time when a Court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiate proceedings in respect of such offence which appears to have been committed.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 98 of 106The theory of CD has been rejected by the police as it was founded only on the basis of the statements of the complainant and witness Sant Ram.However, the learned ACMM has made contrary observations in the impugned order as under:-"....As far as the presence of other two accused persons are concerned, it was seen by Ms. Ruby Thakur.Further, the presence of other two accused when sexual activity on complainant was going on, as depicted in CD was seen by one independent witness, namely, Shri Sant Ram ...."The said provision is applicable for trial.It is pertinent to mention here that the mobile No. 9958772222 owned by petitioner Praveen Bhargava was activated on 19.03.2008, much after the alleged occurrence.Therefore, if the police has not examined call details of Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 99 of 106 this telephone number, that will not prejudice the allegation of the complainant.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 99 of 106Admittedly, complainant has been working with M/s Kaveri Infrastructure of which Mr. Vijay Kataria was the Financial Adviser.The call details examined by the police prove the proximity of the complainant and Vijay Kataria.During investigation, she denied having any knowledge of telephone No. 9910222660, whereas, as a matter of fact, she was found to be in constant touch with Vijay Kataria on the alleged date of incident on this mobile number.It is important to note that the rented accommodation was taken on rent @ Rs.22,000/- per month, whereas the salary of the complainant was just Rs.10,000/- per month with M/s Kaveri Infrastructure.Ms. Ruby Thakur, who was also working with M/s Kaveri Infrastructure, was having two accommodations simultaneously with her, i.e., C-34, Malviya Nagar and B- 136, Shivalik, Delhi.The said Kataria has been on inimical terms with all three alleged accused persons in this case.Both the persons, namely, Ruby Thakur and Sant Ram were associated with Vijay Kataria.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.R.P. 208/2012 Page 100 of 106 witness in case FIR No. 54/2006 U/s 307 IPC, PS Chandi Nagar, Bagpat, UP, which was registered on the complaint of Vijay Kataria.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.Even, if anyone make representation which he knows to be false and injury ensues therefrom is always to be viewed seriously.A collusion or conspiracy with a view to cause the damage to the other person amounts to fraud.It is pertinent to mention here that the State has preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 203/ 2011 titled as State through DCP Crime Vs.before the Court of learned District Judge-cum-ASJ, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi against the same very impugned order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned ACMM, South District, Saket, Delhi.The said proceedings have also been summoned by this Court to avoid multiplication of proceedings, which has been registered as Crl.The police filed Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate praying that the case be Crl.M.C. Nos. 2019, 3182 & 2022 of 2011 & Crl.On the basis of the mobile phone records location was considered and it was found that the appellant was not with the complainant at the time of occurrence of the offence of rape.She met petitioner Sarat Chander under a fake identity of a reporter named Shivani.She called Sarat Chander seven times on the day of incident.R.P. 208/2012 Page 104 of 106 named Ms. Ruby Thakur for which she falsely introduced complainant as her married sister.For the said accommodation Ms. Ruby Thakur paid Rs.88,000/- as advance rental for four months.The said expensive rental accommodation was beyond their known sources of income. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,197,561 | This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners accused with the prayer to get the impugned summoning order dated 2.4.2010 passed against them by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Basti as well as the revisional order dated 16.7.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Basti, quashed.The petitioners are represented by their counsel Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra while the respondent no.2 Mamunisha is represented by her counsel Sri S.P. Pandey.Both are present in Court.A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 which is taken on record.I have heard the counsel for both the sides as well as learned AGA and have perused the whole record.It appears that the petitioners were summoned by the lower court under sections 323, 379,452,504,506 and 427 IPC in complaint case No.1842/2009 filed by the complainant Mamunisha (respondent no.2).The revision filed against the summoning order too got dismissed as it was time barred.A perusal of the complaint and the statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. reveal that the complainant's side as well as the side of the accused(petitioners) had locked their horns because of the marital discord which arose between the complainant's son Mohd.Aslam (husband) and his wife Amirunnisha.The mutual bickerings of the married couple escalated and engulfed the other members of the family also.This unfortunate bad blood between the two families resulted in a number of litigations between them.The present complaint in question giving rise to this petition is also an offshoot of the same marital dispute and nuptial disharmony.The petitioner's counsel has submitted that through the good offices of some relatives both the parties have agreed to resolve their dispute amicably and have already advanced in this direction substantially resulting in the compromise of other cases which were pending between them at different judicial forums.The counsel for the respondent also has brought my attention to the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 who is none else but the complainant of the complaint case in question wherein the impugned orders under challenge have been passed.It has been averred by the respondent no.2 in her affidavit that a criminal case no. 468 of 2007 u/s 147, 323, 504, 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Walterganj District Basti was filed by her daughter in law against her in laws.Apart from this a case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance was also filed by her daughter in law against her husband.Both these cases have been compromised between the parties.In support of the same Annexures-CA-1 and Annexure-C.A.2 have been annexed along with short counter affidavit.. A perusal of Annexure-CA-1 reveals that it is a joint application filed on behalf of the complainant of that case Amirun Nisha as well as by five accused persons of that cases in the concerned court with the submissions that both the parties have entered into a mutual compromise and various terms regarding the maintenance amount as well as their decision to put an end to all the litigations have been settled in between them.Another Annexure-CA-2 is the order dated 13.10.2011 passed by the CJM Sant Kabir Nagar inCrl.Case No.75/11/2009 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. A perusal of the order reveals that the maintenance case filed by Smt.The Special Judge CBI rejected the application for discharge and the High Court of Bombay too approved the Special Judges' refusal to discharge the accused in the criminal cases on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.Thereafter the matter reached the Supreme Court. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,903,537 | Heard on admission.This petition has been filed under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.9.2016 passed by the XIth A.S.J. Ujjain, in S.T. No. 439/2014 whereby learned Judge acquitted the non-applicants from the charge under Section 302 in alternate 302/34 of IPC and Section 25 (1-kha) (ka) and 27 and 25(1)-kha (kha) of Arms Act.Brief facts of the case are that on 31.3.2014 complainant Praveen @ Chiku lodged the report at P.S. Chimanganj Mandi Ujjain, averring that at 11 am while he was going to Ujjain city from Bherugarh Jail on bike M.P. 09-MT 3262 being driven by him along with Monu @ Gaurishanker on the way, at Agar road two unidentified persons came on a bike and fired due to which he lost his balance and fell down on the road.Then, these persons stopped their motorcycle and assaulted Monu @ Gaurishanker by knife and ran away from the spot.Monu died on the spot Due to injuries.On that Police registered Crime No. 244/2014 for the offence under Section 302/34 and Section 25/27 of Arms Act and investigated the matter.During investigation, it was found that non-applicants murdered Monu @ Gauri Shanker Verma so Police arrested them and also recovered one pistol from the possession of non-applicant No.1 Chandrakumar @ Chandu and one knife from the possession of non- applicant No.2 Firoz and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against non-applicant before the Court.On that charge sheet S.T. No. 439/2014 was registered.Learned XIth ASJ Ujjain, framed charge against non-applicant No.1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC in alternate Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act and against non-applicant No.2 Firoz for the offence under Section 302 in alternate 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 (1-kha) (kha) of Arms Act. However, after trial he acquitted both the non-applicants from the aforesaid charges.Being aggrieved from that judgment applicant/State filed this leave to appeal.Learned Counsel for the applicant/State submitted that from the evidence produced by the prosecution it is clearly proved that the applicant murdered Gaurishankar.Learned Trial Court without appreciating the evidence wrongly acquitted the non-applicants from the aforesaid charges.We have gone through the record and arguments put forth by learned Counsel for the applicant/State.Although prosecution produced as many as 17 witnesses to prove their case but all the important prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution story.Complainant Praveen @ Chiku (PW-4) who is an eye-witness only deposed that two unidentified persons beated Monu.He clearly denied the fact that non-applicants were behind the incident and also denied the fact that he had identified non-applicants as accused.Other eye-witnesses of the incident Kewal Bairagi (PW-1), Mahesh (PW-6) and Anter Singh (PW-13) also turned hostile.The father of the deceased Monu @ Gaurishanker, Surendra Kumar (PW-5), mother Ratanbai (PW-3) and brother Balkrishna Verma (PW-2) also turned hostile.The independent witness of memorandum Ex.P/22 and Arrest Memo Ex.P/23 of non- applicant No.1 Chandrakumar, Sachin Bhadoriya (PW-14) and the witness Farukh Hussain (PW-10) of seizure memo Ex.P/17 of country made pistol seized from Chandrakumar, Nitesh Khatri (PW-17) and Jitendra Malviya (PW-16) independent witness of memorandum Ex.P/34 and Seizure Memo Ex.P/35 of Knife seized from the possession of non-applicant No.2 Firoz, also turned hostile.Even in the FSL report Ex. P/31 it is mentioned that it was not possible to tell whether the cartridge seized from the spot was fired with the pistol allegedly seized from non-applicant No.1 Chandrakumar. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,903,555 | On receipt of a wireless message from Lady Constable Sham Kaur (number 8040/PCR), a DD No.28-A dated 22-23.03.2009 was recorded in the Police Station (PS) Parliament Street at about 1:50 P.M. to the effect that screams of Bachao-Bachao' could be heard from near Kothi number 48, Rakab Ganj Road and people were running here and there.The information was passed on to ASI Kapoor Singh (PW-9) who along with Constable Sanjay (PW-12) was present near Gurdwara Rakab Ganj, Crl.A No.433/2011 Page 1 of 16 as they were inquiring into an incident recorded through DD No.24-A, when they reached the park in front of Kothi No.18 they found one lady was crying, and they also saw that one fat person was beating a thin person with a brick.They noticed that the thin person had expired due to the injuries inflicted by the fat person i.e. the Appellant Raj Kumar.A No.433/2011 Page 1 of 16SI Subash Chand (PW-1) also reached the spot.He recorded statement Ex.PW-1/A of ASI Kapoor Singh and sent the rukka to the Police Station through Constable Sanjay for registration of FIR.Inspector Suraj Bhan (PW21) was assigned further investigation of the case.He also reached the spot and conducted the inquest proceedings.The dead body was sent to the mortuary of RML Hospital.ASI Kapoor Singh (PW-9) deposed that on the night intervening 22-23.03.2009 he was posted as ASI at PP North Avenue, Police Station, Parliament Street.On that day at about 1:45 A.M. he and Constable Sanjay were present near Gurdwara Rakab Ganj regarding inquiry of DD No.24-A. The Duty Officer Police Station Parliament Street informed him through wireless that a cry of Bachao-Bachao' was heard from near Kothi No.18, Rakab Ganj Road, New Delhi and people were running here and there.A No.433/2011 Page 3 of 16He found a lady crying and one fat person (the Appellant) was beating a thin person (the deceased) with a brick.The thin person had died due to the injuries inflicted upon him.The witness deposed that in the meanwhile SI Subash Chand from PP North Avenue also reached the spot.On examining the dead body, he noticed injuries on the face and forehead.He made endorsement on the statement Ex.PW-1/A of SI Subash Chand and sent the rukka to the Police Station.The witness was put to lengthy cross-examination.He deposed that it took him five minutes to reach the spot after he received the wireless message.He stated that only a lady (the Appellant's wife) and two children were present inside the park.The Appellant and his family's articles were found present in the park.There was neither tent nor any hut to live in the park.The Appellant was wearing a cococola coloured T-shirt, one Bermuda shorts and a woolen cap.He deposed that there was a pod of blood near the dead body and a bamboo stick was lying at a distance of about 3 or 4 ft.from the dead body.Some blood was present on the bamboo stick.The witness denied the suggestion that he did not see the Appellant inflicting any injury on the deceased.He denied the suggestion that he had made a false statement to solve a blind case.Constable Sanjay (PW-12) deposed that he reached the spot along with ASI Kapoor Singh and apprehended one person (the Appellant) who was inflicting injuries on another person with a brick.The victim had died by then.SI Subash Chand also reached the spot and recorded the statement of ASI Kapoor Singh.This witness was also subjected to a searching cross-examination but nothing could be elicited therein to discredit his testimony.PW-15 Constable Girdhari deposed that during the night intervening 22-23.03.2009 he was posted as a Constable in RAC 8th Battalion E Crl.A No.433/2011 Page 4 of 16 Company.He was on duty in Kothi No.18, Gurdwara Rakabganj Road allotted to Shri Sita Ram Singh, MP Lok Sabha.There was an NDMC park near the Kothi.The Appellant and his wife and two children used to sleep in the said park at night and he (the Appellant) used to sell ice- cream from a push cart near the park.The witness deposed that at about 12:45 A.M. he saw some sensation and saw some quarrel taking place; he informed the Guard Commander Raj Singh about the same.The place of his duty was at a distance of 50 yds.from the place where the quarrel took place.There was darkness in the corner from where the commotion was heard.A lady who was crying, came out from the darkness; she was identified as the Appellant's wife.(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 17, 2012 vk Crl.A No.433/2011 Page 16 of 16A No.433/2011 Page 16 of 16The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 06.09.2010 and the order on sentence dated 10.09.2010 whereby the Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of ` 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo RI for one month.A concrete brick was recovered at the disclosure of the Appellant and sealed in a cloth parcel.Blood stained earth, earth control, the Appellant's bloodstained clothes, which he was wearing at the time of the incident, were all seized.On Appellant's pleading not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses.PW-1 SI Subash Chand, PW-2 Dr. Vineet Pathak, PW-3 Dr. S.K.Naik, PW-9 ASI Kapoor Singh, PW-12 Constable Sanjay and PW-21 Inspector Suraj Bhan are the material witnesses.The Appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in order to give him an opportunity to explain the incriminating evidence produced against him by the prosecution.He denied the prosecution's allegations and pleaded false implication.She did not produce any evidence in his defence.A No.433/2011 Page 2 of 16We have heard Ms. Anu Narula, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. M.N. Dudeja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record.The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the incident did not take place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.The injuries on the deceased were not inflicted by the Appellant and he was implicated merely on suspicion.In the alternative, it was contended that even if it is established that the Appellant caused the injuries, the same were done in exercise of the right of the private defence for which the Appellant is protected under Section 100 of the IPC.The plea of right of private defence, argues the learned APP for the State, was never raised by the Appellant during the trial and the same being an afterthought has to be rejected.Thereafter they felt that there was some quarrel.This witness was allowed to be cross-examined by the learned APP for the State and he testified that he saw the Appellant giving blows with a stone like object to the victim.He admitted that the Appellant was nabbed by the two police officers who came on a motor cycle.This witness was also cross-examined at length.He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely.A No.433/2011 Page 4 of 16PW-17 HC Raj Singh by and large corroborated PW-15's testimony.PW-1 SI Subash Chand and PW-21 Inspector Suraj Bhan who carried out the initial and subsequent investigation respectively corroborated ASI Kapoor Singh's version.PW-2 Dr. Vineet Pathak prepared the MLC of an unknown person, aged 25 years (the deceased) who was brought to the hospital by ASI Kapoor Singh.He proved MLC Ex.PW-2/A. This witness also medically examined Smt. Kiran, (the Appellant's wife).The doctor noticed a 2 cm long abrasion on the right ring finger and proved MLC Ex.PW-2/C.A No.433/2011 Page 5 of 16PW-3 Dr. S.K.Naik, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Lady Harding Medical College conducted autopsy on the deceased's dead body and noticed 14 injuries.The doctor opined the cause of death to be cranio cerebral injuries as a result of hard and blunt force trauma to the head.The injuries were ante-mortem in nature and cumulatively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.This witness also examined a solid bamboo stick 85.5 cm long (with 9 cm circumference) at the level of 2nd node and a concrete piece 20.5 cm x 16 cm x 6 cm.The witness opined that the injuries were possible with the alleged weapon of offence which was examined by him by his note Ex.PW-3/B.ASI Kapoor Singh and Constable Sanjay's testimony has been corroborated by PW-15 and 17 regarding factum of infliction of injuries by the Appellant on the deceased.Nothing was elicited in their cross- examination which could discredit their testimonies.It is argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant that police officers are always interested in the success of the case and their testimonies could not be relied upon to base a conviction in a serious offence like this unless their version is corroborated by independent evidence.It is important to note that the incident took place at the dead of night.No other witness could have been present in the park at that time.When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.-The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:--A No.433/2011 Page 12 of 16During the hearing of the Appeal, we wanted to examine Kiran to reach the truth.She was summoned through IO of the case but her whereabouts could not be known despite best efforts of the IO.The Appellant also could not provide her whereabouts.C.Q. Did you try to find out the cause of the inflicting injuries on the deceased?A. Yes, I tried to find-out the cause.C.Q. What did Kiran, wife of the appellant tell you? A. She informed me that she was sleeping when the quarrel started; she woke-up when it was going-on.She stated that the deceased had attacked her husband - a fact told by him (the Appellant) to her.She also stated that the appellant told her that the deceased was bent towards her.This was the cause for the scuffle; she also told me that she tried to separate her husband from the deceased and suffered injuries.C.Q. Did you try to verify Kiran's version from anyone? A. Yes, Kiran's version was tried to be verified from the Rajasthan Police guards but the same could not be verified.C.Q. Can you give any reason why Kiran was not cited as a witness?A No.433/2011 Page 14 of 16The incident took place in the dead of the night in a park.Thus, an offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out against the Appellant.We would convert the conviction under Section 302 IPC to one Section 304 Part-II IPC.The Appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to one under Section 304 Part II.The sentence of imprisonment for life is set aside.The Appellant in the peculiar facts of the case is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- or in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.A No.433/2011 Page 15 of 16 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,906,545 | With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.Petitioner is proprietor of M/s Mangal Gun House and doing business of sale and purchase of arms and ammunition under valid Arms Dealer Licence.On 5/9/2013 at the time of inspection, certain irregularities were alleged to be found in the shop of the petitioner contrary to the licence condition.Therefore, an FIR has been registered against the petitioner under Section 188 of the IPC.State has filed return and contested the case.In both the cases, on identical facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has allowed the MCrC and writ petition respectively and quashed the respective FIRs registered against the identically placed 2 W.P.No." For the reasons mentioned above, petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and Crime No. 71/2013 dated 16.09.2013 registered at Police Station Morar for offence under Section 188 of IPC is quashed.""After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and on consideration of the fact, that too the reasoning to which show-cause notice for cancellation of the arms licence and registration of the F.I.R Annexure P/1 was issued recommending to cancel the same has turned down by the order Annexure 3 W.P.No.5613/2015 (Arun Mangal Vs.State of M.P. & Ors.) P/10 dated 11/08/2014, by Home Department of the M.P. and such recommendation has been consigned to record. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,929,085 | JUDGMENT N.K. Batabyal, J.She is a daughter of Jayalakshmi (P.W. 3) and Kamraj (P.W. 9).On the fateful day on 22-1 -1989, a Sunday, Jayalakshmi at about 4-30 p.m. went to assist her husband with her minor son at her husband's pan shop leaving her two minor daughters, Chitra (PW.20)and Jayanthi (P.W. 19), to the care of Dhuran (P.W. 1), a neighbor.She locked her door keeping her two daughters to Dhuran and gave the key to Dhuran so that Dhuran could enjoy the cinema show in the TV kept in her room that evening.The house of Dhuran is at a distance of about 45 feet from the room of Jayalakshmi.The small child Jayanthi fell asleep in the' room of Dhuraan and for this reason she was not disturbed when Dhuran went to the room of Jayalakshmi at the time of the cinema show i n the TV at about 5-25 p.m. Dhuran (P.W. 1), her two sisters, Chitra (then aged 6 years) and the minor son of Dhuran, Shyam (then aged 3 years) went to enjoy the cinema show in the TV at the room of Jayalakshmi.There were others in the room of Jayalakshmi at that time.The light was kept burning in the room of Dhuran and the door was shut but not locked from outside.Upto the time of interval of the cinema show there was no incident.Appellant Shyamraj was close neighbour of Dhuran.His house was about 30-40 feet away from the house of Augustin (P.W. 16) of the same village 1/2 minutes before the interval of the TV show accused Shyamraj came to the room of Kamraj and through the open door peeped into the room standing on the varandah.He asked Dhuran what was the name of film.She gave the name of the film.Then the accused went away.Shortly after the resumption of cinema show after interval, it is alleged, the little baby Jayanthi became missing from her bed.After sometime she saw the little girl crying and coming from the direction of the cattleshed of the accused person.That place was very dark and Dhuran recognised the baby by her voice.When the baby came close, Dhuran lifted her in her lap and asked her where she had gone in Tamil language.Being satisfied that the child witness understood the significance of telling the truth to the court, the ld., Judge put certain question to the child witness.She told the court that she could not remember what accused Shyamraj had done to her.She only remembered that she was taken to hospital where she remained for a few days.In her cross-examination the child witness stated that she could not remember how many months ago she was taken to hospital or whether she remained in the Children's Ward.She only remembered that she was taken to the hospital at night.PW. 1 came to Kamraj's room at about 5-25 p.m. and switched on the TV set when a film show was on.Then she came back to her room at a distance of 45 feet and went back to the Kamraj's room with her 2 sisters Savitri (PW. 4), and Chintamani Chitra (PW. 20) and her minor son Shyam (of 3 years) for enjoying the TV cinema.She left Jayanthi alone in the room with a tube light burning as she was sleeping.The door of her room was closed but no lock was put in the door.PW. 1, PW. 4 (Savitri), Alma (PW. 7), Chintamani (not examined), Shyam.Smti Manimala, Velonika (daughter of Augustin (PW. 16) were there to enjoy the cinema show in the TV that evening up to interval time.All the time the baby Jayanthi was sleeping alone in the room of PW. 1 (Dhuran).1/2 minutes before the interval, accused-Shyamraj came to the room of Kamraj and standing on the verandah peeped through the open door into the room.He asked PW. 1 (Dhuran) about the title of the film and she gave him the name.All other persons enjoying the cinema show in the room of Kamraj were also present then.PW. 1 Dhuran still continued to enjoy the cinema show as the show was still to continue for 2/3 minutes.Immediately after the film was over PW. 1 came out and proceeded towards her room shouting and calling Jayanthi by her name.But there was no reply.When PW. 1 was going towards the side of the cattle-shed of the accused appellant, she saw Jayanthi (PW. 19) coming from the direction of the cattle shed towards her house and crying.The place was dark PW. 1 recognised Jayanthi by her voice.Ext. II.Blood-stained scrapings of the cement floor and control area (Mat.15. Dhuran(PW.1) has categorically stated that at the time of interval of the film show in the TV, she went to her room with her two sisters, Savitri (PW. 4) and Chintamani (not examined as a witness) from Kamraj's (PW. 9) room.She found Jayanthi sleeping.The lamp was burning and nothing was wrong in the room.After about 10 minutes she returned to Kamraj's room with her two sisters.She went there, saw PW. 19 sleeping there.She again shut the door of the room but did not lock it.She started for the room of Kamraj to witness the remaining part of the feature film.Then she saw appellant Shyamraj standing at a distance of 5/6 steps from her room in the street light.At that time PW. 4 was aged 10/11 years.Seeing her, Shyamraj gave her a currency note of Rs. 10/- denomination and asked her bring pan from the shop of Ramasamy (PW. 11) asking her to tell the pan shop owner that the pan was for Shyamraj.Ungrudgingly she went and came back with three pans and gave the pans with Welcome Supari and Rs. 8/- as balance.Shyamraj was still standing at the same place.Shyamraj then gave her Rs. 2/- for sweets.Then she returned to the room of Kamraj to enjoy the remaining part of the feature film.But she did not tell PW.I about meeting Shyamraj and etc. The film show resumed after interval.Within 2/3 minutes the lights went off.PW. 1 sent PW. 4 to her room to bring a match box.As soon as she entered the room, the lights were restored.But she could not see Jayanthi in the room.She searched for her in the room but she could not find her.She came back to the room of Kamraj and reported the matter to Dhuran (PW. 1).She sat undisturbed to enjoy the film show which was coming to its close.Immediately, thereafter, the film ended.Only three went out in search.PW. 1 called Jayanthi by name loudly.No one responded to her cal is.Augustin (PW. 16) has no TV set.He generally goes to the room of Goraiah (PW. 2) to witness the feature film in the TV.According to him, there were two TV sets at the material time in that area - one at the room of Goraiah (PW. 2) and the other at the room of Kamraj.On the date of occurrence, he went to the room of Goraiah to see the feature film.He saw Phaskal (PW. 10) and appellant Shyamraj witnessing the film standing on the verandah of Goraiah (PW. 2).Shyamraj left the place 2/3 minutes before interval.He did not return after the interval.After the show was over at about 8-25 p.m., he returned to his house.Before taking meal, he was standing on the verandah.At that time, Dhuran (PW. 1) and Chitra (PW. 20) asked him if he had seen Jayanthi.He replied in the negative.Ramaswamy (P.W. 11) gave three pans of special type to Savitri and returned her a sum of Rs. 8/-.Some 2/3 minutes thereafter, Shyamraj came to his shop and told him that there was less Supari and Zarda in those pans, Ramaswamy gave him extra Supari and Zarda.Thereafter Shyamraj left his shop.According to him Shyamraj came within 5 minutes after Savitri had left his shop.It has been put to this witness in cross examination in that Savitri did not come to his shop as stated by him and Shyamraj also did not go to his shop as stated by him.It is really surprising how it is possible for Ramaswamy (P.W. 11) to remember the incident of a particular night of supplying pan to the regular customer Shyamraj and especially the fact of tendering of a Rs. 10/- currency note and returning Rs. 8/- being the balance amount.The panwala sells pan through out the day.She has also stated that on 22-1-1989 she along with her two sisters, Velonika and Jesika went to the room of Kamraj to see the film in the TV.That room was opened by Dhuran (PW. 1).Kamraj, his wife and son went to pan shop keeping their two daughters Chitra and Jayanthi with Dhuran.Chitra was also witnessing the show but Jayanthi was sleeping in the room of Dhuran.She has stated that after some time when the show was going on appellant Shyamraj peeped inside the room of Kamraj through the open door and asked something to Dhuran and he went away.This witness has further stated that during the interval Dhuran asked Savitri to go to her room to see whether Jayanthi was sleeping in the room.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, A & N Islands, in Sessions case No. 22 of 1991 (Sessions Trial No. 1st of September, 1994).The ld.Sessions Judge has found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 363/376(2)(b) of the IPC and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 376(2)(b), IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- i.e.; to R.I. for six months more.The learned Sessions Judge has also sentenced him to suffer 3 years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i.e. to R.I. for 3 months more for the offence under Section 363, IPC.The two sentences are to run concurrently.The learned Sessions Judge has found the appellant not guilty of the offence under Section 307, IPC and acquitted him thereunder.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the ld.Sessions Judge, the appellant has preferred this appeal.His main contention is that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been illegally found guilty of the offences under Section 376(2)(b) and Section 363 of the IPC.The appeal is hotly contested.The prosecution case in a short compass, is as follows:- Village Dairy farm.Port Blair is a cluster of houses forming the backdrop of the scene of occurrence in this case.Savitri (PW. 4), sister of Dhuran reported the matter to Dhuran but she did not take the matter seriously and asked Savitri to look for missing Jayanthi.Then both Savitri (P.W. 4) and Chitra (P.W. 20) went out in search of missing Jayanthi but within a short time she returned and reported that the search was in vain.As the cinema show was coming to its close, Dhuran did not immediately react to the second missing report but immediately after the show was over she went out of the room of Jayalakshmi and searched for the missing girl along with Savitri and Chitra.She loudly called for the baby by her name but there was no response.The baby then could walk and speak in Tamil and Hindi.The baby replied in Tamil language that accused Shyamraj had taken her away and she was beaten by Shyamraj on her neck and her private parts.She indicated those parts by putting her hands thereon.Savitri (PW. 4) came by the side of Dhuran and told that there was some cow-dung on the back portion of Jayanthi's frock.Then Dhuran examined the back portion of Jayanthi's frock but found that it was not cow-dung but stains of blood.Dhuran1 then took the little baby inside the room and examined her person and found scratch marks around her neck in the front portion and also saw blood was coming out of her vagina.At that time, the small child did not wear any nether garment but was wearing a sando baniyan and a white frock with blue print.A portion of the frock of Jayanthi was stained with blood, so Dhuran took the frock from her person and dipped it in water and kept it hanging for drying.Thereafter, the parents of the baby were informed.They came and heard of the incident and took the baby the same night to GB Pant Hospital, Port Blair for treatment.The baby was examined and treated there.Police was informed.FIR was recorded at 23:25 hrs on 22-1-1989 and a case was started under Section 307/376, IPC against the appellant.On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 376/363 and 307, IPC.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.The learned Sessions Judge on trial has been pleased to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 376/363 of the IPC but the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 307, IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.He accordingly found the accused guilty under Section 376/363 of the IPC and convicted him thereunder.He acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 307, IPC.The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the accused appellant as already stated above.At the time of the hearing of the appeal the learned advocate for the appellant has addressed this court mainly on the ground that the prosecution side has signally failed to prove the place of occurrence and that the depositions of the main prosecution witnesses suffer from irreconcilable contradictions and further that the chain of circumstantial evidence renders the prosecution story highly vulnerable.The learned P.P., Mr. R. S. Saroop on behalf of the prosecution has submitted that there is no substance in the contention in the ld. defence lawyer and that the prosecution side has been able to bring home the charge to the accused person beyond any shade of reasonable doubt.Naturally the main question with which this Court is concerned in this appeal is whether it has been proved beyond all shades of doubts by cogent and reasonable evidence that the accused appellant perpetrated the offence.No doubt the FIR in this case was lodged on 22-1-1989 at 23-25 hours by the mother, Smt. Jayalakshmi (PW 3).The victim herself is the only witness to the occurrence but due to her tender age it was not possible for her to state more than the fact that she was beaten on her neck and on her private parts and she was also medically examined immediately after the occurrence by Doctor Lal) (PW. 22).He found the 2 injuries as stated below :-There was some interference with the private parts of the girl leading to total rupture of the hymen.Rupture was fresh.There was a laceration both lateral and posterior wall of the vagina extending 1" into the vagina 1/2" in the premium.It was profusely bleeding.There were multiple scratch mark found in the front and both sides of the neck.It shows that there was sexual assault on the girl on the date of occurrence.The learned-advocate for the appellant has submitted that the sole witness to the occurrence has not said anything against the appellant.The ld.PP on this point has submitted that it was not possible for a baby of 10 years of age to remember what happened to her when she was only 3 1/2 years old; This shows that the baby who was in the custody of the parents was not tutored at all.The learned PP has said that this at least shows the fairness of the prosecution side.Child witnesses are prone to be witnesses of imagination.Therefore their evidence should be sifted with great care.In this case, however, the child witness has categorically said nothing against the accused appellant.It is true that a child of 10 years cannot remember all that happened to her when she was aged 3/4 years.It is clear in this case that the baby witness did not forget everything, she atleast remembered that she was taken to hospital at night and there she had to stay for a few days.The main prosecution witnesses are Dhuran (PW. 1), Savitri (P.W. 4) and Chitra (PW. 20).The witnesses corroborating the above witnesses are Alma (PW. 7), Goraiah (PW. 2), Phaskal (PW. 10), Ramasamy (PW. 11) and Dhanpath (P.W. 17).The star witness of the prosecution is Dhuran (PW. 1), as it was she who for the first time heard the name of the accused appellant from the lips of Jayanthi (PW. 19) within a few minutes of the alleged occurrence.This witness has stated that Smt. Jayalakshmi (PW. 3) went to the Pan Shop of her husband Kamraj (P.W. 9) at about 4-30/5.00 pm on 22-1-1989 with her minor son Raju leaving Chitra (PW. 20) then aged 6 years and Jayanthi (PW. 19) to the care of PW. 1 (Dhuran) with their tiff in and keys of her room.There was a TV set in the room of Jayalakshmi (P.W. 3) and the keys were given so that PW. 1 could enjoy the TV show at her room.Thereafter accused-Shyamraj peeped inside the room and went away.Immediately after the accused appellant left the place, the interval started.Thereafter PW. 1 (Dhuran) came to her room with Savitri and Chintamani to take water and at that time (Jayanthi) was sleeping in the room.After about 10 minutes PW. 1 returned to the room of Kamraj with her 2 sisters.Within 2/3 minutes after the resumption of the cinema show-after interval electric power went off.PW. 1 (Dhuran) sent Savitri (PW. 4) to her room to bring a match box and to see Jayanthi (P.W. 19).Very soon light was restored and Savitri (PW. 4) came back and reported for the first time that Jayanthi was missing.When the baby came very close to her PW. 1 took her in her lap.On being asked in Tamil where she had gone the baby replied that the accused Shyamraj had taken her away and she was beaten on her neck and private parts, she indicated those parts by her hand.Savitri (PW. 4) had by that time come from behind.She told PW. 1 that some cow-dung stained the back portion of the frock of Jayanthi.PW. 1 (Dhuran) examined the back portion of the frock and found blood stains there.PW. 1 then took Jayanthi inside her room and in the light of her room examined her person and saw scratch marks around her neck in the front portion and blood coming out of her vagina.At that time Jayanthi was not wearing any other garment but wearing a sando baniyan and white frock with blue prints.But the time, PW. 1 was examining the PW. 19, a good portion of the frock of Jayanthi got wet by blood.So, PW. 1 took out the frock, washed it in water and spread it out in the air for drying.(The frock has been marked Mat.Ext. I and the banian marked as Mat.Jayanthi was continuously crying and the bleeding was continuing from her vagina.At that time PW. 1 saw Phaskal (PW. 10) at a distance of 3/4 steps from her room.She called him to inform the parents of Jayanthi that she was bleeding from the private parts of her body.10 went to call the parents.Within 5 minutes, Dhanpat (PW. 17), brother of PW. 1 who at the material time was driving a taxi came there.He was then wearing the driver's dress as he was returning from his duty.PW. 1 told him about sending PW. 10 and requested PW. 17 also to rush to the parents of Jayanthi.17 went away at once.Then PW. 1 narrated the entire thing to them.Jayalakshmi (PW. 3) tried to talk with Jayanthi who responded to her queries but she was not able to talk loudly.She spoke in a low voice and slowly.That was not intelligible.The mother took the baby on her lap and left the room of PW. 1 saying-that they would take the baby in a taxi to GB Pant Hospital, Port Blair for treatment.The night police came and recorded her statement.Within 5/4 days she was taken to a Magistrate who recorded her statement.She made the statement voluntarily.It has been stated above already that there is medical corroboration of the injuries on the person of the child who was examined within a very short time of the occurrence.The FIR was also lodged at the earliest available opportunity.Naturally, there was little scope for embellishment.But the maker of the FIR (PW. 3) had no personal knowledge of the involvement of the appellant Shaymraj.Her source of knowledge was Dhuran (PW. 1) and Jayanthi (PW. 19).According to the prosecution story, the place of occurrence is the cow-shed of the appellant which is lying in the rear portion of the house.In the sketch map (Ext. 18) the location of the rooms of the local area has been shown.There is some controversy about the matter, whether the cow-shed is separate from the varandah of the house or not.Ext. IV and V) were taken by the IO (PW. 23).But from the report of the Chemical Examiner (vide : Result of Exam, of packet marked IV and V in the report) it appears that no blood was detected in the same.In the absence of any other evidence, it is obvious that the cow-shed or the varandah cannot be fixed up as the place of occurrence.The prosecution side has thus miserably failed to prove the place of occurrence.But she did not take the news seriously as she merely asked PW. 4 to search for Jayanthi.Then PW. 4 and Chitra (PW. 20) went out of the room of Kamraj.they searched for Jayanthi.At that time they saw Augustin (PW. 16) sitting in his verandah.PW. 4 asked him about Jayanthi but PW. 16 told that he had not seen Jayanthi.From there, PW. 4 returned straight to the room of Kamraj and reported that Jayanthi could not be traced.Still PW. 1 did not react instantaneously.Coming near the house of Augustin (PW. 16), she again gave calls in Jayanthi's name as she was also called Porshi.Then PW. 4 and others saw Jayanthi at a distance of 20/25 cubits from there crying and coming from the side of the cow-shed of the appellant, Shyamraj.Seeing her, PW. 1 took her in her lap.PW. 4 noticed black smears on the back of her frock.It seemed to be cow-dung to her.But when Jayanthi was brought near the light, the smears appeared to be of blood.Then PW. 1 asked her what had happened.Jayanthi told in Hindi that Shyamraj had taken her from the bed to the cow-shed and pressed her neck and beat her private parts.Then PW. 1 took off her frock, washed it in water and spread it out for drying.PW. 1 informed Phaskal (PW. 10) to inform the parents of Jayanthi.By that time, Dhanpath (PW. 17) elder brother of Savitri came and PW. 1 told him to rush to the parents of Jayanthi.Jayalakshmi (PW. 3) and Kamraj (PW. 9) have stated that they were informed at their shop by Phaskal (PW.They met Dhanpath (PW. 17) on the way.Thus they have corroborated PW. 1 on the point of sending them to the parents of Jayanthi.The Ld.Sessions Judge has rightly believed this part of the prosecution story.Augustin (PW. 16) is a man of village of Dairyfarm.Dhuran (PW. 1) lives as a tenant in one room of his house.To the right of his house is the house of Goraiah (PW. 2).To the left is the house of Ramaih.The appellant is known to him.His house is beyond the house of Ramaiah.Kamraj is also known to him.He runs a pan shop.He lives as a tenant in the house of Goraiah (PW. 2).After a little while he saw Dhuran coining with Jayanthi who was crying then coming from the left side of his house.While Dhuran has stated that she went during interval with her two sisters Savitri and Chintamani, to her room, Savitri (PW. 4) has stated that she went alone during interval to the room of PW. 1 at the instance of PW. 1 to See Jayanthi.Again, P.W. 1 has stated that she returned from her room with her 2 sisters after 10 minutes to the room of Kamraj to see the remaining part of the feature film.But Savitri (PW. 4) has stated that she returned alone and saw appellant Shyamraj standing near the room of PW. 1 in the street and then the appellant Shyamraj gave her a Rs. 10/- note for purchasing pan from the shop of Ramaswamy (PW. 11).If P.W. 1 returned together with her two sisters there was hardly any scope for Savitri to meet the appellant alone.Moreover, P.W. 4 has staled that when she went out in search of Jayanthi (PW. 19) along with Chitra (P.W. 20) then she met Augustin (P.W. 16) standing on the Varandah of his room.She asked him whether he had seen Jayanthi but P.W. 16 has stated that when he was standing on the varandah at that time Dhuran and Chitra asked him if he had seen Jayanthi.This contradictions have not been explained.Moreover it appears from the evidence of Ramaswamy (P.W. 11) that on the date of occurrence Savitri (P.W. 4) went to his shop and asked him to supply 3 pans for Shyamraj.Shyamraj was a habitual customer of his shop and he used to take a special type of pan with Zarda.He has to deal with many customers year in year out.A regular customer purchases pan from his shop on numerous occasions in the year, unless there be any special reason it is never possible for the panwala to remember the incident of a particular day after 4 years with all details.Moreover, the pan shop is about 300 metres away from the area where PW.I was residing.It is obvious that there is a conscious effort to fix up the physical presence of appellant Shyamraj near the house of PW. 1 at the material time.The story of peeping inside the room of Kamraj by the accused Shyamraj just before the interval and the testimony of Augustin to the, effect that the accused person was enjoying the TV film show at the house of Goraiah (P.W. 2) also reveal an attempt to fix up the physical presence of the accused at the material time in the vicinity of the house of P.W. l. Phaskal(P.W. 10) has stated that he along with the accused Shyamraj and Augustin (PW. 16) were sitting on the varandah of Goraiah's room on 22-1-1989 to see the feature film in the TV set.A few minutes before the interval appellant Shyamraj went away from there and he did not return after the interval.He has stated that after the interval he and Augustin saw the remaining part of feature film sitting on the varandah.After the show was over he went to the house of Eswari to get some tobacco leaves and Augustin left for his house.Hearing some noise coming from the room of Dhuran (PW. 1), he came out from the house of Eswari when Dhuran (PW. 1) told him to go immediately to call the parents of Jayanthi.Alma (PW. 17) is the daughter of Augustin.Savitri went away and returned and reported to Dhuran that Jayanthi was sleeping in the room.2/3 minutes after the commencement of show, after interval, electricity went off; then Dhuran (PW. 1) asked Savitri to bring a match box and see Jayanthi in her room.Savitri went out of the room of Kamraj The light was immediately restored.And a little while thereafter Savitri came and reported to Dhuran that Jayanthi was not in the bed.Dhuran then asked Savitri to go and search for Jayanthi.Then Savitri went out to search out the girl.After some time they returned and reported that Jayanthi could not be traced.Soon thereafter the feature film came to an end.Then Dhuran, Savitri, Chitra and Alma went out together in search of the baby.Dhuran called the baby by her name and thereafter saw Jayanthi coming from the cow-shed of Shyamraj.She was then crying.Then Dhuran picked her up in her lap.She heard Jayanthi told Dhuran in Hindi that the accused Shyamraj had taken her away from her room to his cow-shed and beaten on her neck and private parts.There is another contradiction as neither PW. 1 (Dhuran) nor PW. 4 (Savitri) has stated in their deposition that Alma was present with them when they went to search out the missing baby.Chitra (PW. 20) was tendered for crossexamination but the defence side declined to crossexamine her.There is lot of discrepancies about the time given by different prosecution witnesses.We have got it that the house of PW. 1 is at a distance of 45 feet from the room of Kamraj and the room of PW. 1 is not visible from the room of Kamraj.We have also got it that cow-shed of the appellant is about 300 metres away from main road according to the I.O. (PW. 23).The house of Dhuran is at a distance of about 15-40 metres away from the house of the accused.We have got it that from the room of Kamraj, Dhuran, Savitri and Chitra went out in search of the little baby and within a few minutes they heard the voice of the baby coming from the side of the cow-shed of the accused person.It is perhaps not possible physically to come from the room of Kamraj to a place near the house of the accused person within such short span of time.It is also not understood how within 5 minutes of the departure of Savitri from the shop of Ramaswamy (PW. 11) the accused person will reach there and lake extra supari and zarda from his shop.It is also not possible to reconcile the statement of the prosecution witnesses that after the resumption of the cinema show on the TV, Savitri (PW. 4) went to the room of Dhuran and came back to report that the baby was not traceable.And within 2/3 minutes, the cinema show came to an end.The Ld. PP has tried to give an explanation about these discrepancies by stating that the chronometric sense of the countryside community in India is notorious since time is hardly of the essence of their slow life and even urban-folk make mistakes about time when a particular reason to remember the hour of minor events existed.In this respect the submissions made by the Ld. PP appear to be quite sensible.The were multiple linear abrasions over the gland either side of parting of meatus.Abrasions on the posterior aspect of both elbows.The Doctor could not find any presence of stemma on his penis.Nor he found no matted pubic hairs on his genital organs.The doctor also found stains of blood on the anterior aspect of his right leg.Such injuries might have also be possible by horn if that horn has not pointed and was brought to the size of penis.It appears from the Chemical Examiner's report that lungi (Mat.Ext. III) contains stains of blood and semen.Report of the Serologist could not confirm whether the blood on the lungi was of human origin due to its disintegration.Semen sample on the lungi could not be sent as the amount of semen was insufficient for serological test.It has thus not been established whether the semen was of human origin.It is quite likely that traces of semen could be found on the lungi of a grown-up man who appeared to be of 22/23 years of age at the material time.It appears from the item No. VIII of the Chemical Examiner's report that the vaginal swab of Jayanthi was found not to contain any semen.Blood was detected but the amount of blood was considered insufficient for serological examination.In Lyon's Medical Jurisprudence for India, 10th Edition, at page CCXXIII of Supplement, the effect of absence of sperm in the vaginal swab has been discussed.It has been discussed that the sperms in the vagina may retain vitality in the body of the women for a period of 17 days, but this vitality (motion) ceases immediately after passing of the urine or chemical re-agents.In the case at hand, there is no evidence that the baby passed urine before the swab was taken or that part was treated with chemical re-agent.One of the inferences which could be drawn, according to the doctor, was that the accused had committed forcible sexual inter-course.Doctor has opined that injuries on the person of the appellant showed it was quite likely that he committed forcible intercourse.It does not mean and cannot by itself lead to the only conclusion that it was the appellant and non-else who committed the alleged offence.It is to be considered along with the findings of abrasions on the elbows of the appellant.The doctor has opined that the abrasions of the elbows of the appellant were indicating the fact that while committing intercourse he was resting his body on the elbows.In normal course when an adult person commits sexual inter-course forcibly with a grown-up woman that might be plausible.But when a young man of 21 years of age commits forcible rape on a child of 3 1/2 years he cannot stretch his body straight parallel to the level of the ground as the size of the baby is so small that in committing the sexual act he has to rest the weight of the body on his palms bending it near the waist line.In this case the defence side came with the version that the appellant was present in the village but not at the place as stated by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case out of grudge.In his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant stated that he was witnessing the TV film show on the night of occurrence at the house of Phulchand with his wife and daughter, Pinky and Dhanesh from start to finish of the show.Thereafter he went to the pan shop, purchased pan and then returned home, took his meal and went to sleep.He has stated that he and some of his friends on some occasions protested against selling of liquor against the Kamraj from his shop and his house.So, they had a grudge against him.He has also told that some criminal cases were started against him by some Tamil men in which case Shyamraj and his wife were witnesses against him.But he has not given the case number.The appellant has examined two witnesses on his side.They are Smti.Kamla wife of Phul James (DW. 1) and Dhanesh (DW. 2).DW. 1 has stated that on 22-1-1989 the feature film started at about 5-45 p.m. The title of the film was SikanderE-Azam.DW. 1, her husband Phul, her daughter, Sumitra were witnessing the film and at that time accused Shyamraj and Dhanesh (DW. 2) came to her house to witness the feature film.They saw the picture with DW.l and her family up to the last.During this whole period the appellant did not leave the room.He left the room a little after the feature film was over.A suggestion was put to this witness that one Naib-Tehsildar, Ganapathy who is related to the accused-appellant Shyamraj helped D.W. 1 in getting allotment of land in Dairyfarm.But the witness denied the suggestion.She has stated that her house is about 3/4 houses away from the house of accused.It was put to this witness in cross-examination that he was not with Shyamraj to witness the TV film in the house of DW. 1 on 22-1-1989 as stated by him.The fact that the FIR was lodged immediately made after the occurrence is of no special significance as the FIR was not lodged by any person who was an eyewitness to the occurrence or who had been present immediately after the occurrence.The main prosecution witness PW. 1 (Dhuran) contradicts PW. 4 (Savitri) on very vital questions of fact.The appellant be set at liberty at once.A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, A & N Islands, Port Blair at once.U.C. Banerjee, J.I agree. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,914,943 | The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A16 seek quash of theproceedings in P.R.C.No.42 of 2015 pending on the file of the JudicialMagistrate, Sivakasi.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learnedGovernment Advocate (Criminal side) for the first respondent and the learnedcounsel for the second respondent.The allegations made againstthe petitioners is that in pursuant to the dispute over parking the vehicle,the petitioners were said to have committed the offences alleged.4.When the matter was taken up for hearing, a joint compromise memo has been filed duly signed by the petitioners and respondent No.2, wherein it hasbeen stated that there is no necessity to proceed further.The defactocomplainant, who is present before the Court reiterated the same.6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and theproceedings in P.R.C.No.42 of 2015 pending on the file of the JudicialMagistrate, Sivakasi are quashed.1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.2.The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East Police Station, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,922,219 | Item No. 269Order Passed CRAN No.1 of 2020 in CRM 7495 of 2020 In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Dum Dum P.S. Case No. 123 of 2018 dated 21.02.2018 under sections 366A/370/370A/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1965 and under Sections 4/17/21 of the POSCO Act;And In Re : Rakhi Ghosh ......Petitioner. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,929,270 | JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J.Aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, Moradabad (respondent No. 3) canceling the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment as Constable in Railway Protection Force (in short 'RPF') the petitioner has come up in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a further mandamus commanding the respondents to send him for training and appoint on the said post.The form was submitted in duplicate and one copy thereof was returned to the petitioner by the commandant.He appeared in written examination held at Gorakhpur on 2.11.2004 followed by interview dated 3.11.2004 and by letter dated 1.7.2005 issued by the respondent No. 3 he was informed of his selection for the post of Constable in RPF in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4950 subject to the condition of character verification and medical examination etc. The petitioner was declared successful in medical examination and was awaiting order of training but he received impugned order dated 28.9.2005 passed by respondent No. 3 canceling his candidature on the ground that at the time of submitting application form the petitioner concealed the fact that he was involved in a criminal case No. 248-A of 1996 under Section 323, 304, 324 I PC on account whereof he was disqualified for appointment. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,938,828 | He fell asleep and at 3 a.m., when he awakened, he found that his father was still not there.He went to look after his father and found that his dead body along with the Motorcycle, was lying near Government School at Chund Road.Perused the impugned judgment.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.9.2010 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Satna in Sessions Trial No.288/2009, whereby respondent no.1 has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302 in alternative 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.9.2008 complainant Rishabh Singh, on a Tractor, was returning to his home at Berhana from Satna along with his father, who was riding a Motorcycle and after some time, his father went ahead while he followed him on the Tractor.When at 8.30 p.m., he reached home, his father was not there.He was having injuries on his head, right eye, left eye, neck and ribs.On the aforesaid information, Dehati Nalish and Morgue intimation were recorded, on the basis of which, Crime No.802/08, in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was registered against unknown person.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment.The entire case of the prosecution was based upon circumstantial evidence.Weapon of offence viz. Axe, Mobile Phone belonging to the deceased and a blood stained shirt were seized from the respondent.Moreover, FSL report regarding examination of Axe was not produced by the prosecution.No incriminating evidence was brought on record against the respondent.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,941,077 | V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral) On 31.1.2008, the complainant, Praveen Kumar, came to police post Rajinder Nagar and lodged a complaint Ex.PW2/A. The complainant alleged that on 30.1.2008, he got down from a rickshaw near police station and was thereafter going on foot to his house.At about 9:45 p.m., when he reached New Rohtak Road, opposite Lal Sons Jewellers, he was stopped by 3-4 boys who were standing there.One of them caught him from his back whereas another boy put a toy pistol on his chest.The remaining boys snatched the bag which he was carrying in his hand, which contained his laptop, cash amounting to Rs.16,000/-, and his mobile phone, make J600 touch screen Samsung bearing No.9818762466, besides routine office documents, ATM card, PAN card, etc. An FIR under Section 392/34 of IPC was registered on the aforesaid complaint.A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 1 of 10The case of the prosecution is that call records of the mobile phone of the complainant were obtained and it was discovered that on 31.1.2008 a call was made from the stolen phone to phone No.98997308XX.The user of the aforesaid phone namely Anoop Singh was contacted who told him that on 31.1.2008 his friend Vishal @ Vicky had come to him with a boy named Aman and he was carrying a mobile phone J600, Samsung touch screen.He further stated that he had used the SIM of his phone in the phone which Aman was carrying, but, since Aman was demanding excess price for the aforesaid phone it was not purchased by him.Thereupon Vishal Sharma @ Vicky was contacted and he offered to get Aman arrested.On 7.2.2008, Vishal Sharma came to the police post and took the police officials with him to the house of Aman bearing No.151/1, Gali No.6, Nehru Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi but Aman was not found present in the house.Thereafter Aman and Arun were arrested on being identified by Vishal @ Vicky from under Jakhira Flyover and on search of Aman the stolen mobile phone was recovered from the right side pocket of his pant.This is also the case of the prosecution that on search of Arun a purse containing some currency was found along with voter I-card and certain papers of the complainant.This is further the case of the prosecution that on 8.2.2008 the appellants, Ravinder and Prem Kumar @ Kalu were arrested on being pointed out by Arun Kumar.One country made pistol is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant Prem Kumar.No witness was examined in defence.The complainant, Praveen Kumar, came in the witness box as PW2 and stated that on 30.1.2008 at about 9:35/9:40 p.m when he was going on foot to his quarter at Kishan Ganj, Sarai Rohilla and had reached opposite Lal Sons Jewellers on Rohtak Road he found 3-4 boys underneath a tree.One of them held him by his shoulder pointed out a pistol at him whereas the others asked him to give whatever he was carrying with him.They snatched his mobile phone bearing No.9818762466 as well as a bag which contained his laptop, some official papers, personal documents and cash amounting to Rs.16,000/-.After committing robbery those persons went across the road scaling the middle railing on the road and ran away.He further stated that on 18.2.2008 he had reached Tihar Jail for participating in TIP of accused persons, but was informed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that the accused persons had refused to participate in the proceedings.Thereafter on 20.2.2008 he was called to the police station where he identified the accused Arun.The witness identified Arun as the person who along with Aman had snatched his mobile phone and bag containing laptop, etc. The complainant also identified the appellant, Prem Kumar as the person who had shown the country made pistol to Crl.A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 3 of 10 him and the appellant Ravinder as the person who had held him by his shoulder.However, he did not produce the mobile phone which he had taken on superdari and claimed that it had been stolen by someone.A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 3 of 106. PW1, Anoop Singh, stated that his friend Vicky had come to him and shown him a mobile phone No.J600 touch screen make Samsung and he checked the phone by inserting his SIM card in the same.Thereafter he removed the SIM card and handed over the mobile phone to Vicky.Vicky @ Vikas Sharma, came in the witness box as PW4 and stated that on 8.2.2008 one person namely Aman, who met him for the first time on that date, offered a Samsung mobile phone to him for sale.His friend Anoop put his SIM card in the phone in order to check its working.However, no call was made by Anoop who thereafter removed the same card and returned the phone to Aman.However, during cross-examination by the learned Additional PP he admitted that he had gone to Jakhira Bridge along with the Investigating Officer and one person namely accused Aman who had approached him about a week ago with an offer to sell a Samsung mobile phone was found alone sitting there and on his search the said mobile phone was recovered.The witness initially identified his signatures on the document Ex.PW4/A at point 'A' but later denied the said signatures.PW3, Trilok Chand is the father of the complainant, Praveen Kumar.He also claimed that the mobile phone which his son had taken on superdari got misplaced and the matter was reported to the police vide report Ex.PW6, Constable Sandeep, stated that in the night of 8.2.2008, they reached under Jakhira Bridge in search of the appellants and found the appellant Prem Kumar @ Kalu and Ravinder sleeping there under the bridge.Both of them were apprehended on being pointed out by Arun and on search of Prem Kumar @ Kalu one country made pistol was recovered from the right side pocket of his pant.He further stated that he had taken the sealed parcel containing the country made pistol to FSL and handed over the receipt to MHCM, after depositing the case property with FSL.He claimed that there was no tampering with the case property so long as it remained in his custody.The witness exhibited the country made pistol as Ex.P1, which according to him was recovered from the appellant Prem Kumar.PW8 ASI Ram Kishan has stated that on 7.2.2008, he joined the investigation with other police officials and found two boys sitting under Jakhira Flyover.They were apprehended on being pointed out by Vicky.Their names were later found to be Aman @ Rameshwar and Arun.A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 5 of 109. PW9, Israr Babu is an official from Vodafone Mobile Services Limited and he produced a copy of the application form in respect of Mobile No.9899730889 in the name of Bindu Devi.He also produced the call detail records of the above-referred mobile phone which is Ex.PW11 Amit Garg is the shopkeeper who had sold the mobile phone to the complainant, Praveen Kumar vide invoice Ex.PW11/A.During the course of investigation both the appellants refused to join TIP.A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 2 of 10Since Aman had expired before the charge could be framed, the trial court framed charges only against three (3) persons namely Arun and the appellants, Prem Kumar and Ravinder.Since the appellants as well as their co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge as many as eleven (11) witnesses were examined by the prosecution.PW3/A. He also produced a copy of the purchase bill Ex.A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 4 of 10He further stated that in the night of 8.2.2008, they reached Jakhira Flyover in search of the appellants, Prem Kumar and Ravinder and found them sleeping under the said flyover.Both of them were apprehended on being pointed out by Arun and one country made pistol was recovered from under the mat on which Prem Kumar was sleeping.In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants denied the allegations against them and claimed to be innocent.They, however, admitted that they had refused to join TIP during the course of evidence.PW11/A is the photocopy of invoice whereby a mobile phone bearing IMEI number 357172013040590 was purchased by the complainant from M/s. Telecare Network India Private Limited.A perusal of the seizure memo of the telephone Ex.PW4/A which has been duly proved by ASI Ram Kishan shows that the mobile phone had been recovered from Aman @ Rameshwar had the same IMEI number.Therefore, the deposition of the complainant with respect to theft of mobile phone finds corroboration from recovery of the stolen telephone from the deceased accused Aman, about eight days after the theft was committed.A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 6 of 10It has come in evidence that both the appellants had refused to join TIP during the course of investigation.The aforesaid refusal has been admitted by them in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They had refused to join TIP on the ground that before producing them in the court, the Investigating Officer had taken their photographs and had also shown them to the witnesses.However, there is no evidence of the photographs of the appellants having been taken and shown to the complainant.Thus, neither of the appellants have been able to substantiate the plea that the photographs were taken by the Investigating Officer and were also shown to the complainant before they were produced in the Court.If the accused refuses Test Identification Parade without any justifiable cause, he does at his own peril and the Court will, in such circumstances, be justified in drawing an inference that had the appellant participated in Test Identification Parade he would have been identified by the witnesses and that precisely was the reason why he refused to join the TIP.Since the appellants refused to join the TIP without any justification, it can be Crl.A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 7 of 10 safely presumed that had they participated in the TIP, the complainant would have identified them and that precisely is the reason why they refused to join TIP.It has come in the deposition of the complainant that he was able to have a good look at the offenders due to light by the moving traffic as also from the light bulbs installed outside Lal Sons Jewellers.Therefore, he could have no difficulty in identifying the culprits, when he was examined in the court.A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 7 of 10As far as appellant - Ravinder is concerned, he has been convicted only under Section 392 IPC, there is no ground for interfering with his conviction.As far as appellant - Prem Kumar is concerned, since there is no evidence of his having used any deadly weapon in the commission of robbery, he could not have been convicted with the aid of 397 of the Penal Code.The onus was upon the prosecution to prove that the appellant Prem Kumar had used a deadly weapon in the commission of robbery.However, in the complaint itself, the complainant Praveen Kumar clearly stated that only a toy gun was shown to him.The same was the deposition of Praveen Kumar during the course of the trial.No evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove that the country made pistol, which is alleged to have been found in possession of the appellant Prem Kumar when he was arrested in the night of 8.2.2008, was the same pistol which was used in the commission of robbery.In fact, considering the emphatic deposition of Crl.A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 8 of 10 the complainant that the pistol shown to him was a toy pistol, the country made pistol, alleged to have been found in possession of the appellant - Prem Kumar could not have been the weapon used in commission of robbery.Obviously, when the complainant knew that the pistol being shown to him was a toy pistol, there can be no question of his considering it to be a deadly weapon and getting scared.In my view, when a person to whom a weapon is shown, knows that the pistol being shown to him was a toy pistol; there is no evidence to prove that he had wrongly mistaken the weapon to be a toy pistol though in fact it was a real pistol, no offence attracting the applicability of Section 397 of IPC can be made out.In Gorakh Pandurang Mare and Lahu Maruti Gaudse Vs.The State of Maharashtra 2010 (112) Bom.LR 3353, the Bombay High Court inter alia observed that it is a settled position that even though the person has used a toy pistol for threatening the victim while committing robbery still such toy pistol cannot be treated as a deadly weapon and therefore Section 397 IPC cannot be invoked.In Babulal Jairam Vs.LJ 281, the Bombay High Court inter alia observed that the weapon used has to be a deadly weapon and not assumed or mistaken to be a deadly weapon.Noticing that the accused Michael in that case was using a toy pistol, the High Court held that his conviction was warranted only under Section 392 of IPC.In the case before this Court even the complainant did not presume the weapon shown to him to be a real pistol since he clearly stated in the complaint itself that a toy pistol was shown to him.Therefore, the case of the appellants stands on a stronger footing.Therefore, the appellant - Prem Kumar ought to have been convicted under Section 392 and not under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC.A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 8 of 10A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 9 of 10The nominal roll of the appellant - Prem Kumar does not show that he is involved in any other case.The same is the position with respect to the appellant, Ravinder who is stated to be on bail.Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, both the appellants are sentenced to undergo RI for three years each and are also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each or in default to undergo SI for 15 days each.The appellant - Ravinder shall surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence, if any.If he doesn't, the trial court shall take steps to procure his presence and commit him to prison, to undergo the remaining sentence, if any.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.On copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary action.Trial court record be returned along with a copy of this order.A. No.1516 of 2013 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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. |
19,295,424 | This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 18624/2014 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur and to acquit them from the charges under Sections 498-A, 354, 506-B of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on account of compromise entered into between the parties.On filing such complaint, this Court vide order dated 2.5.2019 directed the Registrar (Judicial) to record the statement of the complainant.The statement of complainant has been recorded by Registrar (J-II) on 6.5.2019, which is available on record.The complainant has stated that she has voluntarily entered into a compromise with the applicants on her free will and volition and without any threat and inducement and they have settled their dispute.In view of the statement made by the complainant, I deem it a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the prosecution lodged by the complainant is hereby quashed subject to condition that the applicants shall not harass the complainant in future.With the aforesaid observation, this petition is allowed.The charge sheet filed against the applicants for offences under Sections 498-A, 354, 506-B of the IPC stands set aside.In consequence thereto Criminal Case No. 18624/2014 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur be treated to be disposed of. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,295,712 | In brief, it is the case of prosecution that deceased Sapna, aged about seven years was daughter of PW-1 Sharda Palaskar and PW-3 Gopal Palaskar, resident of Choramba and from 24.10.2012 as she was missing, PW-3 Gopal lodged missing report.15 to 20 days thereafter one Pandurang Khaire came to house of parents of deceased and informed them that, at village Murli, he was told by one of the villagers of his hearing sound of some girl, weeping and accordingly, on 19.11.2012, PW-1 Sharda, mother of deceased lodged report vide Exh.112 with Police Station, Ghatanji, on the basis of which Crime No.95 of 2012 at Exh.113 came to be registered on 20.11.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code by one Arun Gurnule, Assistant Police Inspector, Police Station, Ghatanji (not examined).Report Exh.112 was lodged by PW-Sharda against one Ashok::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 7 conf1.17.odt Darshanwar, resident of Ghatanji, District Yavatmal, Bapu Yambadwar, r/o.Belora, Tq.Ghatanji, District Yavatmal and Raju Taksande, r/o.Murli, Tq.Ghatanji, District Yavatmal and 3-4 unknown persons alleging that the above named persons along with 3-4 others kidnapped minor girl Sapna from village Choramba on the day of "Dussera", of which missing report is already lodged with Police Station, Ghatanji.It is further contended that, 2-3 days before, above named appellants took deceased to the field of one Vijay Sham Chavan, resident of Murli Tanda with an intention to cause her murder, when appellants having armed with weapons, dug a pit.It is further alleged that, on hearing cries of girl, said Vijay Chavan arrived on the spot, due to which all above named persons fled from his field alongwith the girl.It is also stated in the report that said Vijay Chavan had also lodged report of this incident with Police Station, Ghatanji and that PW-1 Sharda had suspected in her report above named persons to have kidnapped her daughter to cause her murder.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::It is the case of prosecution that, 3-4 days prior to Navratri festival, accused no.7 Yashodabai Meshram had called accused nos. 1 to 6 and told them that her daughter accused no.8::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 8 conf1.17.odt Durga Sitaram Shirbhate is bodily affected due to power of some goddess for which it is necessary to offer her blood of some female by which everything would be set right and therefore, on the say of accused no.7 Yashodabai, all accused conspired to sacrifice life of Sapna by causing her death to offer her blood and got the work distributed amongst themselves by allotting specific role to each of them to give effect to their conspiracy.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::In pursuance to their conspiracy as aforesaid, on 24.10.2012, at about 7.30 p.m., accused no.3 Yadavrao Tekam gave Rs.10/- to deceased and asked her to bring biscuits from the nearby shop.When she went and was returning from the shop towards her house, accused no.6 Motiram Meshram removed fuse from the electricity D.P., due to which lights were switched off and by taking advantage of darkness, accused no.3 Yadavrao forcibly took Sapna behind the school by tying her mouth by towel.Accused no.1 Manoj kept watch upon said act of accused nos. 3 Yadavrao and accused no.6 Motiram.From behind school, Sapna was taken by accused no.3 Yadavrao to the house of accused no.7 Yashodabai where all other accused persons were present.It is further case of prosecution that accused persons collected blood in one steel plate and after sprinkling it on the idol of goddess at village Choramba came back to the spot and after having sip of blood as offering (prasad), the dead body was kept in a gunny bag and by digging pot, was buried near the bathroom in the house of accused Yashodabai.About 1 ½ months later, on the say of accused Yashodabai, remains of dead body were exhumed and thereafter, were carried to one field owned by Liyakat Anwar situated in Zudpi Jungle near Choramba village and by digging pit, were buried again.From 17.12.2012 further investigation in the present crime was carried out by PW-13 Chadansinh B. Bayas, P.I. attached to L.C.B., Yavatmal.Towel is marked as Article 'K' and Knife is marked as Article "L".During the course of investigation, under requisition (Exh.207), seized skull, bones along with blood samples of parents of Sapna were forwarded for D.N.A. test to C.A., Nagpur through PW-11 Police Constable Ashish Bhusari.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::PW-11 Ashish Bhusari, Police Constable, B.No.2243 who, on the basis of duty pass (Exh.179) issued by PW-13 P.I. Chandansinh Bayas, Investigating Officer deposited Muddemal with C.A., Nagpur and produced its receipt (Exh.180) and submitted his report (Exh.181).On 9.1.2014, on the basis of letter (Exh.182) issued by S.P., Yavatmal, he visited Office of C.A. and collected D.N.A. Kit.a) Raju s/o.Mahesh Dhruv .vs.b) Shashikant Tulsidas Kamble and another .vs.c) Salim Akhtar @ Mota .vs.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that Vijay Chavan, who, according to report of PW-1 Sharda, is alleged to have heard noise of weeping of some girl in his field, has lodged report on 17.11.2012 stating that, on that day, at 10.15 p.m., near Maroti Temple, one pit was dug where one stone was kept having two lemons sprinkled with yellow turmeric powder upon it along with one coconut where persons namely Laxman Sitaram Yambadkar r/o.Belora and Ashok Gangaram Darshanwar, r/o.In fact, from his evidence, it has come on record that accused no.7 Yashodabai is sister of his father-in-law, while accused no.8 Durga is her daughter.On perusal of missing report (Exh.127), dt.25.10.2012, it would reveal that same is lodged against unknown person as nobody is suspected in this report as kidnapper of Sapna and apart from physical description of Sapna, description of her clothes which were on her person when she went missing since 24.10.2012 at 7 O' clock,::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 52 conf1.17.odt refers to red coloured frock and white shirt; while description of clothes as referred in Seizure Panchanama (Exh.122) by which, in the presence of PW-2 Adikumar, Investigating Officer, seized clothes refer to seizure of one Heena coloured frock having pink coloured floral design and blue coloured knicker and there is no reference to any white coloured shirt to have seized.Said seizure is effected almost 7 ½ months later on 21.5.2013 at Zudpi jungle situated at village Choramba near the field of Liyakat Tanwar.He further admits that accused no.7 Yashodabai is member of Gram Panchayat and on his request, she had accompanied him along with Pandurang Khaire, Seetaram Shirbhate, accused no.8 Durga Shirbhate and 5 to 6 others to meet Superintendent of Police at Yavatmal and has admitted that this fact was informed by Pandurang Khaire to Police Officer Ambadkar.PW-3 Gopal has further admitted that, due to his meeting Superintendent of Police, Officer Ambadkar got angry and has extended threats to accused no.7 Yashodabai to involve her in a false case.He has further admitted that due to such threat accused no.7 Yashodabai complained of said fact to Superintendent of Police.In the background of his evidence as aforesaid, he has further admitted that::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 54 conf1.17.odt due to quarrel that had taken place between Police Officer Ambadkar and accused no.7 Yashodabai, accused are falsely implicated in this case and contrary to case of prosecution of accused no.2 Devidas informing of lying of skull and pieces of clothes in gaothan of Mapi, PW-3 Gopal admitted that no such fact was disclosed to him by accused no.2 Devidas and in fact, he has stated that one Sakhubai of their village had said that she will bring his daughter Sapna if she is paid for it and therefore, has deposed that he feels that his daughter is alive.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::In view of evidence of PW-3 Gopal as aforesaid, involvement of none of the appellants is found in the present crime who, in fact, from the above discussed evidence, appears to be falsely implicated as PW-3 Gopal along with accused no.7 Yashodabai, accused no.8 Durga Sitaram Shirbhate, Pandurang Khaire and 5 to 6 other persons had contacted Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal as there was no progress in missing report lodged by PW-3 Gopal in respect of his daughter Sapna, due to which Police Officer Ambadkar got annoyed and is found to have threatened accused persons to involve them in a false case.The learned District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal vide its Judgment in Sessions Trial No.114 of 2013, dated 14th August, 2017 found Original accused no.1 Manoj @ Lalya::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:38 ::: 4 conf1.17.odt Vasantrao Atram, Original accused no.2 Devidas Punaji Atram, Original accused no.3 Yadavrao Tukaram Tekam, Original accused no.4 Punaji Mahadev Atram, Original accused no.6 Motiram Mahadev Meshram and Original accused no.7 Sau.Yashodabai Pandurang Meshram guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer death penalty to be hanged by neck till their death as envisaged under Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:38 :::Above accused are further convicted for the offence under Section 120(B) r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Above accused are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:38 :::5 conf1.17.odt Original accused no.1 Manoj Atram, accused no.3 Yadavrao Tekam and accused no.7 Yashodabai Meshram are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.Said accused are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months on this count also.Original accused no.8 Durga Sitaram Shirbhate is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120 (b) r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:38 :::6 conf1.17.odt As required under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reference is made to this Court by the learned trial Court for confirmation of death sentence awarded to above accused while Criminal Appeal No.515 of 2017 is filed by appellant nos. 1 to 7 being aggrieved by the Judgment recorded as aforestated.No appeal is preferred by accused no.8 Durga Sitaram Shirbhate.In her house, accused no.6 Motiram chanted some mantras and offered pooja and all the::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 9 conf1.17.odt accused by tightly holding Sapna placed her in front of temple of goddess in the house of accused no.7 Yashodabai and accused no.5 Ramchandra (deceased) by means of knife cut throat of Sapna separating her head from her body.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::On 21.5.2013, he received information that in one field situated at Choramba, human bones, skull of a small child,::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 10 conf1.17.odt one blue coloured knicker, dark green coloured pieces of frock having thereon floral design in pink colour were lying.PW-13 I.O. Chandansinh accordingly visited the said spot along with witnesses who were requisitioned vide Memo (Exh.124) and drew Spot Panchanama (Exh.120) and seized skull and frock under Seizure Panchanamas (Exh.121 and 122 respectively).At the same time, he prepared Inquest Panchanama in respect of human bones found on the spot as per Exh.123 and issued requisition memo to Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Yavatmal to examine human bones, skull, scalp hair and to give report.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::On 25.5.2013, on suspicion, accused no.1 Manoj @ Lalya Atram, accused no.2 Devidas Atram, accused no.3 Yadavrao Tekam, accused no.4 Punaji Atram, accused no.5 Ramchandra Atram (dead), accused no.6 Motiram Meshram, accused no.7 Yashodabai Meshram, accused no.8 Durga Shirbhate, all residents of Choramba came to be arrested under Arrest Panchanamas Exh. Nos. 199 to 206 respectively.On interrogation, Memorandum Statement (Exh.130) of accused no.1 Manoj is recorded on 25.5.2013 between 16.00 hours::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 11 conf1.17.odt to 16.15 hours, by which he expressed his willingness to show the spot where dead body of Sapna was inhumed and later on, exhumed.In pursuance to said statement, accused no.1 Manoj led the Investigating Officer to the house of accused no. 7 Yashodabai and pointed out the spot adjoining to bathroom.On digging soil upto 2 ½ feet, two human bones and pieces of green coloured bangles are recovered which are seized under Panchanama (Exh.132).::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::Memorandum Statement (Exh.136) of accused no.7 Yashodabai is recorded on 27.5.2013 between 2.45 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. to produce steel plate and knife from her house and in pursuance to it, one steel plate only, came to be seized at the instance of said accused, which is seized under Panchanama (Exh.137).::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::Memorandum Panchanama (Exh.139) of accused no.6 Motiram is recorded on 27.5.2013 between 5.00 p.m. to 5.15 p.m. to recover Crow Bar and Spade concealed in the house of accused no.7 Yashodabai which came to be seized under Panchanama (Exh.140).On the same day, at around 18.30 hours, vide Seizure Panchanama (Exh.141), steel lamp, one shell of broken coconut and small pieces of human bones came to be seized from the field of Liyakat Tanwar.Memorandum Statement (Exh.142) of accused no.3 Yadavrao is recorded on 29.5.2013 between 12.30 p.m. to 12.45 p.m. to discover towel from his house and in pursuance to it, one yellow coloured towel came to be seized under Panchanama (Exh.143).On 30.5.2013, between 4.15 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., Memorandum Statement (Exh.145) of deceased accused Ramchandra is recorded to discover knife from his house and in pursuance to it, one big sized knife having iron blade is seized under Panchanama (Exh.146).::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::13 conf1.17.odt Soil seized from the spot under Panchanama (Exh.120) is marked as Article 'A', frock is marked as Article 'B', Knicker is marked as Article 'C'.Seized bones and pieces of bangles are marked as Article 'D'.Steel plate is marked as Article 'E'.Crow bar and Spade are marked as Articles 'F' and 'G'.Steel lamp is marked as Article 'H', Coconut shell is marked as Article 'I', human bones are marked as Article 'J'.As per D.N.A. reports Exh.216 and 217, bones sent for D.N.A. matched with D.N.A. profile of Sharda and Gopal Palaskar and concluded them to be biological parents.Accordingly, offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code came to be added in the present crime and by issuing letter of request dt.26.5.2013 to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghatanji vide Exh.208 and by issuing letter dt.1.6.2013 to the learned Magistrate, accused, who were earlier arrested namely Ashok Darshanwar, Bapu Yambadwar and::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 14 conf1.17.odt Raju Taksande and one another, were discharged under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.During the course of investigation, sketch of spot is drawn by Tahsildar, Ghatanji and Supplementary statements of PW-1 Sharda, PW-3 Gopal and PW-9 Shakuntala Nakwade are recorded.On receipt of D.N.A. reports (Exh.217 and 218), on completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed against the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghatanji.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::In the course of time, case is committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.Charge is framed vide Exh.100 against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 363, 364, 302, 201 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In order to prove guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and commenced its evidence on examining PW-1 Sharda Palaskar, mother of deceased who did not support the case of prosecution; PW-2 Adikumar Kalandre, panch on seizure of::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 15 conf1.17.odt articles from spot and Inquest Panchanama of bones; PW-3 Gopal Palaskar, father of deceased who did not support the case of prosecution; PW-4 Rajendra Shukla on Memorandum statement of accused no.1 Manoj (Exh.130) disclosing the spot where dead body was buried and panch on Seizure panchanama in respect of recovery of two human bones and pieces of green bangles (Exh.132); PW-5 Sanjay Dandage on Panchanama (Exh.134) regarding parents of deceased Sapna i.e. PW-1 Sapna and PW-3 Gopal identifying skull, human bones, knicker, pieces of frock seized on 21.5.2013 from near the field of Liyakat Tanwar to be that of deceased Sapna; PW-6 Sunil Bhele on Memorandum Statement (Exh.136) of accused no.7 Yashodabai, Seizure Panchanama (Exh.137) of steel plate and Demonstration Panchanama (Exh.138) of above facts.He is also examined as a panch on Memorandum Statement (Exh.139) of accused no.6 Motiram, Memorandum Statement to discover Crow bar and Spade, Seizure Panchanama (Exh.141) of steel lamp, one broken shell of coconut, pieces of human bone and Demonstration Panchanama (Exh.140).PW-6 Sunil Bhele is further examined as a panch witness on Memorandum Statement of accused no.3 Yadavrao to recover towel which came to be seized under Seizure Panchanama (Exh.143); PW-7 Dinesh Karmarkar is a witness on Memorandum::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 16 conf1.17.odt Statement (Exh.145) of deceased accused no.5 Ramchandra and Seizure Panchanama of Knife at Exh.146; PW-8 Ramesh Mendhe, Naib-Tahsildar, Ghatanji who has proved sketch of scene of offence at Exh.152 and map of house of accused Yashodabai (Exh.153) which are forwarded by him to Investigating Officer under his covering letter (Exh.154); PW-9 Shakuntala Nakwade on circumstance, who did not support the case of prosecution; PW-10 Ashok Kalmegh, A.S.I., Police Photographer, who has obtained video shooting of entire proceedings carried out during the course of investigation and prepared C.D. thereof (Exh.164) on Computer and handed it over to Investigating Officer.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::On 10.1.2014, PW-11 Police Constable Ashish took PW-1 Sharda and PW-3 Gopal, parents of deceased for collecting their blood samples to Government hospital, Yavatmal along with D.N.A.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::17 conf1.17.odt Kit under Letter (Exh.183) and obtained their blood samples for D.N.A. purpose.Forms for collecting blood samples are marked as Articles 'M' and 'N'.Police Constable Ashish deposited blood samples in the Office of C.A. on the same day on the basis of letter (Exh.184) issued to him by API Bramhane and obtained acknowledgement (Exh.185).On 18.1.2014, on the basis of letter (Exh.186) issued to him by P.I. Giri, he visited Office of C.A., Nagpur and obtained D.N.A. report.PW-12 Nilesh Bramhane, A.P.I., who had received letter (Exh.196) from Regional Forensic Laboratory for collecting D.N.A. Kit, instructed PW-11 Police Constable Bhusari to visit Office of C.A. and collect D.N.A. Kit and to take parents of deceased to Government Medical College hospital, Yavatmal for obtaining their blood samples for D.N.A. test and concluded its evidence on examining PW-13 Chandansinh Bayas, Investigating Officer who, on carrying out investigation in the present crime no.95 of 2012, filed the charge- sheet.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, on trial, found involvement of all the accused in the present crime and::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 18 conf1.17.odt on hearing them on the point of sentence, finding that punishment of life imprisonment is not adequate sentence, imposed capital punishment on Original accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 who are also imposed punishment on other counts and also imposed punishment on Original accused no.8 as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::R.M.Daga, learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the learned trial Judge had considered the following circumstances and held the same to be proved establishing involvement of accused in the present crime :::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::The learned Counsel had further referred to Spot Panchanama (Exh.120), dt.21.5.2013 drawn after seven months of lodging of missing complaint in respect of field situated at village Choramba, wherein colour of frock alleged to be found on the spot is referred of Heena colour having pink coloured floral design and knicker to be identified by PW-3 Gopal.It is, therefore, submitted that the description of clothes of victim thus given by her father PW-3 Gopal in his missing report and the clothes recovered and seized from the spot on 21.5.2013 does not match and even, according to Spot Panchanama, there is no reference of sealing of muddemal articles on the spot which are deposited in Malkhana 12 days after its recovery.On this::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 21 conf1.17.odt count, therefore, it is submitted that the case of prosecution is doubtful about recovery of articles from the spot to be that of deceased Sapna.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::By referring to contents of Inquest Panchanama (Exh.123) drawn on the spot, after recovery of bones, skull, human hair and clothes of deceased, it is submitted that, in Column no.10 thereof, PW-3 Gopal is stated to have identified bones, skull etc. to be of his deceased daughter, which contents are said to be unreliable as such recovery is effected more than seven months after lodging of missing report and there is nothing on record to show on what basis PW-3 Gopal identified articles which, as per Inquest Panchanama, are stated to be exhumed bones, skull etc.R.M.Daga, learned Counsel, by further doubting the case of prosecution, referred to evidence of PW-2 Adikumar in whose presence Spot Panchanama and Seizure Panchanama in respect of articles seized from the spot came to be drawn and submitted that PW-2 Adikumar as per summons issued to him (Exh.124) was called upon to carry out Inquest Panchanama over the body of Sapna, minor girl aged seven years only and not for any other purpose.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::22 conf1.17.odt However, apart from carrying out Inquest upon bones, skull as aforesaid, as is the case of prosecution, he was also made to act as a panch for Spot Panchanama (Exh.120) and Seizure Panchanamas (Exh.121 and 122), though summons referred for his presence only till drawing of Inquest Panchanama.It is, thus, contended that PW-2 Adikumar was stock panch of police, whose services were taken as and when required by the Investigating Agency.Referring to sketch of scene of offence, it is submitted that same is drawn after about two months on 15.7.2013 after alleged recovery of articles from the spot on 21.5.2013 by PW-8 Ramesh and in respect of same, the sketch refers to various spots where bones, skull, hair, knicker, frock are stated to be found lying; while PW-8 Ramesh is silent on the point as to who had shown the spot where such articles were alleged to be found.In fact, it is submitted that PW-8 Ramesh who has drawn sketch had admitted that there is no mention in the Spot Panchanama about the person who showed the same and though he had deposed that Panchas, Talathi and Kotwal had shown the spot of incident to him, their presence is nowhere mentioned in the sketch (Exh.152) nor it bears their signatures.It is, therefore, submitted that nothing can be relied::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 23 conf1.17.odt from sketch which admittedly is drawn two months after alleged recovery of articles and even in the said sketch, field of Liyakat Tanwar is shown to the western side of the area where the articles are stated to be found and seized.As such, it is submitted that, from the sketch, articles are found to have seized from the place adjoining to the field of Liyakat Tanwar.Then, again referring to the evidence of PW-2 Adikumar, panch on Spot Panchanama and seizure of articles, the learned Counsel submitted that his evidence destroys entire case of prosecution on seizure of articles as aforesaid as he has admitted that he was taken to the field of one Liyakat Tanwar where, as per sketch or Spot Panchanama, no seizure of any articles was effected and further admitted that when he reached to said field, 40 to 50 police had gathered along with PW-13 Chandansinh, Investigating Officer and Exhs.120 to 124, which consist of Spot Panchanama and Seizure Panchanamas, were already written and even without its contents being read over to him, he gave signatures on them and as such, he is unable to state what are contents of said documents.By referring to above evidence, it is, therefore, submitted that the case of prosecution is totally doubtful with reference to recovery of bones, skull, clothes i.e. knicker and frock from the spot on 21.5.2013 which is, admittedly, prior to four days::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 24 conf1.17.odt of arrest of all the accused persons.The learned Counsel submitted that as these properties admittedly were deposited belatedly after 12 days in Malkhana, the case of prosecution is full of doubts.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::With regards to homicidal death, it is submitted that there is nothing on record to establish said fact.Learned Counsel for the accused then referred to evidence of PW-1 Sharda, mother of deceased who, on 19.11.2012, lodged report of kidnapping of her daughter with intention to cause her murder against Ashok Darshanwar, Bapu Yambadwar and Raju Taksande alleging that 2-3 days before lodging of same, above named accused having armed with weapons took daughter to the field of one Viju Chavan, resident of Murli to cause her murder, where they dug one pit, where Viju Chavan arrived on hearing cry of a minor girl and on seeing him, above named three persons fled from his field with the girl, of which Viju Chavan lodged report with Police Station, Ghatanji, of which reference is found in the F.I.R. (Exh.113), dt.20.11.2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 364 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 25 conf1.17.odt complaint lodged by PW-1 Sharda against above named three persons as mentioned in Column No.12 of the F.I.R. It is pointed out that, there is reference of police receiving two written complaints consisting of one by Vijay Chavan (not examined), resident of Murli Tanda, dt.17.11.2012 and another by PW-1 Sharda, dt.19.11.2012 against persons named therein i.e. Ashok Darshanwar, Bapu Yambadwar and Raju Taksande for kidnapping her daughter Sapna for causing her murder to get hidden treasure out of some land.However, nothing is on record to show as to what was investigated against said three suspects during the period of three months who are admittedly discharged by the Investigating Officer under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::With reference to alleged recovery of articles effected at the instance of accused nos. 1, 3, 6, 7 and deceased accused no.5 Ramchandra, it is contended that all the accused are arrested on 25.5.2013 between 3.35 to 6.00 p.m. by PW-13 P.I. Chandansinh and by referring to arrest memos of accused nos. 1 and 2, it is pointed out that their arrest is effected on 25.5.2013 at 3.35 p.m., while Memorandum Statement (Exh.130 ) of accused no.1 Manoj is stated to be recorded immediately in 20 minutes of his arrest, which::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 26 conf1.17.odt is doubtful and it is, therefore, submitted that this fact shows that Memorandum Panchanama (Exh.130) was already prepared.By referring to contents of Memorandum Panchanama (Exh.130), it is pointed out that it refers to house and places only and does not refer to any bones and contended that in fact what is recovered in compliance to Memorandum Statement of accused no.1 Manoj was already seized on 21.5.2013 and therefore, case of prosecution in respect of recovery of bones, skull etc. at the instance of accused no.1 Manoj is of no consequence.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::While commenting upon evidence of PW-4 Rajendra Shukla, panch witness on Memorandum Statement and Discovery Panchanama (Exh.130 and 131 respectively), it is submitted that said panch is resident of Yavatmal whose services as admitted by him were taken by police even without issuing summons to him at Ghatanji, a place situated at a distance of 45 kms.from Yavatmal.It is also pointed out that, though according to PW-4 Rajendra, panch he claims to know accused no.1 Manoj, there is no evidence on record to show as to how he knows him though, according to case of prosecution, accused no.1 Manoj is resident of Choramba and PW-4 Rajendra is residing at Yavatmal.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::Then, by referring to evidence of PW-6 Sunil, who has acted as a panch on Memorandum Statement and recovery of articles at the instance of accused no.3 Yadavrao, accused no.6 Motiram and accused no.7 Yashodabai, it is submitted that, according to Memorandum statement of accused no.7 Yashodabai (Exh.136) though there is reference to one knife and plate, no knife is recovered.By further referring to evidence of PW-6 Sunil along with Memorandum Statement of accused no.6 Motiram and Seizure Panchanama (Exh.139 and 140 respectively), it is stated that time mentioned on Exh.139 is between 5.00 to 5.15 p.m.; while Recovery Panchanama (Exh.140) was drawn from 5.15 to 6.30 at Zilla Parishad School and by referring to timings, it is submitted that, till 4.45 p.m., PW-13 P.I. Chandansinh, Investigating Officer was drawing Panchanama (Exh.136) of accused no.7 Yashodabai.Learned Counsel for the accused then, by referring to contents of Memorandum Statement of accused no.6 contended that, according to it, said accused referred to discovery of crow bar and iron spade seized vide Recovery Panchanama (Exh.140) and steel lamp, broken::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 28 conf1.17.odt pieces of coconut shell and human bones are separately seized under Panchanama (Exh.141).It is thus contended that, in Seizure Panchanama (Exh.140), there is no reference of seizure of steel lamp, coconut shell, human bones; while in Seizure Panchanama (Exh.141), there is no reference of crow bar and spade though, according to case of prosecution, the same were seized at one and the same time at the instance of PW-6 Sunil and there is no reference of other articles than spade and crow bar in Memorandum Statement of Accused no.6 Motiram.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::Thereafter, on commenting upon further evidence of PW-6 Sunil with reference to Memorandum Statement (Exh.142) and Discovery Panchanama (Exh.143) of towel at the instance of accused no.3 Yadavrao, it is submitted that this recovery does not substantiate case of prosecution in any manner even if relied and it is contended that from the Memorandum Statement (Exh.145) of deceased accused no.5 Ramchandra and Seizure panchanama (Exh.146), case of prosecution is of recovery of one knife from his house having no blood stains and is not stated to be referred to C.A. for analysis.It is, thus, submitted that learned trial Court wrongly::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 29 conf1.17.odt convicted all the accused only on the basis of their Memorandum Statements under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::By commenting on the case of prosecution of its video- graphing investigation with regards to discovery of articles at the instance of accused, learned Counsel for the accused referred to evidence of PW-10 Ashok Kalmegh, who is retired ASI and Police Photographer, who is claimed to have video-graphed said investigation of recovery of articles at the instance of accused no.3 Yadavrao and accused no.7 Yashodabai.Pointing to his evidence, it is stated that said witness though had stated that he has saved the video-shooting in hard disc of computer of Police Headquarter, Yavatmal and had prepared C.D. of said shooting in computer and handed over the same to Investigating Officer, admittedly such primary evidence of hard disc is not brought on record nor investigating agency has placed on record Certificate required under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore, it is submitted that since there is no primary evidence i.e. hard disc on record nor certificate as aforesaid, case of prosecution of obtaining video-shooting is full of doubts.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::30 conf1.17.odt Learned Defence Counsel, doubting the D.N.A. report, contended that, as per the case of prosecution, the articles seized on 21.5.2013 from the spot in jungle, and on 25.5.2013, at the instance of accused, were forwarded for its analysis to C.A. on 10.1.2014 i.e. after lapse of 7 ½ months, which is fatal to prosecution; more particularly, in view of evidence of PW-13 P.I. Chandansinh, Investigating Officer, whose evidence does not establish safe custody of such muddemal till it was sent for its analysis.It is further submitted that, according to opinion in D.N.A. report, bones referred as Exh. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 when compared with DNA profile of PW-1 Sharda and PW-3 Gopal are concluded to be biological parents of said exhibits.Harping upon said D.N.A. report along with requisition to C.A. (Exh.207), it is submitted that, from the contents of this document, nothing can be established showing if bones (Exh. Nos. 2 to 5) are seized either on 21.5.2013 or 25.5.2013 as the requisition refers to forwarding of bones as stated in Columns B and C of the same along with skull as referred in Column A. By referring to evidence of PW-11 HC Ashish Bhusari, it is submitted that there is no evidence of collecting blood samples of PW-1 Sharda and PW-3 Gopal as his evidence is silent on::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 31 conf1.17.odt this aspect and it is, therefore, contended that case of prosecution of collecting blood samples of parents of deceased, storage of bones and delay of 7 ½ months to forward muddemal to C.A. creates doubt about truthfulness of D.N.A. reports.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::Referring to submissions as aforesaid, it is concluded saying that, from the evidence on record, prosecution has miserably failed to establish the chain of circumstances nor it has established motive for accused to commit murder of Sapna as, in fact, according to F.I.R., PW-1 Sharda had suspected three persons named therein to have kidnapped her daughter for the purpose of causing her murder by way of offering to get the treasure concealed in a piece of land; however, without bringing on record any investigation carried out with regards to said three persons, admittedly they were discharged under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is also contended that village Choramba is a small village and thus, killing of a girl from the village cannot be concealed for a period of 7 to 8 months and even case of prosecution of accused having buried dead body of deceased in a house near bathroom of accused no.7 Yashodabai and after a gap of::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 32 conf1.17.odt one month of exhuming it and carrying it in the field of Liyakat Anwar and again digging at that spot, without having been noticed by any of the villagers is not convincing at all.Even otherwise, it is submitted that there is no reason brought on record for accused to dead body from one place to another after it was dug and it is thus contended that since discovery of articles at the instance of accused as aforesaid is full of doubts and as case of prosecution also does not establish homicidal death of deceased nor knife which, according to prosecution is discovered at the instance of deceased accused no.5 Ramchandra, is sent to C.A., no charge levelled against the accused can said to have been established.Going a step further, it is further contended that even assuming that Exh Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5/bones as referred in D.N.A. reports are of Sapna, of whom PW-1 Sharda and PW-3 Gopal are biological parents, there is no other evidence on record sufficient and convincing to reach to the conclusion that it is the accused alone who, on kidnapping Sapna, committed her murder.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::Lastly, it is also submitted that statements of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are incorrectly recorded as all the circumstances are put to all the accused and as::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 ::: 33 conf1.17.odt such, one circumstance with which other accused is in no way concerned, was put to him, though he was not required to explain it.It is also pointed out that, while recording statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no explanation is sought from the accused that PW-1 Sharda and PW-3 Gopal are biological parents of deceased Sapna and it is thus contended that as the findings of DNA tests are not put to accused, same cannot be used against them.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::Learned Defence Counsel on the point of recording of statements of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has relied on the following Authorities :On D.N.A. tests, following Judgments and Authorities are referred and relied on :::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::Jitendra s/o.Suresh Gabhane .vs.b) The State of Maharashtra .vs.c) Judgment of Andhra High Court in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2013, Bollikonda Venkanna s/o.Yellaiah .vs.For establishing that the muddemal articles involved in this case were not deposited in stores for a long time, the learned Counsel has relied on the following Authorities :b) Surdas Balkrishna Kirgat .vs.On circumstantial evidence, the learned Defence Counsel has relied on the following Authorities :::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:39 :::Prosecutor has submitted that the trial Court had rightly culled out circumstances proving guilt of the accused persons and contended::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 36 conf1.17.odt that, after receipt of missing report from PW-3 Gopal, report was lodged by PW-1 Sharda on 19.11.2012 suspecting three persons named therein who have kidnapped her daughter, upon which F.I.R.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::came to be lodged vide Crime No.95 of 2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was put into motion.Ghatanji were seen armed with pickaxe, spade and three persons were found fleeing away from the said spot after one baby's cry was heard.According to prosecution, when this report was under inquiry, PW-1 Sharda filed written application on 19.11.2012, at 5 p.m. mentioning that Ashok Darshanwar, Bapu Yambadwar, Raju Taksande with 3-4 unknown persons kidnapped her daughter Sapna and attempted to cause her murder.In her report, PW-1 Sharda raised suspicion that a girl was found in the::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 37 conf1.17.odt field of Vijay Chavan r/o.Murli Tanda.The girl found along with above named persons was her daughter.In spite of above, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, had admitted that no statement of Vijay Chavan is recorded nor any investigation is carried out on this aspect.According to learned Additional Public prosecutor, investigation in Crime No.95 of 2012 registered as aforesaid was transferred to local Crime Branch, Yavatmal and was carried out by PW-13 Chandansinh, Investigating Officer who, on 20.5.2013, on receiving information from PW-1 Sharda and PW-3 Gopal about lying of bones, frock etc. at jungle area in Choramba, as informed to them by accused no.2 Devidas, visited the said spot on 21.5.2013 along with two panchas and PW-3 Gopal and after drawing Spot Panchanama, seized articles under Seizure Panchanama.To establish said fact, learned Additional Public Prosecutor led evidence of PW-2 Adikumar, panch witness, who has proved Seizure Panchanamas (Exh. Nos. 121 and 122) in respect of recovery of bones, hairs, frock, knicker respectively and to connect this recovery, which articles admittedly were not concealed, referred to Memorandum Statement of accused no.1 Manoj wherein he has stated the spot where dead body of deceased was buried and Seizure Panchanama in respect of two human bones, pieces of green bangles::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 38 conf1.17.odt as well as Demonstration Panchanama of above investigation were prepared.Prosecution then relied upon evidence, Memorandum Statements and Discovery Panchanamas in pursuance to Memorandum Statements of accused no. 7 Yashodhabai, who stated to discover steel plate, which came to be seized and on Memorandum Panchanama of accused no.6 Motiram, to discover crow bar, spade along with Discovery Panchanama as well as on Demonstration Panchanamas carried out during the course of investigation.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::Prosecution further relied on evidence of PW-6 Sunil on Memorandum Statement of accused no.3 Yadavrao and on Discovery Panchanama and Seizure of one towel as produced by him from his house and on evidence of PW-7 Dinesh Karmarkar on Memorandum of deceased/accused no.5 Ramchandra and seizure of knife in pursuance of his statement.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor made submissions in respect of Memorandum Statements and Seizure Panchanamas of accused nos.1, 3, 5 6 and 7, according to dates of their memorandums and recoveries effected between period from 25.5.2013 to 30.5.2013 and had submitted that evidence of above witnesses and recovery of incriminating articles at the instance::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 39 conf1.17.odt of accused go to establish involvement of accused beyond reasonable doubt, which evidence is stated to be further found corroborated by D.N.A. reports and C.A. reports when same are considered along with evidence of PW-11 PC Ashish Bhusari as well as Investigating Officers on the point of collecting D.N.A. samples.It is also submitted that evidence of PW-8 Ramesh Mendhe, Naib Tahsildar who has drawn map (Exh.153), establishes fact of investigating agency recovering incriminating articles involved in the present crime on 21.5.2013 from the spot adjoining to the field of Liyakat Tanwar.Thus, according to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, when the entire evidence is cumulatively considered from the Confessional Statement of accused and recovery of incriminating articles effected in pursuance to it, it establishes involvement of accused in the present crime.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::On the point of evidence of hostile witnesses, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon case of Ganga Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2013) 7 SCC 278 and on the point of not affording opportunity to the accused to explain each and every incriminating evidence against them, has relied upon the case of Nar Singh .vs.It is, therefore, submitted that no interference in the impugned Judgment is called for.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::In reply, learned Counsel for the appellants reiterated that, in the missing report, there is no suspicion raised on any of the::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 41 conf1.17.odt accused nor prosecution has established any motive nor for want of admissible evidence, has proved any preparation, previous conduct of accused except for relying upon statements of accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and alleged recoveries made at the instance of accused which are based on inadmissible evidence.Learned Counsel for the accused has, therefore, contended that since no chain of circumstances is established by prosecution by placing on record reliable evidence, there is nothing::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 42 conf1.17.odt to connect the accused with the present crime and hence, it is submitted that the appeal be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::In view of above principles, we have evaluated the entire evidence on record to satisfy if, from the available material and evidence on record, prosecution can said to have established involvement of accused beyond reasonable doubt.In the case of Hanumant Nargundkar (supra), in para 10, it is guided as to how circumstantial evidence is to be appreciated.For the sake of convenience, we have re-produced below para no.10 thereof.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::Assuming that the accused Nargundkar had taken the tenders to his house, the prosecution in order to bring the guilt home to the accused, has yet to prove the other facts referred to above.v. Hodge,(1838) 2 Lewin 227) where he said: "The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them incomplete."It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 44 conf1.17.odt be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.In spite of the forceful arguments addressed to us by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the State we have not been able to discover any such evidence either intrinsic within Ex.P-3A or outside and we are constrained to observe that the Courts below have just fallen into the error against which, warning was uttered by Baron Alderson in the above mentioned case."::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::This appeal involves peculiar facts as revealed from the record that, on receipt of missing report of deceased on 24.10.2012 when it was pending inquiry, some bones, skull, hair, knicker, frock were found in the field of Liyakat Tanwar on 20.5.2013, which articles were seized by PW-13 Chandansinh, Investigating Officer after drawing Spot Panchanama, under Seizure Panchanama in presence of PW-3 Gopal where, according to case of prosecution, even Inquest Panchanama upon skull and bones found on the spot was carried out.According to D.N.A. reports, PW-1 Sharda and PW-3 Gopal are said to be biological parents of bones sent for D.N.A. tests along with D.N.A.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::49 conf1.17.odt profile of said witnesses and except for this, no other evidence is on record to hold that deceased died of homicidal death nor it is the case of prosecution that there is any report of expert certifying death of deceased to be homicidal nor C.A. report establishes injuries, if any, sustained by deceased which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to hold that prosecution has established that deceased died of homicidal death.Learned trial Judge concluded this point noting that there are four types of death i.e. accidental, suicidal, homicidal and natural, and in the case in hand, from the bones found in jungle as well as seized from other spots like bathroom where, according to scientific evidence, remains of deceased Sapna were seized, and further noticing that as there is no other evidence with regards to natural or suicidal death of Sapna, presumed that deceased died of homicidal death.In this background, we have scrutinized evidence to satisfy if it establishes involvement of accused in this crime, beyond reasonable doubt.PW-3 Gopal and PW-1 Sharda, parents of Sapna, on 25.10.2012 and 19.11.2012, had lodged missing report (Exh. Nos.127 and 112 respectively) of their daughter.Perusal of evidence::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 50 conf1.17.odt of PW-3 Gopal would reveal that Sapna was his elder daughter and he knows all the accused being his relatives.He has stated that the incident took place in the year 2012 during Dussera festival.On that day, Sapna went out for playing, however, did not return back.Therefore, he, along with his family members, searched for her; however, since he did not find her, he lodged missing complaint (Exh.127).He has further deposed that while police were searching for his daughter, accused no.2 Devidas, who is his brother-in-law, gave information about lying of one skull and pieces of clothes near the gaothan which fact was informed by PW-3 Gopal to police where he along with PW-1 Sharda visited and found that skull, bones, pieces of clothes were lying which were seized by police.This witness did not support the case of prosecution and is thus declared hostile.He has denied to have learnt of involvement of appellants killing Sapna to offer her as human sacrifice.He denied if he inquired with accused no.2 why Sapna was murdered in front of Goddess Ghat in the house of accused no.7 Yashodabai.He has also denied that accused no.2 Devidas informed him that on cutting throat of Sapna by knife accused sipped her blood as offering of goddess and further denied::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 51 conf1.17.odt of his inquiring with Devidas as to why he has not informed said fact to him earlier when said accused had informed him that accused no.7 Yashodabai and accused no.6 Motiram had extended threats to play magic on him if he discloses said fact to any one.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::It is further denied that, on the day of Dussera accused kidnapped Sapna and by taking her to goddess Ghat in the house of accused no.7 Yashoda, gave her sacrifice.PW-3 Gopal has denied to have identified clothes seized by police to be of Sapna and that accused on kidnapping committed her murder to give sacrifice to the goddess.PW-3 Gopal, father of Sapna, as such, has denied involvement of accused as suggested to him as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::Similarly, evidence of PW-2 on this limited aspect when perused refers to seizure of one green coloured frock having floral design and is silent about seizure of any white blouse or about identification of said clothes by parents of Sapna.In the background of above evidence of PW-3 Gopal, on considering his further evidence, he has admitted that, after lodging of his missing report, Pandurang Khaire and Vijay Chavan of Murli Tanda met him and told that in village Murli hidden treasure was found and they have heard voice of a girl.Admittedly, neither Pandurang Khaire nor Vijay Chavan are examined.Though PW-3 Gopal, on the basis of information received from Pandurng and Vijay::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 53 conf1.17.odt Chavan, admits of lodging of report against Ashok Darshanwar, Bapu Yambadwar and Raju Taksande, from his evidence nothing can be established as to why such report is lodged by him against these persons which was recorded by PSO Ambadkar in presence of API Gurnale in Police Station.Prosecution has not examined any of these Police Officers.PW-3 Gopal has admitted that all the three persons suspected by him in his police report were arrested and were released from jail after three months and further admitted that Pandurang Khaire is having liquor business and good relations with police.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::Evidence of PW-3 Gopal as aforesaid in fact appears to be reliable as even clothes, of which description was given by him in his missing report, which were on the person of deceased on the day when she went missing, does not tally with the evidence of independent witness PW-2 Adikumar, the panch and the contents of Seizure Panchanama (Exh.122), according to which one frock along with other articles came to be seized from zudapi jungle near field of Liyakat Tanwar.This takes us to consider evidence of PW-1 Sharda, mother of deceased, which would reveal that she knows all the accused and that her daughter Sapna is no more alive, who was missing since the day of Dussera in the year 2012, of which report was lodged on the following day by PW-3 Gopal.PW-1 Sharda has deposed of her going to Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal 15 to 20 days thereafter and further stated of one Pandurang Khaire informing her that, at village Murli one villager informed him that he heard sound of weeping of one girl and therefore, Pandurang told her to lodge report against three persons namely Ashok Darshanwar, Bapu Yambadwar, Raju Takshande.However, she did not recollect name of third person and accordingly, lodged report.From her above evidence, it is thus established beyond doubt that report on the basis of which offence came to be registered vide Crime No.95 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be lodged by Sharda on the say of one Pandurang Khaire and in fact, said Pandurang appears to have insisted Sharda to lodge report against Ashok Darshanwar, Bapu Yambadwar and Raju Taksande and had taken Sharda to Police Station.Admittedly, all three suspects named as aforesaid are discharged and nothing is placed on record establishing reasons for their discharge which apparently appears to be of false implication of above named persons by Sharda due to insistence of Pandurang Khaire who is admittedly not examined as a witness.In the background of above stated facts, when her report (Exh.112) is perused, she has stated therein that, 2-3 days prior to lodging of such report, three persons named therein as aforesaid, who were armed with weapons, took her daughter to the field of one Vijay Chavan, resident of Murli with an intention to cause her murder and on arrival of Viju Chavan there, on hearing of cry of a girl, above named persons fled away.Report (Exh.112) also refers to::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 57 conf1.17.odt Viju Chavan lodging report of said fact in Police Station, Ghatanji, of which reference is found in Column No.15 of printed F.I.R. (Exh.113) that, on 17.11.2012, at 8.15 hours, near Maroti temple, he saw one pit was dug and there was one stone on which two lemons sprinkled upon it with yellow turmeric powder and one coconut were kept, where Bapur Yambadwar and Ashok Darshanwar were found present armed with pickaxe and spade, while three persons fled from the spot when he heard cry of a girl.What is outcome of report lodged by Viju Chavan is not brought on record and PW-13 Chandansinh, Investigating Officer admitted that, as per Exh.112, PW-1 Sharda had lodged report against Ashok Darshanwar and two other suspects, upon which offence is registered when investigation of this crime was with Police Officer Ambadkar.He has further deposed that said Officer Ambadkar had arrested accused Ashok Darshanwar and two others and that, after he took over investigation from Ambadwar, he had discharged said persons under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Nothing is on record establishing discharging of above named accused, though PW-1 Sharda in her report (Exh.112)::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 58 conf1.17.odt had suspected them to have taken away one girl and was sure that the girl who was at village Murli was her daughter.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::On considering further evidence of PW-1 Sharda, it has come on record that accused no.2 Devidas is her brother who had informed that while he was at Mapi jungle to graze cattles, he had located one human skull, one knicker and piece of frock, of which information was given to Local Crime Branch Officials and accordingly, she along with her husband visited said spot with other villagers where she was shown one piece of frock.However, according to her, said piece of frock did not belong to her daughter Sapna and therefore, she did not receive any information about her daughter.Evidence of PW-1 Sharda about accused no.2 Devidas informing about lying of human skull in the jungle as deposed by her is not convincing in view of specific evidence of PW-3 Gopal when he has admitted that accused no.2 Devidas had not informed about his finding of any skull or piece of frock in jungle.Evidence of PW-1 Sharda and PW-3 Gopal is, therefore, contradictory on this material piece of evidence.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::PW-1 Sharda though is mother of Sapna, has also not supported the case of prosecution and has denied to have stated in her statement recorded by police that, in her presence, all accused confessed in the house of accused no.7 Yashodabai of their beheading Sapna offering her human sacrifice and of their burying her dead body by the side of bathroom in the house of accused no.7 Yashodabai.PW-1 Sharda admits that accused no.1 Manoj is son of sister of her father, accused no.2 Devidas is her real brother, accused no.3 Yadavrao is cousin of her maternal uncle, accused no.4 Punaji is her father, accused no.5 Ramchandra (deceased) is brother of her grand father, accused no.6 Motiram is cousin of her mother, accused no.7 Yashodabai is sister of her father and accused no.8 is daughter of accused no.7 Yashodabai and has denied that since all the accused are related to her, she is deposing falsely and as also admitted that since complaint was made by her and PW-3 Gopal to Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal by visiting said Police Officials and Special I.G. at Amravati along with accused no.7 Yashodabai who was member of Gram Panchayat, dispute arose between accused Yashodabai and Police Officer Ambadwar as complaint was made against said Officer to Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal and therefore, it is admitted that Officer Ambadkar had threatened::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 60 conf1.17.odt accused Yashodabai.According to her, complaint was required to be made with S.P., Yavatmal and Special I.G., Amravati as investigation was carried out as per whims and fancies of Investigating Agency.It is admitted that she has no grievance against accused persons and she is unable to say if Sapna is dead or alive.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::As such, evidence of PW-1 Sharda and PW-3 Gopal, parents of Sapna reveals that they are not even sure if Sapna is dead or is alive and in fact, PW-3 Gopal had also deposed that one Sakhubai of village had said to him that, if money is paid to her, she will bring Sapna.In the background of evidence of above witnesses, we have further scrutinized evidence of PW-9 Shakuntala, who is neighbour of accused no.7 Yashodabai, who has deposed that, due to quarrel with Yashodabai, she had left her house and is residing with her brother, which evidence appears to be by way of material omission.However, even by examining this witness, case of prosecution does not proceed in any manner since she too did not support the case of prosecution and has admitted accused no.7 Yashodabai to be member of Gram Panchayat and that she knows one Raju Navghare of village Choramba who was having his panel::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 61 conf1.17.odt against panel of one Dnyaneshwar Wagre, from whose panel she was contesting elections and as such, she along with Yashodabai were having political rivalry.By examining this evidence as such, prosecution could not achieve anything.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::Moreover, in the missing report, the frock is referred as red coloured frock and white shirt; while, according to PW-2 Adikumar, what was seized in his presence is green coloured frock.While, in Spot Panchanama (Exh.120), we find description of frock mentioned of Heena colour along with blue coloured knicker, bone, skull and hair.In that view of the matter, case of prosecution of seizure of frock on 21.5.2013 appears to be full of doubts as against the specific case of PW-3 Gopal of deceased wearing red coloured frock since the day she is missing.Even otherwise, evidence of PW-2 Adikumar is not at all convincing to be acted upon since he admits that Seizure Panchanamas and Spot Panchanamas were already written, upon which he has signed and has also admitted that he is not aware of contents of any of these documents, which evidence appears to be convincing in view of said witness admitting that police did not read over these documents to him.In view of his evidence and since he also admits that he was called by police as he::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 63 conf1.17.odt was Up-Sarpanch of village, his evidence creates doubt if any articles as stated in the Panchanamas were really found on the spot and were seized in presence of these witnesses.Prosecution has not examined second panch on any of these documents.Moreover, evidence of PW-2 Adikumar, panch is also silent of PW-3 Gopal identifying frock on the spot to be of Sapna.In fact, PW-3 Gopal is also silent on his identifying any clothes of Sapna which were found along with skull and piece of bone by police.PW-2 Adikumar did not support the case of prosecution.Even, in the cross-examination, it is nowhere suggested that, at the time of seizure of frock, he was confronted with the same which he admitted to be of Sapna.It is material to note that the spot from where above articles came to be found and seized was shown by PW-3 Gopal which is zudpi jungle at village Choramba and in the Spot Panchanama, we find no reference of sealing of any of the articles found on the spot.No explanation is putforth by prosecution for not depositing muddemal articles for 12 days.In view of absence of mention of sealing of articles in Spot Panchanama and deposit of muddemal after 12 days, case of prosecution is doubtful on this count also.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::As submitted by appellants, we find PW-2 Adikumar even otherwise to be a stock panch of police as, on perusal of summons issued to him (Exh.124), his services were required for drawing of Inquest Panchanama over the body of Sapna, and nothing more.Similarly, at this juncture, perusal of evidence of PW-8 Ramesh Mendhe, Naib-Tahsildar would reveal that, on 15.7.2013, on visiting Government E-Class Land with Panchas, Talathi, Kotwal, he drew sketch (Exh.152) and forwarded it to the Investigating Officer.Perusal of this document would reveal that he, on drawing such sketch, has referred to various spots mentioned there and on those::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 65 conf1.17.odt different spots, articles like rib bones, leg bones, skull, knicker, frock, hair from head are shown lying.His evidence is silent as to who pointed said spots where such articles are stated to be lying.In fact, PW-8 Ramesh has admitted that the sketch does not reveal as to who had shown such spots to him.In view of his evidence as aforesaid and as the sketch since is admittedly drawn on 15.7.2013 i.e. after two months of drawing Spot Panchanama dt.21.5.2013, we do not find it safe to act upon this document as the case of prosecution is silent as to how, so many details came to be mentioned in sketch (Exh.152).For the reasons as aforesaid, therefore, we find the case of prosecution of drawing of Spot Panchanama, seizure of articles and inquest to be doubtful.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::After considering evidence in respect of articles seized from the spot on 21.5.2013 as aforesaid, which were already found four days prior to arrest of accused and on commenting on various aspects with regards to evidence of PW-2 Adikumar, spot panch as well as Spot Panchanama, Seizure Panchanamas of articles seized from the spot and Inquest Panchanama, we have considered evidence of witnesses relied by prosecution to prove its case of recovery of various articles at the instance of accused persons and::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 66 conf1.17.odt thereby making an attempt to establish their involvement in the present crime.For that purpose, we have considered evidence of PW- 4 Rajendra Shukla, who has acted as a panch on Memorandum Statement (Exh.No.130) of accused no.1 Manoj, Demonstration Panchanama (Exh.131) and Discovery Panchanama (Exh.132).From his evidence, it is revealed that he was called in Ghatanji Police Station on 25.5.2013 along with Amol Bhoyar (not examined) to act as a panch, where they reached at 3.45 p.m. when, in their presence, accused no.1 Manoj while in police custody, made statement where dead body was buried, which Memorandum is on record (Exh.130).As per his further evidence, accused led police and panchas to one place, which spot was dug by police, wherefrom human bones and pieces of green coloured bangles were found, which were seized under Seizure Panchanama (Exh.132).He has deposed that then accused no.1 Manoj led police to bushes in one field which place was further dug, wherefrom small bones of human body were seized under Panchanama (Exh.131).PW-4 Rajendra has admitted that, before calling him to act as a panch, he was not issued with any summons and has admitted that he is resident of Yavatmal; while his services were requisitioned for investigation carried out at Ghatanji which is 45 kms.In that view of the matter, we find substance::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 67 conf1.17.odt when it is suggested to this witness that he made himself available for investigation by police since he was having friendly relations with police, as prosecution has not putforth any reason to not to arrange any panch from Ghatanji itself, though PW-4 Rajendra admits said place to have Municipal Council having population of about 40,000 people.Evidence of PW-4 Rajendra of his claim to know accused no.1 Manoj is also doubtful as there is nothing on record to show as to how he knows said accused when admittedly PW-4 Rajendra is resident of Yavatmal, while accused no.1 Manoj is resident of village Choramba.In fact, PW-4 Rajendra has also admitted that the name of accused who was in custody was Manoj Atram.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::Perusal of Arrest Memo of accused no.1 Manoj reveals that he came to be arrested on 25.5.2013 at 3.35 p.m., while::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 68 conf1.17.odt Exh.130 is his memorandum recorded on that day between 4.00 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. in presence of PW-4 Rajendra, panch witness.Along with accused no.1 Manoj, accused no.2 Devidas is arrested on that day at the same time under Arrest Memo (Exh.200) at 3.35 hours by PW-13 Chandansingh, Investigating Officer.Thus, there appears sufficient substance when it is submitted that case of prosecution of recording of Memorandum Statement of accused no.1 Manoj within 20 minutes of his arrest is doubtful as, after effecting arrests of accused no. 1 Manoj and accused no.2 Devidas, their Arrest Panchanamas are also drawn, for which reasonable time must have been required before interrogation and recording of Memorandum Statement of accused no.1 Manoj.In fact, it is material to note that under Memorandum Statement of accused no.1 Manoj, what is recovered and seized under Exh. Nos. 130 and 131 is already seized on 21.5.2013 i.e. even prior to Memorandum Statement of accused no.1 Manoj.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::Services of PW-6 Sunil are obtained by Investigating Agency to act as a panch on 27.5.2013 between 2.45 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. for recording Memorandum Statement and discovery for drawing panchanama of articles discovered at the instance of::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 69 conf1.17.odt accused no.7 Yashodabai and also on Memorandum Statement and discovery of articles on the Memorandum of accused no.6 Motiram from 5.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and of accused no.3 Yadavrao on 29.5.2013 between 12.30 to 12.45 in respect of recovery of towel in pursuance to his Memorandum Statement.No explanation is putforth by prosecution for availing services of PW-6 Sunil alone on two different dates for recording Memorandum Statements of three different accused persons and for recovery of articles.In the background of above stated facts, perusal of evidence of PW-6 Sunil on the point of Memorandum Statement of accused no.7 Yashodabai would reveal that, on 27.5.2013, he had gone to Yavatmal Rural Police Station with another panch Shende (not examined) when, in his presence, accused no.7 Yashodabai made a statement of police to discover plate and big sized knife, which is recorded as per Exh.136 and in pursuance to same, accused no.7 Yashodabai discovered one steel plate from open space near her house concealed beneath earth which came to be seized under Discovery Panchanama (Exh.137).Admittedly, no recovery of knife of any kind is effected in pursuance to Memorandum of accused no.7 Yashodabai.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::According to further evidence of PW-6 Sunil, after effecting recovery of plate at the instance of accused no.7 Yashodabai, while they were returning to the vehicle, accused no.6 Motiram expressed his desire to make a statement to police and was thus taken to nearby Zilla Parishad School, where his Memorandum Statement Exh.139 is recorded, in which he is stated to discover one crow bar (sabbal) and spade, and then he led Investigating team with PW-6 Sunil near bathroom inside the house of accused no.7 Yashodabai, where he was asked to dig a place and thereafter, he led them to boundary of one field where he was asked to dig that place, where one steel lamp, human bones and coconut shell were found.It is no case of prosecution that, as per Memorandum Statement of accused no.6 Motiram, he made statement to discover any of these articles nor there is separate Memorandum Statement of said accused giving statement to police to discover any of these articles.Memorandum Statement of accused no.6 Motiram (Exh.139) only refers to discovery of crow bar and spade.As such, we find seizure of other articles as aforesaid to be not material since its reference is nowhere in the Memorandum Statement of accused Motiram.PW-6 Sunil further deposed that accused no.6 Motirm then came to his house and produced one small crow bar and spade::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 71 conf1.17.odt which came to be seized under Seizure Panchanama (Exh.140) and has identified the same.Similarly, no explanation is putforth by prosecution why accused Motiram was made to dig at two places, as deposed by PW-6 Sunil.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::It is material to point out that, on that day, till 4.45 p.m., PW-13 was drawing Memorandum Statement of accused no.7 Yashodabai.We, therefore, find that till 4.45 p.m. PW-13 was drawing Recovery Panchanama (Exh.137) of Yashodabai.Similarly, case of prosecution is unfolded::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 72 conf1.17.odt if accused no.6 Motiram was with accused no.7 Yashodabai and Investigating team when she led police to discover steel plate as, according to evidence of PW-6 Sunil, panch, after accused no.7 Yashodabai police and panch returned back to their vehicle accused no.6 Motiram expressed his willingness to make statement for which prupose he was taken to Zilla Parishad.In that view of the matter, there is no link evidence on record to establish how accused no.6 Motiram arrived at the vehicle as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::Perusal of Memorandum Statement of PW-6 Motiram would reveal that same is drawn on 27.5.2013 between 5.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., in pursuance to which, crow bar and spade are recovered.Demonstration Panchanama (Exh.140) in respect of muddemal discovered at the instance of accused Motiram in pursuance of his statement (Exh.139) would reveal that accused no.6 Motiram while effecting said discovery first led the Investigating agency to the house of accused no.7 Yashodabai where he dug some place from where nothing was recovered and so he led police by road towards village and came near zudpi jungle.It is to be noted that Memorandum Statement of accused no.7 Yashodabai and Seizure Panchanama (Exh. Nos. 136 and 137 respectively) are also of the same day, time::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 ::: 73 conf1.17.odt and place i.e. house of said accused Yashodabai wherefrom she discovered one steel plate.But, there is no reference to accused no.6 Motiram visiting said place.Memorandum Statement of accused no.6 Motiram (Exh.139) is in respect of recovery of crow bar and spade, which articles are referred as seized in Demonstration Panchanama (Exh.140) as one crow bar and spade having no blood stains upon it.While, according to Seizure Panchanama (Exh.141), one steel lamp, one piece of broken shell of coconut and small pieces of human bones are stated to be seized, of which there is absolutely no reference in the Memorandum Statement of accused no.6 Motiram for discovering any such articles as, according to his Memorandum Statement (Exh.139), he has referred only to discovery of crow bar and spade alone.In fact, Seizure Panchanama (Exh.141) is silent about seizure of spade and crow bar as is mentioned in the Memorandum Statement of accused no.6 Motiram, which fact, in fact, has been admitted by PW-6 Sunil.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:40 :::Further evidence of PW-6 Sunil is with regards to recording of Memorandum Statement of accused no.3 Yadavrao on 29.5.2013 and discovery of one towel which is recorded as per Exh.142 and seized under Panchanama (Exh.143) having no blood::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: 74 conf1.17.odt stains.In the absence of any other substantial evidence against accused no.3 Yadavrao, recovery of towel at his instance by itself is not sufficient to establish his guilt in present set of facts.Similarly, from the evidence of PW-7 Dinesh Karmarkar, though knife came to be seized under Panchanama (Exh.146) at the instance of deceased accused no.5 Ramchandra as per his Memorandum Statement (Exh.145), said accused since died pending trial, said piece of evidence requires no serious consideration.However, even if evidence of PW-7 Dinesh is considered for this limited purpose, it would establish seizure of one knife having no blood stains, which came to be seized from the house of deceased accused no.5 Ramchandra.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::Having discussed evidence of above witnesses, evidence of PW-4 Rajendra and PW-6 Motiram, who have acted as panch on Memorandum Statement of accused no.1 Manoj and discovery of articles and of PW-6 Sunil whose services as aforesaid are taken to act as panch for recording Memorandum Statement of accused no.3 Yadavrao, accused no.6 Motiram and accused no.7 Yashodabai on 27.5.2013 and 29.5.2013, whose evidence for the doubts already raised hereinabove, does not appear to be convincing.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::In the background of case of prosecution of alleged recovery of articles at the instance of accused no.1 Manoj, accused no.3 Yadavrao, deceased accused no.5 Ramchandra, accused no.6 Motiram and accused no.7 Yashodabai, as per their Memorandum Statements, in presence of panch witnesses PW-4 Rajendra Shukla, PW-6 Sunil and PW-7 Dinesh respectively, we find that, except for said evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, nothing is on record to connect the accused persons with the present crime.In the cited decision, it was the case of dacoity and an amount of Rs.400/- was recovered from the possession of accused.It is observed in para 13 of the said judgment as under :-In the case on hand, before looking at the confessional statement made by the accused - appellant in the light of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, may be taken into fold for limited purposes.From the aforesaid statement of the appellant, it is clear that he had explained the way in which the accused committed the crime and shared the spoils.He disclosed the fact that Munna Manjhi was the::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: 76 conf1.17.odt Chief/Head of the team of assailants and the crime was executed as per the plan made by him.It is also came into light by his confession that the accused broke the doors of the house of informant with the aid of heavy stones and assaulted the inmates with pieces of wood (sticks).He categorically stated that he and Rampati Manjhi were guarding at the outside while other accused were committing the theft.The recoveries of used polythene pouches of wine, money, clothes, chains and bangle were all made at the disclosure by the accused which corroborates his confessional statement and proves his guilt.Therefore, the confessional statement of the appellant stands and satisfies the test of Section 27 of the Evidence Act."::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::Learned trial Court has taken into consideration the following circumstances :-(i) Report regarding Missing of Sapna Palaskar;(ii) Circumstances of motive, preparation and previous conduct of accused persons;(iii) Evidence of Criminal Conspiracy;(iv) Evidence relating to kidnapping of victim Sapna by the accused;(v) Evidence of recovery of bones, skull, pieces of frock etc., and other articles u/s. 27 of Evidence Act;(vi) Evidence of C.D. and Videography regarding recovery u/s. 27 of Evidence Act;(vii) C.A. report and D.N.A. report to corroborate the entire incident; and::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: 82 conf1.17.odt::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::(viii)Presumption of factum of murder of Sapna on the part of accused persons.As already stated aforesaid, on perusal of evidence of material witnesses, it is clear that PW-1 Sharda and PW-3 Gopal i.e. mother and father of deceased girl have not supported the prosecution case.On the other hand, they have stated that accused persons have not killed their daughter.PW-1 Sharda has stated in her cross-examination that still she believed that her daughter is alive.In the background of said facts, we have considered evidence to satisfy if the circumstances as follows, which are considered by the trial Court as afore-said, are sufficient to establish guilt of accused.(i) Report regarding Missing of Sapna Palaskar.PW-3 Gopal, father of Sapna, lodged report (Exh.127).Investigating Officer did not find Sapna.This report itself cannot be taken into consideration as a circumstance against the accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::accused persons; and (iii) Evidence of Criminal Conspiracy :There is no evidence to prove that there was conspiracy between accused Nos.1 to 8 to give human sacrifice to the Goddess and, therefore, this circumstance cannot be said to be proved against the accused persons.(iv) Evidence relating to kidnapping of victim Sapna by the accused :Learned trial Court observed that there is no direct eye witness to the said incident.It has taken into consideration evidence of PW-6 Sunil, who has stated that accused Yadavrao, while he was in custody, gave memorandum on 29.05.2013 vide Exh. 142 and stated::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: 84 conf1.17.odt that he kidnapped Sapna and lifted her on his shoulder.It is pertinent to note that the incriminating material in the memorandum cannot be taken into consideration.As per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the information which relates to discovery of fact is only admissible and, therefore, kidnapping of Sapna by accused persons is not proved by the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::(v) Evidence of recovery of bones, skull, pieces of frock etc. and other articles u/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act :It is pertinent to note that, as per information given by accused No.1 Manoj on 21.5.2013, panchanama was prepared in presence of PW-2 Adikumar.Bones, skull, hair, frock etc. were found on the spot and those were seized as per Seizure Panchnamas (Exhs.121 to 123).It is pertinent to note that those panchnamas were not as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration.In fact, it is material to note that above articles were seized on 21.5.2013 i.e. much prior to arrest of accused on 25.5.2013 by PW-13 Chandansing Bais, Investigating Officer.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::(vi) Evidence of C.D. and Videography regarding recovery under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act :This circumstance also can be said to be not proved beyond reasonable doubt as evidence of PW-10 Ashok Kalmegh is doubtful, whose evidence would reveal that, while working as a Photographer for police, on 27.5.2013, he was called for video- shooting investigation in this Crime No.95 of 2012 by P.I. L.C.B. and accordingly, in his presence, various events involving accused persons and recovery of different articles at their instance came to be recovered of which he took video-shooting.He admits to have saved copy of video-shooting in the hard disc of computer of Police Headquarter, Yavatmal and had also prepared C.D. of said shooting::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: 86 conf1.17.odt and handed it over to Investigating Officer which, according to him, can be seen/played in V.L.C. Media Player and admits that second C.D. having shooting involving accused Yashodabai, however, cannot be seen as the C.D. is corrupted.PW-10 Ashok further admitted to have not obtained any Certificate of video-shooting being saved in the hard disc of computer at Police Headquarter nor about his copy of video-shooting being given to the Investigating Officer and has also admitted that, in the video-shooting, he himself is seen at many places.In view of evidence of PW-10 Ashok and provisions of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, though hard disc or Certificate as contemplated under this provision is on record, said circumstance also is not found to be proved.Even the trial Court has observed that the C.Ds.and video-shooting were corrupt and its visual presentation was not possible.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::(vii) C.A. report and D.N.A. reports to corroborate the entire evidence :On this count, perusal of evidence of PW-12 Nilesh would reveal that, during investigation, he received letter from Regional Forensic Laboratory, Nagpur for collecting D.N.A. Kit.Accordingly, he deputed PW-11 Ashish Bhusari, P.C. B.No.2243 to collect D.N.A. Kit and after he collected the same, he issued requisition (Exh.183) to Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Yavatmal for collecting blood sample of parents of deceased in the DNA Kit.PW-11 Ashish, Police Constable has admitted that there is no Malkhana in L.C.B. Yavatmal and therefore, the blood samples were stored in::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: 88 conf1.17.odt Malkhana of Police Station, Ghatanji located at the distance of 35 kms.It is material to note that Muddemal articles seized on 21.5.2013 and 25.5.2013 are, therefore, deposited after lapse of sufficient time to C.A. on 10.6.2013 and in fact, in Panchanama dt.21.5.2013, there is no mention of sealing of articles.In the circumstances, this by itself cannot be taken as circumstances against the appellants.In view of above evidence, we find that prosecution is completely silent on the point where and in what condition muddemal articles were lying from the date of their seizures till its dispatch to C.A. No record in that behalf is produced::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: 89 conf1.17.odt before the Court.In absence of any evidence, thus, much importance cannot be attached on this aspect to the case of prosecution, more particularly when, in absence of evidence of sealing, possibility of tampering of muddemal cannot be ruled out.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::(viii) Presumption of factum of murder of Sapna on the part of accused persons :Admittedly, the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.Therefore, prosecution was obliged to fully prove the circumstances on which prosecution was relying so that conclusion of guilt can be drawn.The facts established are not consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of accused persons as we find that the chain of evidence is not complete and is found broken at various places.It is pertinent to note that PW-1 Sharda has specifically admitted in her cross-examination that accused no.7 Yashodabai was a member of Gram Panchayat.She was taking active part for search of missing Sapna.Accused no.7 Yashodabai took her to Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal and Inspector General of Police, Amravati.Therefore, there was dispute between P.S.O. Ambadkar and Yashodabai.Yashodabai made complaint against P.S.O. Ambadkar and, therefore, P.S.O. Ambadkar had::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: 90 conf1.17.odt threatened to see her.This specific plea of the accused is proved by evidence of PW-13 Chandansingh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Investigating Officer as he has admitted in his cross-examination that there was dispute between accused Yashodabai and P.S.O. Ambadkar and Yashodabai made complaint to S.P., Yavatmal regarding dispute between her and P.S.O. Ambadkar.This itself shows that the probable defence of false implication of accused persons by Officer Ambadkar, as putforth is more probable than the case of prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: 91 conf1.17.odt say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::As per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, any statement made before police is not admissible except under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of information given to discover the::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: 92 conf1.17.odt facts/articles and the articles/facts discovered.Incriminating statements made in Memorandum Statements are not admissible.Learned trial Court has wrongly taken into consideration Confessional Statements admitting guilt of the accused and only on that basis, the accused are wrongly convicted.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::All the material panch witnesses PW-2 Adikumar, PW-4 Rajendra, PW-6 Sunil and PW-7 Dinesh are from Yavatmal.Police Station, Ghatanji is a big town rather a taluka place, but local panch witnesses not taken by the Investigating Officer.Therefore, evidence of PW-4 Rajendra, PW-6 Sunil and PW-7 Dinesh is not reliable.They are brought by police from Yavatmal.In the circumstances, the law relied by prosecution in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (cited supra) of accused committing murder in complete secrecy cannot be applied in any manner for want of any evidence on record even to establish that any of the accused had conspired in secrecy and in pursuance to their conspiracy, after kidnapping Sapna, committed her murder nor the law relied to establish involvement of appellants in this crime based on their Memorandum Statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: 93 conf1.17.odt can be used in favour of prosecution in absence of ample other material on record to corroborate said corroborative piece of evidence, which, for the reasons already recorded aforesaid, is even otherwise not reliable.In the circumstances and at the cost of repetition, we may reiterate that, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that mother and father of Sapna namely PW-1 Sharda and PW-3 have not supported the prosecution case.On the other hand, they have stated that accused persons are not author of crime.It is brought on record in the evidence of PW-1 Sharda that she came to know from Viju Chauhan that three persons were having girl.Viju Chauhan also lodged report in the Police Station stating that accused namely Ashok Darshanwar, Bapu Yambadwar and Raju Taksande had dug a pit near his field.Viju Chauhan heard cry of girl.He rushed there.Those persons ran away with that girl.Prosecution has neither examined material witness Viju Chauhan nor has explained as to why those three persons are discharged as per the provisions of Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::In the month of May, 2013, accused Manoj told his sister PW-1 Sharda that he found some bones and other articles in the forest of Choramba.The::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: 94 conf1.17.odt said information was given by PW-1 Sharda and accused Yashodabai to the Investigating Officer.At the time of Spot Panchnama, bones, hair, one piece of frock of green colour and one skull were found.Those were seized vide Panchnama (Exhs.121 to 123).Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 8 were taken into custody.Their Memorandum Statements were recorded and some articles/bones etc. were recovered.Those were seized in presence of PW-4 Rajendra Shukla, PW-6 Sunil Bhele and PW-7 Dinesh Karmarkar.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::Except for above discussed evidence, there is no evidence led by prosecution to establish that accused persons hatched any conspiracy to give human sacrifice to the Goddess on the day of Dussera.Learned trial Court wrongly took into consideration inadmissible evidence of Memorandum Statements of accused and only on the basis of same, convicted accused holding them to be guilty of the offences as stated above, which Judgment thus cannot sustain in the eye of law.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::There can be varied reasons for a non-appealing accused in not approaching the appellate Court.If, for compelling and inevitable reasons, like lack of finances, absence of any person to pursue his remedy and lack of proper assistance in the jail, an accused is unable to file appeal, then it would amount to denial of access to justice to such accused.The concept of fair trial would take within its ambit the right to be heard by the appellate Court.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::98 conf1.17.odt At this stage, we place on record our appreciation for valuable assistance rendered by Mr.R.M.Daga, learned Counsel for the appellants/accused and Mr.Anand Deshpande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, who, we found had thorough preparation on facts and law and they, thus, deserve recognition.In the result, we pass the following order :Original accused no.1 Manoj @ Lalya Vasantrao Atram, Original accused no.2 Devidas Punaji Atram, Original accused no.3 Yadavrao Tukaram Tekam, Original accused no.4 Punaji Mahadev Atram, Original accused no.6 Motiram Mahadev Meshram, Original accused no.7 Yashodabai Pandurang Meshram and Original accused no.8 Durga Sitaram Shirbhate (non-appealing) are acquitted of the offences charged with.They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 :::99 conf1.17.odt Fine amount, if any, paid by Original accused nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 and Original accused no.8 Durga Shirbhate, be refunded to them.Consequently, Criminal Confirmation Case No. 01 of 2017 stands dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:41 ::: | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,960,581 | All the jail sentence have been directed to run concurrently. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,961,269 | 3) The first information report was given by Anil Sulgekar (PW 3).Deceased Suresh was real brother of the informant.On that day Feroz Lala, employer of Suresh, came to the house of the deceased where the informant was also living and he took the widow of the deceased with him by saying that Suresh was admitted in the hospital as he had sustained injuries.The informant rushed to Lotus Hospital where Suresh was taken after taking him first to Civil Hospital Nanded.There, he learnt from the persons like Shaikh Shadul, Firoj Gadiwala and Balya that there was quarrel between Suresh and Taju Ghasletwala on one side and Balu on the other side on the count of money at Ramamata Ambedkar Nagar at about 5.00 p.m. and there all the four accused had come and had picked up quarrel with the deceased.They informed that on the instructions given by accused No.2 Jasbirsing his son Taklya, other accused, had fetched a spade and by using the spade first accused No.1 had given blow on the head of Suresh and::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 ::: 4 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019 then Jasbirsing had given the blow on the head of Suresh.They disclosed that accused Nos.3 and 4 had assaulted deceased with kicks and fist blows and this incident was witnessed by many persons of that locality.Doctors from Lotus Hospital declared that Suresh was already dead.Date: 6 SEPTEMBER 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):1) Both the appeals are filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.29/2012 which was pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nanded.The trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.Charge was framed for offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against four accused.Accused No.3 and 4 are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code but they are convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Both the sides are heard.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::3 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/20192) In short, the facts leading to the institution of the two appeals can be stated as under :-On the same day Anil gave report mentioning the aforesaid information.The crime came to be registered for offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::4) Crime was registered after 7.00 p.m. but on the same day spot panchanama was prepared and the post mortem was conducted.There was blood on the spot of offence and earth sample containing blood was collected from the spot.5) During the course of investigation statements of witnesses came to be recorded and all the four accused came to be arrested.Accused No.1 gave statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act on 19-10-2011 and on the basis of that statement, the spade which was thrown into a drainage channel was recovered and seized.The map of scene of offence was got prepared from revenue authority.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::5 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/20196) In the trial court the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses including two eye witnesses to prove the offence.The defence did not dispute that Suresh died homicidal death.In view of these circumstances it is not necessary to discuss the evidence of spot panchanama and the medical evidence in detail.The medical evidence can be considered to ascertain as to whether there is consistency between the medical evidence and the direct evidence.7) Anil (PW 3), brother of the deceased, has given evidence of aforesaid nature on the basis of information he had received from others.He had given names of many persons in the first information report.Out of them Taju Ghasletwala is examined as eye witness by police.The other persons who had supplied information and whose names are mentioned in the F.I.R. were not examined.The evidence of PW 3 is of the nature that immediately after the incident he learnt the names of the assailants and the persons who were present on the spot to witness the::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 ::: 6 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019 incident.This fact is relevant and this evidence can be considered under section 6 illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that this evidence is hit by section 60 of the Evidence Act and it is hearsay in nature.This submission cannot be accepted as the information was from the persons who were in the vicinity of the spot of offence and this information was spread immediately after the incident everywhere by those persons.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::8) The evidence and the record show that at the relevant time deceased Suresh, Taju (PW 4) and Balu were together.The evidence of the informant (PW 3) shows that he had no reason at all to falsely implicate any of the accused.He has denied that there was long standing enmity between Suresh, Shaikh Tajoddin (PW 4) and other friend of the deceased, Balu.His evidence is important as in the F.I.R. which was given immediately after hearing about the incident his name was given as eye witness.Thus, the names of the assailants and the names of the witnesses were given immediately to police by the informant and this circumstance needs to be kept in mind::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 ::: 7 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019 while appreciating the evidence of eye witness Shaikh Tajoddin (PW 4).::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::9) Shaikh Tajoddin (PW4), eye witness, is believed by the trial court.He has given evidence that at about 5.00 p.m. he, deceased and Balu were together at the spot of the offence.He has deposed that all the four accused came there and they started quarreling with them.He has deposed that during quarrel, accused No.2 Jasbirsing asked his son Taklya to bring spade from his house and Taklya fetched the spade to the spot.He has deposed that when Taklya handed over the spade to his father, accused No.2, accused No.1-Nitin snatched that spade from the hand of the accused No.2 and he gave blow of the spade on the head of Suresh.He has deposed that Suresh sustained injury due to this blow but accused No.2 took the spade from accused No.1 and assaulted Suresh by using the spade on the forehead of Suresh.He has given evidence that accused Nos.3 and 4 then assaulted Suresh with fist blows and kicks.He has deposed that when all four accused rushed at him, he ran away to save his life.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::8 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/201910) The evidence of Shaikh Tajoddin (PW-4) shows that he learnt about the death of Suresh at about 7.00 p.m. He identified all the four accused in the court.He identified the weapon, spade (article No.4) in the court.11) The cross-examination of Shaikh (PW4) made by the learned counsel for accused No.1 shows that this witness admitted that the relations with accused are not good.Though this suggestion is admitted, no specific reason was suggested for strained relations between them prior to the date of the incident.Suggestion is given to him that during incident, he and Balu were pushing Suresh and due to that he fell into drainage.This suggestion is denied.However, in the cross-examination he has admitted that Suresh was demanding back amount of Rs.200/- from Balu at the spot of the incident and there were some altercations between Suresh and Balu.Balu did not make assault on Suresh and defence did not suggest that any accused had any particular relation or::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 ::: 9 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019 contact with Balu.Due to these circumstances it cannot be said that the incident took place due to the demand of Rs.200/- by the deceased from Balu and due to the quarrel which was going on between the deceased and Balu.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::12) In the cross-examination of PW-4 some omissions in relation to his previous statement were confronted to him.He had not stated before police that accused Nos.3 and 4 had assaulted him also with fist blows and kicks.Other so called omissions are not that material.13) The evidence of Shaikh Tajoddin (PW-4) shows that defence is not seriously disputing the presence of this witness on the spot at the relevant time.All the accused were known to him.Due to all these circumstances not much can be made out due to the circumstance that he gave police statement one day late.It is true that he did not attempt to save the deceased.He has frankly admitted that he ran away to save his own life.It is not the case of the defence that these three friends had rushed at the accused persons.The accused were having some weapon::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 ::: 10 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019 and as they had made assault on the deceased, particularly on his head, there is possibility that this witness became afraid and to save his life he ran away.Due to these circumstances, the trial court has believed him and as appellate court this Court holds that it is not possible to interfere in the finding of the trial court that this witness is trustworthy and can be believed.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::14) Shaikh Feroz (PW-6) the other eye witness has deposed that he noticed the incident when he was proceeding towards his house at the relevant time.His evidence shows that he knew the deceased and the accused.He has given evidence that he noticed that some altercation was going on between the deceased and Balu over money and then accused Nitin (accused No.1) fetched the spade and gave blow of the spade on the head of the deceased.He has identified only accused No.1 in the court and he has given evidence only as against accused No.1 in the court.His police statement was also recorded late.The trial court has not believed this witness.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::11 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019In any case he has taken the name of accused No.1 as the assailant but his evidence is not consistent with medical evidence which this court is discussing at other place.For all these reasons the trial court has disbelieved him in entirety.Even if the evidence of this witness is ignored, there is the evidence of PW-4 which is consistent with the medical evidence.It is already observed that the evidence of spot panchanama is not disputed by the defence and so the discarding of the evidence of PW-6 cannot affect the::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 ::: 12 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019 case of the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::16) Dr. Naresh (PW-7) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Suresh on 17-10-2011 between 9.35 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. He found following surface wounds on the dead body."(a) Sutured wound over right forehead on the lateral side of the eye brow obliquely measuring with length 2.5 cm, five intact sutures seen with surrounding area with contusion measuring 4.5cmx2cm.(b) Sutured wound over right forehead 2cm above and medial to injury No.1 with two intact sutures vertically placed.(c) contused lacerated wound over frontal area vertically placed in midline measuring 5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep with irregular margin.(d) Contusion over left cheek measuring 2x1 cm(e) Contusion over right shoulder measuring 3 x 1 cm."17) Dr. Naresh (PW 7) found following internal injuries."(i) Subgalleal hemorrhage over both frontal and right temporal area.(ii) Depressed fracture of right frontal bone size 4 x 1.5 cm with fracture line extending upwards up to coronal sutures measuring 7 cm in length with sutural separation on both sides with gaping::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 ::: 13 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019 exposing underlined brain matter.Fractural line extending on left side upto left temporal bone.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::(iii) Fracture line extends from right coronal suture backwards over right parietal bone and 4 cm downwards towards right temporal bone, 9 cm in length.Left frontal bone fractured vertically, 8 cm in length extends upto coronal sutures.(iv) Fracture seen in anterior cranial cavity with multiple fractures of right orbital plate and fracture seen in right middle cranial cavity."18) The evidence of Dr. Naresh (PW-7) shows that the brain had injury like contusions to frontal side like on right side the size of the contusion was 3x2 cm and on left side of size 1x1 cm.There was laceration of right frontal bone of 2x2 cm size and subarachnoid hemorrhage over both frontal and parietal lobe.19) Dr. Nitin (PW 7) has given evidence that all the aforesaid injuries were ante mortem in nature.He has given evidence that sutured injuries found on the head can be caused by article like spade produced in the court and they are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death if they are considered along with the corresponding internal injuries.Thus, medical evidence::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 ::: 14 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019 shows that there were 3 injuries on the head and they had caused the aforesaid internal damage.This evidence is sufficient to infer that at least three blows were given on the head by using heavy weapon.The doctor has denied that such injuries can be caused in simple fall on stone.The post mortem report at Exhibit 63 is consistent with the oral evidence of Dr. Naresh (PW-7).::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::20) Dr. Shivaji Wankhede (PW-9) was working in Lotus Hospital at the relevant time.His evidence, however, shows that the dead body of Suresh was brought to the hospital and there was no question of giving any treatment in Lotus hospital to Suresh.21) The evidence in respect of post mortem examination shows that injury Nos.1 to 3 were on the head as surface wounds.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution ought to have examined doctor from the Civil Hospital where the deceased was shifted first and where probably suturing was done.This Court had expressed that the record from::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 ::: 15 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019 civil hospital can be called to make this circumstance clear if the defence wants.But the defence did not express desire for that and no application was given.The evidence on the record is sufficient to show that no operation was performed on the head and only suturing was done in respect of the three injuries in the civil hospital and then for better treatment the deceased was shifted to private hospital like Lotus Hospital.The evidence of PW-7 does not show that they were operative injuries.The dead body was reached to Lotus Hospital at 7.00 p.m. Due to all these circumstances, this Court holds that the injuries No.1 to 3 shown in the post mortem report were ante mortem injuries and they were not the injuries in respect of treatment or operation.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::22) The prosecution evidence shows that the incident had taken place at about 5.00 p.m., in broad day light in the month of October.There is evidence of eye witness (PW-4) to the effect that it is accused Nos.1 and 2 who gave one blow each on the head of the deceased.Not much can be made out of this::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 ::: 16 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019 circumstance as the evidence of PW-4 shows that he ran away from the spot due to fear of the accused.PW-4 in the cross-examination has deposed that accused No.2 had given blow on the left side of the head.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::17 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019Specific evidence of the eye witness (PW 4) that accused No.2, whose residence is situated in the vicinity of the spot of offence, arranged to fetch the weapon spade from the house, needs to be kept in mind.Spade has thick handle and heavy blade.Evidence is given by the eye witness that spade was used as weapon.Accused No.1 took this weapon when it was in the hand of accused No.2 and gave blow on the head of Suresh.Due to the blow given by accused No.1, Suresh was injured and then accused No.2 took the weapon from the hand of::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 ::: 18 Appeals 426/2016 & 901/2019 accused No.1 and gave another blow on the head of Suresh.These injuries caused fracture of skull bones as described above.There is medical evidence that injury Nos.1 to 3 are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death.As three injuries were inflicted on the head together by accused Nos.1 and 2 by using such weapon, it is easy to infer that there was the intention to assault on the head of the deceased by such weapon.Due to such evidence inference is possible that there was intention as mentioned in section 300 secondly and section 300 thirdly of the Indian Penal Code.So it is a murder.In view of the nature of evidence, section 34 of the IPC can be used against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the charge was framed by using section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::The facts were different.In the case of Manke Ram (cited supra) when accused had fired two shots by using service revolver and one had hit the neck, due to the circumstance of the case like there was the scuffle, and there was absence of motive, the Supreme Court held that the accused can be convicted under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.In the second case of Joseph (cited supra) benefit of doubt was given to the accused as the name of the eye witness was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and there was circumstance that accused was arrested very late, after 10 days of the incident even when everything about him was known.::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:12:01 :::26) In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,962,438 | THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH MCRC No.37738/2020 Satish vs. State of M.P.Indore, dated :19.10.2020 Heard through Video Conferencing.Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri S. Muley, learned Penal Lawyer for the non-applicant - State.This is first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.546/2020 registered at Police Station Mhow District Indore for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of IPC.As per the prosecution story, on an information received by the police raiding party, the party proceed on the spot where two persons were found having two canes containing 30 liters of country made liquor in each.On seeing the police party, one accused person fled away from the spot and could not be arrested.Later on, another person Ramkishan when questioned, revealed the name of the present applicant, who is his son.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case.She submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant under the provisions of M.P. Excise Act. She further submits that the police party has not recorded the memo statements of the co-accused Ramkishan, therefore, there is no basis to assume that the person who fled away from the spot, was the present applicant.Therefore, on these grounds, anticipatory bail has been sought by the applicant.Counsel for the state was also heard.He fairly admits that the applicant is having no criminal antecedents under the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, however, he has submitted that 2 criminal cases have been registered against the applicant under the provisions of IPC.Case diary was perused.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed.It is directed that in the event of his arrest by the Arresting Officer, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, the applicant shall be released, subject to abiding the conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and he will cooperate with the investigating officer.The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 23.10.2020 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Investigating Officer from time to time.It is also made clear that he shall provide all the necessary assistance sought by the Investigating Officer as and when required.However, it is made clear that on failure of appearance on 23.10.2020 before the Investigating Officer, this order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to this Court.The application stands allowed and disposed of.Cc as per rules.(Shailendra Shukla) Judge amit Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Date: 2020.10.20 11:11:01 +05'30' | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,964,306 | “… …Mr. Sengoda Goundar was the father of P.Ws. 1 and 3 and husband of P.W.2. P.W.4 is the wife of P.W.3 and the daughter-in-law of the deceased.P.Ws. 3 and 4 had a child also and all of them were living together under one roof in Nallavumpatti village.2.2 On 27.05.1999, P.Ws. 1 to 5, after having their dinner, had fallen asleep.The house of P.W.1 and others is facing towards west.P.W.1 was sleeping in the room situated on the northern portion of the house.P.Ws. 3 and 4 along with the child were sleeping in the room situated on the southern portion of the house.P.W.5 was sleeping on the pial situated on the veranda in front of the said house.Just opposite to the said house, on the western side, the tractor shed belonging to them is situated.The deceased Sengoda Goundar and his wife (P.W.2) were sleeping in the said tractor shed.2.3 Around 09.30 p.m., they went to the respective place to sleep.When they were fast asleep, around 01.00 a.m. on 28.05.1999, these appellants (accused 1 to 6) came to the house of the deceased in order to commit dacoity.Some of the accused, attacked him with weapons.He sustained bleeding injuries.With a view to save himself from further attack, he rushed into the house and went into the room where his wife was sleeping.The assailants did not stop.They gave a chase, entered into the said room and indiscriminately attacked P.W.3 and his wife (P.W.4) with weapons.Both sustained a number of bleeding injuries.P.W.5 who was sleeping at the Pial, awakened by the cry, rushed out.He was also attacked.Raising alarm, he rushed towards the house of one Thaluka Goundar.These assailants, barged into the house, looted the properties.Number of jewels worn by the witnesses were snatched away by the accused.They broke open the steel bureau in the house and committed theft of the jewels.All happened with a short time.Even before the villagers could gather at the place of occurrence, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence with decamped valuable jewels and other articles.My brother’s son Sengodan was sleeping in the veranda of the house.My younger brother Kumar and his wife Thangam with her child Manju were sleeping in the southern side room of the house.I was sleeping in the northern side room of the house.At about 1.00 clock in the midnight I heard noise of my father, woke up and came out of the room.At that time a person wearing red colour shirt came there with a stick in a hand and found sitting.On hearing my noise my younger brother Kumar came out running from the room and his hands were tied from behind by them and he was beaten with sticks.His wife Thangam came out to avert the beating but she was also attacked by koduval.They removed the gold chain of 10 sovereigns worn by her, a pair of silver leg chain worn by her also snatched by them.Then they entered into the house and broke open the bureau and removed the silver waist chord and silver leg chain worn by child.At that time my brother’s son Sengodan raised noise and he was also attacked.All the people ran away.On hearing our noise the villagers consisting of Ramasundaram and Srinivasan etc. came and took us to the Government Hospital, Uthangarai at about 4.00 am in the early morning.I came to know that my father Sengodan died.Others were admitted in the Hospital treated by the Doctor.The value of stolen articles will be Rs.45000/- (Forty five thousand).I can identify the jewels stolen if recovered.I can also identify the persons who came and stole the jewels and killed my father and attacked us, if they are found.” Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.Accused No.1-Raja, Accused No.2-On 28.6.1999 an application was made by the Investigating Officer seeking permission to take Accused No.6 – Chinnapaiyan in police custody.Thereafter, the TIP was held on 01.07.1999, in which PWs 1 to 5 identified the concerned accused.The TIP was conducted in the presence and under the supervision of PW11-Boopalan, who was then working as Sub-Judge, Rani Pettai.During the course of investigation, following recoveries were made from the concerned accused.i) MO 18 wrist watch was recovered from Accused No.1 Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.“It is not correct to say that I am deposing falsely that gold chain of 4 sovereigns was stolen.Singarapettai Police also came and wrote.Police asked in the Salem Jail thereafter.I identified in Salem.It is not correct to say that because police showed me the photos of the accused which were published in the paper and I was already shown the accused in Morappur police station, I was called for identification and so I identified the accused.The daily newspaper “Dhina Thanthi” was not coming to our village at that time.”9. PW11-Boopalan, Sub-Judge in whose presence the TIP was conducted, stated that the Accused Nos.1 to 6 were made to stand for identification along with 19 other inmates from the Central Prison who were used as dummies and that PWs.1 to 5 identified Accused Nos.1 to 6. PW8-Thangaraj, Village Administrative Officer, in whose presence, the recoveries were said to have been effected, turned hostile.Uday Umesh Lalit, J.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMUKESH KUMARDate: 2019.12.1015:39:54 ISTCriminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 (preferred by original AccusedReason:No. 1) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1608-1609 of 2018 (preferred by original Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.Raja etc. vs. State by the Inspector of Police 2 Accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6) challenge the common judgment and order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissing Criminal Appeal Nos. 604 of 2012 and 92 of 2013 preferred by said accused as well as original Accused No. 4 (who is stated to have expired since then).They first went into the tractor shed and started mounting attack with deadly weapons on the deceased.These accused indiscriminately attacked P.W.2 also.She raised alarm and cried for Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.Raja etc. vs. State by the Inspector of Police 3 help.On hearing the cry of the deceased and P.W.2, P.W.1 who was sleeping in the room situated on the western portion of the house, opened the main door from inside and came out.On seeing him, some of the accused attacked him with deadly weapons like knife and wooden log.Since the attack was so violent, unable to bear the same and in order to avoid further blows being made, P.W.1 crying for help, tried to rush inside the house.By the time, on hearing the alarm raised, P.W.3 came out of the house.P.Ws. 1 to 5 and the deceased were struggling for life due to the bleeding injuries.The villagers immediately rushed all of them to the Government hospital at Uthangarai.”All the victims were taken to the hospital, where Sengoda Goundar was declared dead.The following injuries were found on the person of the deceased.“1. Abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm left shoulder.Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.Raja etc. vs. State by the Inspector of Police 4Contusion 10 cm x 10 cm left wrist.Contusion 10 cm x 10 cm right wrist.Lacerated wound 1 cm x bone deep horizontal middle head.Lacerated wound 10 cm x 1 cm bone deep oblique left side head.”The other injured persons were also examined the same day before 6.00 a.m. A) PW1- Sundararajan had following injuries: -An abrasion of 4 x 4 cm on the left shoulderA lacerated wound of 10 x 10 cm on the left elbow.A lacerated wound of 10 x 10 cm on the right elbow.A lacerated wound of 10 x 1 cm to bone deep in the centre of the head.A lacerated wound of 10 x 1 cm to bone deep in the left side of the head.” B) PW2-Irusayi was found to be having following injuries:-“1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm at right thumb hand.Lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the left side of forehead.Contusion 10 cm x 6 cm left wrist.Contusion 10 cm x 10 cm back below right shoulder.” Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.Raja etc. vs. State by the Inspector of Police 5 C) PW3-Kumar was found to have suffered injuries as under:-A lacerated wound 10 cm x 6 cm x bone deep oblique left upper arm.A lacerated wound 8 cm x 4 cm x 4 cm left upper arm below 4 cm wound horizontal.A lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep lower aspect left upper arm horizontal.A lacerated wound 10 cm x 1 cm x bone deep extending from left ear lobe horizontally backwards.Lacerated wound above right upper lip extending upto left side nose 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm left eyebrow.Lacerated wound 16 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over right shoulder upper aspect oblique.” D) PW4-Thangammal had following injury:-“A lacerated wound 10 cm x 1 cm x bone deep extending from forehad vertically to middle head.” E) Following injuries were found on the person of PW5-Sengodan.Contusion 10 cm x 10 cm left knee.Abrasion 6 cm x ¼ cm right thigh middle front.”At about 6.00 a.m. on 28.05.2009, complaint (Exhibit-P1) was made by PW1-Sundararajan, pursuant to which FIR No.238/1999 was registered with Singarapettai Police Station, as under:- Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.Raja etc. vs. State by the Inspector of Police 6 “On 27-05-1999 night at about 9.30 p.m. we all took bed after food.My father and mother were sleeping in the tractor shed in front of the house.A group of 6 persons were attacking and beating my father with stick and koduval.One among them cut the gold chain of about 5 sovereigns and removed I cried and raised noise.Those persons attacked me with stick and koduval on my head and all over the body.Govindraj, Accused No.3-Palani, Accused No.4-Vandikaran @ Murugan, Accused No.5-Elumalai and Accused No.7- Arumugam were arrested on 21.06.1999 while Accused No.6-Chinnapaiyan surrendered himself before the Magistrate on 22.06.1999, who remanded him to judicial custody on the same day.On 27.06.1999 requisition was made by the Investigating Officer for conducting Test Identification Parade (TIP for short) insofar as all the arrested accused were concerned.Raja etc. vs. State by the Inspector of Police 8ii) MO 12 gold chain, MOs 21, 23 & 24 gold articles, MOs 46 and 47 clothes having blood stains were recovered from Accused No.2After completion of investigation, the aforementioned seven accused persons were charged of having committed various offences including those punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 394, 395, 396, 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short).The prosecution, in support of its case, principally relied upon the testimonies of PWs 1 to 5 who identified Accused Nos. 1 to 6 to be the assailants.All the witnesses, however, stated that Accused No. 7 was not present as a member of the assembly.In their cross examination, it was suggested to all the witnesses that the accused were shown to the witnesses while they were in custody and that their photographs were also published in newspapers before the TIP was undertaken.The responses of these witnesses were as under:- Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.a) PW1-Sundararajan stated:-“Police showed the jewels and the accused and asked us to identify them as to whether they are the persons who are caught.We did not see in the police station.We saw in the papers.It is not correct to say that I identified them in the Jail because I saw them in the police station and in the papers already.”b) PW2-Erusayee stated:-“At the time of occurrence totally 6 persons came.I saw them for the first time only then.I have not seen them before.Police said that they were caught I saw in the police station then saw them in the Central Jail, Salem.”c) PW3-Kumar stated:-“In the enquiry by the police I have stated that, 6 unidentifiable persons came and attacked.I did not say that identifiable persons attacked us.I have stated I can identify them if seen.I identified in the police station.… …I identified in the Singarapettai Police Station one month after the occurrence.”d) PW4-Thangammal stated:-We identified in Morappur police station.”e) PW5-Sengodan stated:-“I did not say the identity of the accused when police examined me.It is not correct to say that, I am deposing falsely because of enmity between our family and Arumugam’s family or that I identified Arumugam Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.The prosecution did not examine the other Panch, Kasim.PW17, the Investigating Officer, in his cross examination by the Accused 1 to 5 and 7 stated :-“It is not correct to say that, the accused 1 to 5 and 7 were brought to Singarapettai Police station where they were shown to the witnesses and identified.I do not know if the photos of the accused 1 to 5 and 7 were already published in the newspaper before 21-06- 1999.”The case of the prosecution was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, who by the judgment dated 24.07.2012 found Accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 394, 396, 449 IPC.Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were also convicted under Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC while Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 were convicted under Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.Raja etc. vs. State by the Inspector of Police 11 Section 395 IPC and all were awarded the sentence of life imprisonment along with other sentences, including payment of fine and default sentences.Accused No.7 was, however, acquitted of all the charges.By its common judgment and order dated 27.04.2016 the High Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed both the appeals.Being aggrieved, Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have preferred these Criminal Appeals.We have heard Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, learned Advocate for the Accused No.1 and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate for the other accused and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned Advocate for the State.The principal submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants are:1, 2, 3 and 4 in their cross-examination show that the accused were shown to the witnesses in the Police Station.The acquittal of said Accused No.7 was accepted by the prosecution.The other Panch was also not examined.Every one of those prosecution witnesses had suffered injuries; their presence could never be doubted; and considering the nature of injuries the opportunity available to them to observe the features of each of the Accused was quite sufficient.In the present case, the incident occurred after mid night.The prosecution witnesses 1 to 5 suffered injuries in the transaction but the initial reporting showed that the identity of the assailants was not known to the witnesses.It is true that no identification marks or attributes were stated but Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.Raja etc. vs. State by the Inspector of Police 13 it was asserted that the assailants were in the age group of 20 to 25 and one of the assailants had worn a red colour shirt.Further, if the nature and number of injuries suffered by each of the witnesses are considered, the assailants must have been quite close to the witnesses to afford to the witnesses sufficient time and opportunity to observe their features.It has been accepted by this Court that what is substantive piece of evidence of identification of an accused, is the evidence given during the trial.However, by the time the witnesses normally step into the box to depose, there would be substantial time gap between the date of the incident and the actual examination of the witnesses.If the accused or the suspects were known to the witnesses from before and their identity was never in doubt, the lapse of time may not qualitatively affect the evidence about identification of such accused, but the difficulty may arise if the accused were unknown.In such cases, the question may arise about the correctness of the identification by the witnesses.The test identification parade of Accused No.6 has no infirmity on any count and all the witnesses consistently identified said Accused No.6;(c) Out of five injured witnesses, two had completely denied that either the accused or their photographs were shown to the witnesses, while other three did accept the suggestion in that behalf; and(d) All the witnesses were injured in the transaction with number of injuries.Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc. | ['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,970,573 | It is alleged that they assaulted the complainant and her husbandwith fists and slaps and also abused them and coerced the complainant tosign some papers and snatched away the suitcase containing some papers.CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD,J.Petitioners have been summoned in a complaint case for commission ofoffence under Section 323, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code, hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”.Respondent No. 1 filed acomplaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jangipur,Murshidabad on 1st of October, 2011, who after taking cognizance of thesame, transferred the complaint to the Court of Judicial Magistrate,Jangipur, Murshidabad for inquiry and disposal.According to the allegation in the complaint petition, accused no.1Rajdip Dey is sub-broker of Karvy Stock Broking Limited; whereas otheraccused persons are its officials posted at Kolkata and Hyderabad.Thecomplainant alleged to be its investor and claimed to have purchased sharesfrom Karvi Stock Broking Ltd. through the sub-broker, accused No. 1.According to the complaint, a dispute arose over trading of shares betweenthe complainant and the accused persons and to settle the on-going dispute,the accused persons offered a proposal to the complainant who consented toit and accordingly, on 11th of September, 2011, accused persons visited ather residence at Raghunathganj Darbeshpara to have a discussion with thecomplainant and her husband.According to the allegation, the discussiondid not yield any result and the accused persons started shouting at them.Some of the accused persons, according to the allegation, took out a pistolfrom their bag and put the same over the heads of the complainant and herhusband.Theaforesaid complaint was filed on 1st of October, 2011 in the Court ofAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad.The learnedMagistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to theCourt of another Magistrate for inquiry and disposal.On the said date, the complainant and her witnesses were present.The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and the two witnessesnamely Enamul Haque and Masud Ali were also examined.Order dated 31st ofOctober, 2011 shows that they were examined under Section 200 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”).Thetransferee Magistrate, thereafter, adjourned the case for orders and on theadjourned date, i.e. 15th of November, 2011, he directed for issuance ofsummons against the accused persons for offence under Section 323, 380 and506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.It is against this common order that the petitioners havefiled these special leave petitions.Leave granted.The aforesaid amendment, in the opinion of the legislature,was essential as false complaints are filed against persons residing at faroff places in order to harass them.In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeals and the sameare dismissed accordingly. | ['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,971,549 | Heard finally.It is also submitted that not only Smt. Janak Rani Pal (PW/3) mother of the prosecutrix, Gulab Pal (PW/2) and Pramod Pal (PW/4) both the uncles of the prosecutrix were declared hostile, but prosecutrix (PW/1) also did not state any fact against the applicant regarding the incident, therefore, she was also declared hostile.The applicant is in custody and conclusion of trial would take considerable time.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State vehemently opposed the application.Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the material available on record, without commenting upon the merit of the case, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant deserves to be and is hereby allowed.It is directed that applicant Pooran @ Bhagwandas Yadav be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court securing applicant's presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(SUBHASH KAKADE) | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,974,154 | M.Cr.C. No.1888/2013 5.3.2013 Shri Vishal Dhagat , counsel for applicant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, PL, for the State.This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 9/13 registered at Police Station Hindoria, District Damoh for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 341, 294, 323, 324, 506-B/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.It is further submitted that initially the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324, 506-B/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act has been registered against the applicant.Thereafter at the time of framing the charge, an offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC has also added against him.Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore he prays for grant of bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application for grant of bail.On due consideration of the contention raised on behalf of the parties alongwith facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is fit case for grant of bail.The application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand ) with a solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/Trial Court concerned, for his appearance before the said Court and on all such other dates as given in this regard by the said Court during trial.C.C. as per rules.(G.S. Solanki) JUDGE ravi | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,978,328 | The deceased is none other than the wife of the appellant/accused.The deceased Parameshwari, got married to the appellant/accused during the year 1999 and out of the wedlock 5 children were born and 3 of them had survived and one among them is P.W.10, who is a minor – child witness.It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused is addicted to alcohol and has ill-treated his wife Parameswari (since dead) with cruelty and he was also in the habit of pledging her jewels frequently and such kinds of harassments were going on for 10 years.The appellant/accused on one occasion inflicted injury upon his wife, for which, she took treatment at Government Hospital and in order to resolve the matrimonial dispute amicably a panchayat was also held and during such panchayat the appellant/accused also attacked one Sethu, which is also lead to registration of F.I.R. The prosecution further alleges that five months prior to the occurrence, one more panchayat was held in which the appellant/accused along with his mother were present and they promised to take Parameswari to matrimonial home and treat her well.3http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.363 of 2017 2.3.The prosecution further states that at about 7.00 hours on 03.06.2010, the family of the deceased viz., Parameshwari – wife of appellant/ accused have received an information about her demise, who died on account of burn injuries.The father of the deceased viz., Chidambaram Chettiar, who died subsequently, proceeded to Thiruchitrambalam Police Station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1, based on which P.W.18 has registered a case in Crime No.100 of 2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. for suspicious death on 03.06.2010 at about 09.00 hours.The printed F.I.R. was marked as Ex.2.4.P.W.18 despatched the original F.I.R. and original complaint to the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate and also summoned the services of finger print expert.P.W.18 at about 9.45 a.m. on 03.06.2010 proceeded to the scene of crime in the presence of P.W.5 and another has prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch marked as Exs.3 and 10 respectively.P.W.18 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m. on 03.06.2010 and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P.W.18, in the process has recovered the golden jewels found on the body of the deceased marked as M.Os.8 to 11 under the 4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.2.5.P.W.13 was the Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Pattukottai, who received the body of the deceased along with requisition at 4.00 p.m. on 03.06.2010 and he noted the following features:“A pp e a r a n c e s fou nd a t t h e p o s t-m or t e m Moderately nourished female body lying on its back.Total body surface including head, genitalia hair on head, axilla (NC) – burnt.Bleeding from mouth present, Hyoid bone broken (right horn) All internal organs congested No (NC) particles present in the oral cavity, (NC), trachea and lungs, brain and its coverings intact.Stomach empty.Viscera sent for chemical analysis.” P.W.13 reserved his opinion pending chemical analysis report of viscera.As per Chemical Analysis Report, alcohol or other poison was not detected in the viscera and P.W.13 gave a opinion that the deceased would have died of mechanical asphyxia due to strangulation approximately Twelve to Twenty Four 5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.363 of 2017 hours prior to postmortem examination.The burns occurred in Post Mortem period.Its condition then was cold, Rigor mortis present in all four limbs.” P.W.13 noted the following appearances found at the post-mortem:2.6.P.W.18 recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 6, 8, Chidambaram, Amokaraj, Muthiah, Uthirapathi, Anandan under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and also examined P.W.13, who conducted autopsy, based on which, the section of offence was altered to 302 I.P.C. The altercation report was marked as Ex.P.W.18 as per the information received, arrested the accused at 7.45 p.m. on 03.06.2010 and he voluntarily came forward to give confession statement in the presence of P.W.9 and another and as per admissible portion of the confession statement effected recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 and the same was received under cover of mahazar Ex.P.W.18 found that the accused also sustained burn injuries in one of the fingers in the left hand, left thigh, nose and taken him to police station at 10.30 p.m. and thereafter he was sent for medical examination and remand.2.7.P.W.18 also recorded the statements of P.Ws.11 and 4 and others.On 25.04.2011, P.W.19 examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their further statements and also the Siddha doctor viz., Ravichandran.P.W.19 also examined P.W.17 and after continuing the investigation, he had filed the Charge Sheet on 30.06.2011 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai charging the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offences, who took it on file in P.R.C.No.The Committal Court issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, furnished him with copies of documents under Section 207 CrPC and having found that the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, had committed the same to the Principal District Court.The appellant/accused was issued with summons and on his appearance, charges under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC has been framed.2.10.The prosecution, in order to sustain its case, examined PWs.1 to 19, marked Exs.The appellant/accused 7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. (MD)No.363 of 2017 was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating circumstances made out against him and he denied it as false and also gave a statement that it was accidental burn injuries sustained by his wife and he has nothing to do with the offence.The appellant/accused did not examine any witness, but marked one document as Ex.2.11.The Trial Court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, had found the appellant/accused guilty of the offences and sentenced him as stated above, vide impugned judgment dated 09.08.2017 and challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, made the following submissions:(i) The sole eyewitness examined by the prosecution was P.W.10, who was the son of the appellant/accused and the deceased and he was aged about 3 years at the time of alleged occurrence and he was examined in chief on 06.09.2016, when he was aged about 9 years and all along he was under the care and custody of the in-laws of the appellant, who were also examined as prosecution witnesses and he was taken care by the sister of the deceased and hence, his testimony should have been evaluated with great circumspection.8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.363 of 2017(ii) It is further pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant by drawing the attention of the testimonies of P.W.10 and the investigation officer, who was examined as P.W.18 that P.W.10 during the course of his oral testimony made very many improvements from that of the statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. The origin and genesis of the occurrence are highly doubtful and even prior to the registration of the F.I.R., police came to the spot.(iii) It is further pointed out that though according to P.W.10 the occurrence took place at about 9.30 p.m. on 03.06.2010, according to the prosecution it took place at about 2.30 a.m. on 02.06.2010/03.06.2010, and that immediately after the death of his mother police came to the spot and his father was taken away, whereas, according to the prosecution the appellant/accused was arrested at about 7.45 p.m. on 03.06.2010 and therefore, the admissible portion of the confession and recovery of the incriminating articles and the participation of the appellant/accused with regard to the alleged murder of his wife became highly doubtful and so also the alleged arrest and recovery of incriminating articles.(iv) Attention of the Court was also drawn to the testimony of P.W.13, the doctor, who conducted autopsy and issued postmortem certificate marked 9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.363 of 2017 as Ex.As per the postmortem report, the hyoid bone broken (right horn) and in Ex.P.8, P.W.13 had opined that the deceased died of mechanical asphyxia due to strangulation and in the evidence he deposed that in the trachea no carbon particles were found.P.W.13 in the cross-examination has deposed that the hyoid bone was not sent for chemical analysis and he did not find as to how hyoid bone on the right horn has broken and in the absence of any bone report it cannot be concluded that on account of strangulation by the appellant/accused the deceased had died and further that the opinion of the expert has to be evaluated by any other evidence such as bone report.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in support of his defence has cited the judgment of this Court reported in 2 0 1 9 ( 2 ) M W N ( C r.) 3 0 0 ( D B ) [ S h a n m u g a m v .S t a t e], in which one us (Mr.Justice B.Pugalendhi) was a party.(v) The learned Senior Counsel also invited the attention of this Court to EX.P.3 – Observation Mahazar and would submit that smoke residues found in the scene of occurrence upto the height of 5 feet and the finger print was found in 4 feet height, which means the deceased was burned while she was standing.(vi) It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused by drawing the attention of this Court to the testimonies of P.Ws.5 and 6 that according to P.W.5, M.O.7, half burned lungi was found in the scene of occurrence and admittedly it was worn by the accused and P.W.6 also deposed similarly.Even according to P.W.18, the accused was treated as in- patient for 15 days and in the cross-examination he deposed that the accused was also found with burn injuries on his hand and he also pleaded that when he attempted to save his wife he sustained injuries.In the light of the said submissions, the case of the prosecution that the accused strangulated his wife to death and thereafter burned her by pouring kerosene is not believable.(viii) As regards conviction and sentence of accused under Section 498-A I.P.C. is concerned, P.W.19 has admitted that the witnesses during the 11http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.363 of 2017 course of investigation deposed that the appellant/accused purchased a house in the name of the deceased and gave her 100 sovereigns of jewels and if it is so, he would not have abused his wife on the pretext of dowry.In sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused that in the light of the gaps and holes and very many infirmities, the case projected by the prosecution against the appellant/accused is not proved beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.4.Per contra, Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State would submit that the testimony of P.W.13, the doctor, who conducted autopsy coupled with the postmortem report Ex.P.8 would show that no carbon particles noted in the trachea, which means that on account of strangulation the said particles could not get in.The postmortem report Ex.P.8 shows that the deceased died on account of strangulation and the accused himself strangulated her and thereafter burned her for the reason, admittedly she died in the matrimonial home.It is his further submission that P.W.10, who is none other than the son of the appellant/accused, has amply sustained the case of the prosecution as to the act of commission of offence on 12http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.363 of 2017 the part of the appellant/accused.His evidence has been amply corroborated by the other witnesses and scientific evidence.The trial Court on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence rightly reached the conclusion to record the conviction and sentence and in the absence of any infirmities in the judgment of the trial Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal.5.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the oral and documentary evidences and other materials placed on record including the impugned Judgment as well as the original records.6.The following questions arise for consideration:- [i] Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilty of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt in the light of the evidence let in?[ii] Whether the reasons assigned by the trial Court for recording conviction and sentence in the impugned judgment are sustainable? 13http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.363 of 2017 Question No. [i] :The prosecution in order to sustain its case as to the motive examined P.W.1, the elder brother of the deceased, P.W.2, the brother of P.W.1, P.W.3, another brother of P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.Ws.4 to 6 also.The motive for the commission of offence is that the accused used to ill-treat and abuse his wife on the pretext of demand of dowry and that is why he was prosecuted for the commission of offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. also.P.W.19 the second investigation officer in the cross examination would depose that the witnesses during the course of the investigation had stated that the appellant/accused has constructed a multi-storey house at Thiruchitrampalam and executed a gift in favour of the deceased on 01.03.2000 and it is worth Rs.25,00,000/- and that apart he purchased one more tiled house on 21.10.2003 in the name of the deceased and that apart about 10 years prior to the alleged occurrence the appellant/accused gave 100 sovereigns of jewels and asked his father-in- law/defacto complainant (since dead) that it may be given to his children in future.In the light of the said testimony, it cannot be stated that the appellant/accused harassed the deceased on the pretext of demand of dowry and though there appeared to be matrimonial discard between the appellant/ 14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.363 of 2017 accused and his wife – deceased, in the light of the testimony of the above cited witness, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution was not in a position to prove the charge of Section 498-A I.P.C. framed against the appellant/accused.8.Now coming to the question as to the sustainability of the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C., the prosecution projected the sole testimony of P.W.10, the child witness, who is the son of the appellant/accused and the deceased.When the occurrence took place, P.W.10 was aged about 2½ years old and at the time of his examination on 06.09.2016, he was aged about 9 years.P.W.10 in the chief-examination would state that at about 9.30 p.m. on 03.06.2010, his father appellant/accused beat his mother and pushed her down and thereafter, poured kerosene on her and dragged her to kitchen and also closed the door and burned her.In the cross-examination he deposed that immediately after the occurrence the neighbours came to the house and his mother was found dead and the police also immediately came to his house and took his father.P.W.18 was questioned with regard to the material contradictions with regard to the testimony of P.W.10 and in the course of cross-examination he deposed that other witnesses did not speak as to the 15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.363 of 2017 witnessing of the occurrence by P.W.10 and as per the F.I.R. on the early hours on 03.06.2010 the occurrence took place.P.W.18 further deposed during the cross-examination that he examined P.W.10 and during the course of investigation he did not state that after pouring kerosene the neighbours came and prior to pouring of kerosene his mother was beaten and pushed town.It is further deposed by P.W.18 that P.W.10 did not state during the investigation that his father poured kerosene upon his mother and that she was dragged to the kitchen.P.W.10 did not state during his investigation that the police immediately came to the scene of occurrence and has taken away his father.At the time of occurrence, P.W.10 was 2½ years and he has deposed after 6 years and even after giving some allowance on account of passage of time, it is difficult to sustain the conviction based on the testimony of P.W.10 for the reason that the above cited contradictions elicited through the testimony of P.W.18 shows that P.W.10 made material improvements from that of the statement recorded during the course of investigation and therefore, it is highly doubtful whether he has really witnessed the occurrence at all.9.It is to be noted at this juncture that according to P.Ws.5 and 6, they saw the accused with burn injuries and the lungi worn by him M.O.7 was also 16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.363 of 2017 found to be half burned.P.W.18 – the investigation officer in the cross- examination would admit that after arrest of the accused he was produced before the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate and by showing the burn injuries in various part of his body, he stated before the Judicial Magistrate that he made an attempt to rescue his wife and he sustained injuries and the said statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate in the remand report.P.W.18 further deposed that he did not seize the records for the treatment taken by the accused as in-patient for 15 days with regard to the injuries sustained by him.Even as per the evidence of P.W.18, the appellant/accused has sustained serious injuries and in the light of his statement made by him to the learned jurisdictional Magistrate at the time of remand coupled with the testimonies of P.Ws.5, 6 and 11, the prosecution is bound to explain as to how the appellant/accused sustained serious injuries and unfortunately the medical records relating to the treatment taken by the appellant/accused as in-patient have not been seized at all.10.Now coming to the medical evidence, admittedly no chemical examination of hyoid bone was done and P.W.13, who conducted autopsy would admit that he found out that hyoid bone (right horn) broken and further 17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.363 of 2017 recorded the opinion that the deceased died on account of mechanical asphyxia.The observation mahazar marked as Ex.P3 would disclose that smoke residues were found upto 5 feet height and print of palm was also found in 4 feet height.As rightly pointed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused if the testimony of P.W.10 was to be believed that the appellant/accused pushed her down and thereafter, poured kerosene and lighted it, then smoke residues should not have reached the height of 5 feet and the print of the palm should not have found at four feet height and as such residues would have been found at the floor or wall close to the place, where the body was lying.11.In 2 0 1 9 ( 2 ) M W N ( C r.) 3 0 0 ( D B ) [ S h a n m u g a m v .Based merely on the Bone Case Report (Ex.P-10), the Post-mortem surgeons have opined that Manimekalai would appear to have died of asphyxia due to throttling. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,929,800 | (a)P.W.1 is the son and P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased.They wereresidents of Theli Colony.The appellant/accused was also residing in a housenearby.On 18.04.1997, P.W.1 was chaining the cattle, which has beenquestioned by the appellant, due to which, a quarrel arose and the accusedmade an attempt to assault P.W.1 and on hearing the cry, P.W.2 and her husband came out of the house.When the deceased questioned the conduct of theaccused, immediately, the accused attacked the deceased with a wooden reaper, as a result of which, he fell down.While P.W. 2 interfered, she was alsoattacked by the accused with wooden reaper.Immediately, he went away fromthe place of occurrence.P.W.6 informed his inability to attend them.Then, both of them were taken to the Government Hospital, Villupuram.P.W.10,the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Villupuram examined thedeceased, found the following injuries and issued a wound certificate Ex.1.Laceration over scalp in the fronto parietal region vertically 6 cmx 1 cm x 1 cm.2.Contusion right occipital region 4 cm x 3 cm(c)P.W.11, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Villupuram,on 17.04.1997 at about 9.50 p.m., has examined P.W.1, who was sent along with a requisition, and issued a wound certificate Ex.Since the condition ofthe deceased was serious, he was directed to be taken to JIPMER Hospital,Pondicherry.Accordingly, he was taken to the JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherryand P.W.7, the Head Constable, attached to Villupuram West Police Station gave information to the Villupuram Taluk Police Station in respect of the admissionof the deceased Mariasavari and P.W.13, the Head Constable, attached toVillupuram Taluk Police Station received the information at 11.45 p.m. on16.04.19 97 and proceeded to the hospital at 1.45 a.m. On 17.04.1997, herecorded the statement of P.W.1, marked as Ex.P17, on the strength of which, acase came to be registered by the respondent police in Crime No.403 of 1997for the alleged offences under Sections 323 and 307 I.P.C. Printed FirstInformation Report Ex.P18 was despatched to the concerned Court.(d)On receipt of the copy of the same, the Investigating Officer P.W.14, took up the investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence.Hemade an inspection in the presence of two witnesses and prepared anobservation mahazar under Ex.P2 and a rough sketch Ex.Material objectsviz.I, Villupuram.3.-do- through Chief Judicial Magistrate,Villupuram.4.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil.5.-do- through Chief Judicial Magistrate,Nagercoil.6.The District Collector,Villupuram District.10.The Inspector of Police,Villupuram Taluk Police Station,Villupuram.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The sole accused in a case of murder, on being found guilty as per thecharges and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 3 02 I.P.C.and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 I.P.C. (2 counts), bythe learned Sessions Judge, Villupuram in S.C.No.19 3 of 1998, has broughtforth this appeal.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can bestated thus:, sample earth and blood stained earth were seized under a mahazar andwhen P.W.14 came to know that the deceased who was admitted in the JIPMER hospital, Pondicherry died, for which, an intimation was also received, heconverted the case into one under Section 302 I.P.C. and the amended FirstInformation Report, Ex.P21 was despatched to the Court.He proceeded to themortuary and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in thepresence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P22, the inquestreport.(e)Pursuant to the request by the Investigating Officer, P.W.12, theDoctor attached to the JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry conducted autopsy on thedead body of the deceased and found the following injuries:1.A partially healed and sutured wound (black sutures) is seen present on theleft parietal region of the vault, near the midline, antero-posteriorlyplaced, 7 cms in length, Pus, whitish in colour is seen oozing from the wound.2.An abrasion, dark reddish brown in colour, is seen present just on the rightside of the injury no.1 mentioned above, anteroposteriorly placed, 7 cm x 0.5cm.3.An abrasion is seen present on the right occipital region 3 cm away from theocciput, antero-posteriorly placed, 2 cm x 1 cm pus whitish in colur is seenpresent.He has issued a post mortem certificate Ex.P16, wherein he had opined that thedeceased died on account of head injury.(f)The material objects recovered from the place of occurrence andfrom the dead body were all sent to the Court and they were subjected tochemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department, upon the requisitiongiven by the Judicial Magistrate concerned.Chemical Report Ex.P9 andSerological Report Ex.P10 were received by the Court.P.W.14 arrested theaccused at 3.30 p.m. on 18.04.1997 and the accused was produced before theCourt and remanded to judicial custody.On completion of the investigation,the Investigating Officer filed the final report before the Court.The casewas committed to Court of Sessions viz., the Sessions Court, Villupuram andnecessary charges were framed.3.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and relied on 22 exhibits and 7 materialobjects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, theaccused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the witnesses.The accused/appellantflatly denied the same as false.No defence witnesses were examined.4.The learned trial Judge after considering the submissions made andon scrutiny of the materials available, found the appellant/accused guilty ofthe offences under Sections 302 and 323 I.P.C. (2 counts) and awarded lifeimprisonment and six months rigorous imprisonment on each count respectively,which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.The prosecution has not brought forth any satisfactory explanation regardingthese a spects before the lower Court.When the condition of the deceased wasfound to be so serious, his dying declaration should have been recorded; but,the same was not done.Even as per the evidence of P.W.2, on the date ofoccurrence, P.W.1 and the accused were quarrelling and after hearing the cry,the deceased and herself came out of the house and witnessed the quarrel andat that juncture, the deceased interfered and on sudden provocation, theaccused attacked the deceased.It was only due to the sudden provocation, theaccused had attacked the deceased and that too, with a weapon viz., the woodenreaper, which was available at the place of occurrence, which would indicatethat the act of the accused was neither deliberate nor wanton norpremeditated, but due to sudden provocation and therefore, he submits that thebenefit under Section 300 I.P.C. should be given to the accused in theinstant case.7.Heard the learned counsel for the State on the above contentions.8.It is not in controversy that the deceased Mariasavari, who wasattacked at the scene of occurrence, was taken to a private clinic of P.W.6and on his refusal to attend him, he was taken to the Government Hospital,Villupuram, where he was treated by P.W.10 and the Wound Certificate is marked as Ex.Since his condition was serious, he was taken to JIPMER Hospital,Pondicherry, where he succumbed to the injuries caused to him and followinginquest, the dead body was subjected to autopsy by P.W.12 and post mortem certificate, Ex.P16 has also been marked, wherein it has been clearly opinedthat the deceased died on account of head injury and sufficient evidence wasplaced before the trial Court to hold that Mariasavari died out of homicidalviolence.In the instant case, they were not only eye witnessesbut P.W.1 is also an injured witness.There was a charge against the accusedunder Section 307 I.P.C. in respect of the attack made by him on P.W.2 andboth the witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically spoken to the fact inone voice that it was the accused who attacked the deceased at the time of theoccurrence.Apart from that, in respect of the injury sustained by P.W.2,medical evidence has also been brought forth.P11 is the Wound Certificatein respect of the deceased issued by P.W.10, the Doctor attached to VillupuramGovernment Hospital and in Ex.P14, the place and time of occurrence werestated and apart from that, it is also clearly stated that one known personattacked him with a thadi.Apart from the evidence what is available, theprosecution, in order to prove the act of the accused that he attacked thedeceased with wooden reaper at the time of occurrence, has examined P.Ws.1 and 2, who have clearly spoken about the incident.The medical evidence in theinstant case was in corroboration with the ocular testimony.12.From the evidence of P.W.2, it would be quite clear that at thetime of occurrence, herself and the deceased were inside the house and onhearing the cry, they came out of the house.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.7.The Director General of Police,Mylapore, Chennai.8.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Cuddalore.9.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Madras. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,929,825 | According to the prosecution case theincident occurred on 24.10.1995 at about 2.00P.M. when Gangawati PW-5 on return to her houseafter cutting grass from Jungle, heard the soundof cutting of tree and on going to the spot, shefound that the appellant Durga Nand was cuttingher Baan tree and the appellant Dharminder wasploughing the field.She wanted to go to herhouse to inform her son but in the meantime theappellants along with Hukmu Devi, Bhaskra Nandand Bimla Devi attacked her with Dandas.Theywere also helped by Pramod.She raised alarm,upon which Neel Kanth, her son arrived to rescueher.As a result of the injuries received, LaiqRam died at the spot.His dead body was thrownin the Nala.It is further alleged that NeelKanth who had also received severe injuries wasdumped near the dead body of Laiq Ram.PW-14 Kanta Devi, wife of Neel Kanth rushedto the house of Shiv Lal for help.He came tothe spot and saw Laiq Ram lying dead and NeelKanth in the injured condition.He went to Lafu-ghati where he lodged the report and hisstatement was recorded by PW-18 Pratap Singh,ASI.He also took Neel Kanth to Theog and gothim admitted in the hospital.Durga NandVs.State of Himachal PradeshState of Himachal PradeshVs.Hukmu Devi JUDGMENTBRIJESH KUMAR, J.The above-noted appeals arise out of thejudgment and order dated September 20, 2000passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh inCrl.The threeappeals before us have been heard together andthey are being disposed of by one commonjudgment.The appeals preferred by Dharminder andDurga Nand are against their conviction underSection 302/34 IPC for murder of Laiq Ram.Theyhave been sentenced to undergo imprisonmentfor life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000 eachand in default of payment of fine, to undergorigorous imprisonment for a further period oftwo years.They have also been convicted underSection 307/34 IPC for attempt to murder ofNeel Kanth son of Laiq Ram and sentenced toundergo rigorous imprisonment for seven yearsand also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and indefault of payment of fine, to undergo rigorousimprisonment for a further period of sixmonths.They have also been convicted underSection 323 read with Section 34 IPC forcausing simple injuries to Gangawati, wife ofLaiq Ram and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for six months and also to paya fine of Rs.500/- each and in default ofpayment of fine, to undergo rigorousimprisonment for a further period of two months.So far the appeal filed by the State of HimachalPradesh is concerned, it has been preferredagainst acquittal of Hukmo Devi, Promod Kumarand Padma Ram by the trial court and upheld bythe High Court.All the accused persons started beatingNeel Kanth.On seeing this merciless assault,Laiq Ram, father of Neel Kanth and husband of PW-5 Gangawati, finding himself helpless to savehis son, took up the gun and fired to scareaway the assailants as a result of which DurgaNand received injuries on his legs, thighs andabdomen.The accused persons are said to havesnatched the gun of Laiq Ram and he was alsogiven lathi blows.They are said to have pushedLaiq Ram and Neel Kanth below the field.DurgaNand gave a blow with pipe on the head of LaiqRam.The police after completing theinvestigation filed the chargesheet against theaforesaid persons.The prosecution case in so far motive forcommission of crime is concerned is that PadmaRam, at the instance of Ganeshu, father ofGangawati started living in Ganeshu's house invillage Kelvi Jubber, Gangawati was then agedabout 6 or 7 years.Laiq Ram and Durga Nand aresons of Padma Ram.On the death of Ganeshu,Padma Ram started looking after the entireproperty of Ganeshu.It is said that Ganeshudesired that his daughter Gangawati be marriedwith Laiq Ram.Gangawati on attaining majorityinherited the property of her father.Padma Rammarried his son Laiq Ram to Gangawati.Theprosecution case further is that Padma Ramwanted that Durga Nand be also recorded as co-sharer to the extent of half share in theproperty inherited by Gangawati but Gangawatiand Laiq Ram did not agree to it.Appellant DurgaNand, Padma Ram and other members of the familyharassed Laiq Ram so much on that count thathe started living in another village Kathog withone Soda.Gangawati is said to have beenpregnant at that time and later she gave birthto Neel Kanth.It is further said that Laiq Ramstayed away from home for about 20-22 years.Inthe meantime Padma Ram succeeded in getting halfshare in the property of Gangawati recorded inthe name of Durga Nand.Neel Kanth persuaded hisfather to came back to the village in 1994during Diwali festival.Return of Laiq Ram wasnot liked by Padma Ram and Durga Nand andmembers of his family so much so that they wantedto finish him and in that regard Padma Ram issaid to have asked Gangawati and Neel Kanth notto come out of their house on 24.10.1995 as heapprehend such an incident to take place.The accused persons do not dispute that theincident occurred on 24.10.1995 in which Laiq Ramdied and Neel Kanth received injuries but theypleaded right of self defence.They have alsosubmitted their written statements in defence u/s233 of Criminal Procedure Code.According to theaccused persons land bearing Khasra No.69,206/17 and 178 measuring 24 bighas 9 biswassituate in Chak Lafu, Pergna Dharthi, villageKelvi Jubber belongs to them.Laiq Ram afterhaving come to the village, conspired todispossess them from the land.With that end inview on 24.10.1995 at about 2.00 P.M. while DurgaNand was working on Plot No.69, Laiq Ram,Gangawati and Neel Kanth trespassed on his land.Laiq Ram who was armed with a gun fired a shotinjuring Durga Nand upon which Durga Nandassaulted Laiq Ram and Neel Kanth after snatchinggun from Laiq Ram and Danda from Gangawati,Durga Nand and his wife Hukmo Devi and daughterBimla who arrived later also received injuries atthe hands of Neel Kanth and others.Durganandalso lodged a report which was partiallyinvestigated by the police.According to DurgaNand the fight was between him on one hand andLaiq Ram and Neel Kanth on the other.Yet another written statement had beenput in by Pramod in defence who alleges to havearrived at the spot on hearing the gunshot andsaw the fight going on between Durga Nand on theone hand and Laiq Ram and Neel Kanth on theother.He took Durga Nand to the hospital.The prosecution, in all, has produced 18witnesses to prove its case out of whom PW-4Gangawati, PW-5 Neel Kanth and PW-14 Smt. Kantaare the eye witnesses.PW-6 Shiv Lal lodged the firstinformation report at Theog Police Station.Ashwani Tomer examined the injuries of NeelKanth and prepared the memo of injuries Ex. PW12/A. PW13 Dr. Kuldeep Kanwar medically examinedGangawati and prepared injury report but thesame has not been proved by the doctor in thestatement.PW-13 Dr. Kuldeep Kanwar alsoperformed the post mortem examination on the deadbody of Laiq Ram.The post mortem report isEx.PW13/B. The case was investigated by PW-18Shri Pratap Singh.PW-15 Shri Mohan Singh ,S.H.O. Police Station Theog stated that he hadpartly investigated the report of Durga Nand.Healso investigated the case on the report of ShivLal.The remaining witnesses are more or less offormal nature.So far accused persons are concerned, theyhave examined four defence witnesses.DW-1Baldev Singh has been examined to support theversion of defence that Laiq Ram came at the spotarmed with a gun and fired on Durganand.DW-2,Jagat Ram stated that on hearing the cries ofHukmo he went to the spot and found Durga Nandbeing removed by Hukmo and Dharminder with thehelp of Baldev and Pramod.He also stated thathe did not see Laiq Ram, his wife and son at theplace of occurrence.DW-3 Shri Yashpal Thakur,Sr.Pharmasist produced record to prove injurieson Durganand.DW-4 Dr. P.L. Ghonta examinedDurga Nand on 3.4.1997 and recovered pelletsfrom his scrotum.We may now peruse the injuries which aresaid to have been received by both the parties.The injuries of Neel Kanth were examined by PW-12, Dr, Kuldeep Tomer on 24.10.1995 at 9.10 P.M.at Civil Hospital, Theog.He found:Injury No.1Multiple lacerated wounds on scalp whichconsisted of:i) H shaped lacerated wound onfrontal region each limb 10 cm.Xbone deep;ii) V shaped lacerated wounds on rightside (Lateral) to Injury No.1 onparietal region placed at distanceof around 5 cm.It is alsobone deep;iii) Lacerated wound on right parietalregion 6 cm.X bone deep placed insaggital plane.Redish coloured;iv) Curved lacerated wound onoccipital region horizontallyplaced 8 cm.x bone deep;v) Lacertated wound on occipitalregion 2 cm.X bone deep 5 cm.Below injury No. iv.Lacerated wound on face, right side nearright Zygomatic arch.7 cm.Lateral to righteye obliquely downwards.Patterned bruieses 5 in number on backlateral to spine 6 cm.Lateral to the spineonright side obliquely downwards.Four bruises on right fore-arm, redish blue incolour 10 cm.X 2 cm swelling positive in theregion of right radius.Three patterned bruises on back left side 4cm.Lateral to spine.Redish blue.Abrasion on right leg 10 cm.Long obliquelydownwards in upper 1/3rd and lower 2/3rdlateral aspects.7. 10 cm.X 4 cm.Long brownish black, linearabrasion with clotted blood on left region.Injury No.1 is noted to be dangerous to lifeAccording to the doctor he was semiconscious when brought to the hospital.Theinjuries could be caused by sticks and iron pipe.PW13 Dr. Kuleeep Kanwer Sr.Medical Officer,Civil Hospital, Theog conducted the post mortemexamination on the dead body of Laiq Ram.Hefound lacerated wound on the left frontal portion2" x1/2"x1/2" two inches above the left eyebrow, abrasion on the right hand on the ring andthe middle finger size approximately 2"x2" on theback side.On internal examination the doctor foundmultiple fracture of the left frontal parietalregion with extensive laceration of theunderlying brain with its covering.In theopinion of the doctor Laiq Ram died of the braininjury.PW13 Dr. Kuldip Kanwar stated to havemedically examined PW 4 Gangawati who hadreceived simple injury but the report was notformally proved while recording the statement ofthe doctor.Durga Nand was medically examined on24.10.1995 at 5.00 P.M. The doctor foundmultiple pellet injuries on both legs, thighs andabdomen.There were burn marks around the injurywhich were circular and oval in shape.Accordingto the opinion of the doctor the injuries werecaused by the use of a fire arm, fired from adistance of more than 20 meters.Appellant Durga Nand was also examined byDW-4 Dr. P.L. Ghonta, Registrar, Department ofUrology, IGMC, Shimla.Pellets from scrotum wereremoved by the doctor who also stated that it wasnot dangerous to life.So far the facts are concerned, there is nodispute about the date time and place ofoccurrence.It is also not in dispute that bothsides received injuries at the hands of eachother but according to them in different manner.But PW 14 Kantain her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. hadcome out with the fact that Laiq Ram had firedgun shot injuring Durga Nand because of themurderous assault on Neel Kanth by the accusedpersons.In the statement in court she appearsto have stated that the fire was shot byDharaminder but she was confronted with herprevious statement which has been brought onrecord.In the statement, other witnesses havealso stated about the firing on their behalf.Thus it cannot be said that there was anysuppression as such of the injuries of DurgaNand.It was disclosed at the first opportunityto the investigating agency in the statementunder Section 161 Cr.P.C.In this connection, the Police Inspector hadstated that he had started the investigation onthat report which was not completed.It issubmitted that Laiq Ram who was accused in thecase had since died, there was no point infurther investigating the case.The accused persons including the appellantshave also submitted their written statement indefence u/s 233 Cr.P.C. They are all placed onrecord.The prosecutionwitnesses have categorically stated that PW 4Gangawati was attacked first by Durganand andothers and on her alarm her son arrived at thespot who was also severely assaulted by DurganandDharaminder and other accused persons.He succumbed tohis injuries and died at the spot.A simple injury was also found onthe person of Gangawati.It is not understandable, if Laiq Ram hadgone determined armed with a loaded gun for anaggression to deal with Durganand, he wouldfire a shot from a distance of about 20 meters,causing injury only on the lower part of thebody rather most of which are on legs and thighs.This circumstance strengthens the case of theprosecution that Laiq Ram had used the licensedgun of his wife Gangawati to rescue his sonNeel Kanth, who was being mercilessly beaten.Italso militates against the story set up by thedefence to claim right of private defencealleging aggression on the part of Laiq Ram.The medical evidence also supports theprosecution case, looking the large number ofinjuries which have been found on the person ofNeel Kanth including on the vital parts of thebody.According to Durganand he was alone on hisside.He dis-armed Laiq Ram of his gun andGangawati of her Danda and assaulted Laiq Ram andNeel Kanth.Later Bimla daughter of Durga Nandand his wife Smt Hukmu Devi also arrived andthey were also assaulted.They are said to haveone simple injury each.What seems to behighly improbable is that Durganand afterreceiving the gun shot would be able to causesuch large number of injuries to Neel Kanth andalso the head injury with such force to Laiq Ramwhich caused multiple fractures of his headresulting in instantaneous death at the spot.It may also be noted that Neel Kanth wouldobviously be younger in age to Durganand.According to the doctor Durganand was brought tothe hospital, who was then crying with agonizingpain.Later pellets were also recovered fromhis scrotum.In such a condition it is notpossible that Durganand would be able to snatchDandas and gun from the complainant party andwould also assault in the manner indicatedabove.It is not a question of number ofinjuries caused to each side, at times anaggressor may receive more injuries than thedefenders but the case in hand is not a case ofthat kind.Sequence of events as given out inthe prosecution case also gets support from themedical evidence as well as broad probabilitiesleading to the conclusion that Smt. Gangawatiand Neel Kanth had been assaulted first byDurganand and Dharminder, and Laiq Ram arrivedlater to rescue his son and by that time his sonhad already received a large number of injuries.The accused persons may have been successful indis arming Laiq Ram and to hit on his head withsuch a great force that it proved to be adecisive blow causing injury sufficient to causedeath in the ordinary course.Neel Kanth musthave received injuries before and not afterDurganand was fired at and received fire arminjuries.We don't attach much significance tothe one simple injury received by Gangawati andBimla each so as to make it necessary to dealwith them in detail.It only indicates theirpresence at the spot at one or the other stage.It supports prosecution case that Gangawati wasassaulted first at the initial stage.It is true that DW 1 Baldev Singh supportsthe version given by Durga Nand but DW 2 Jagatdid not support the defence case, as when hearrived, he found Durganand being removed fromthe spot, he had not seen any assault on any one.It is difficult to place reliance on thestatement of DW 1 Baldev Singh.The prosecution case is also supported bythe circumstance that at the time Laiq Ram wasnot present at the scene then it would be betterpossible for Durganand and Dharminder to causesuch large number of injuries to Neel Kanthnumbering 20, all over the body.It could notbe possible after Laiq Ram had arrived and firedthe shot and Durganand had received the injuries.Yet another feature of the defence case thatLaiq Ram wanted his property back and camedetermined for the purpose is not borne out fromany circumstances.There is no dispute that LaiqRam had left the village and the property andaccording to prosecution in Sheer disgust.Heremained away from home for about 20-22 years.Hedid not return to the village at his own or forthe love of his property but on pursuation of hisson Neel Kanth i.e. for the affection of his son.It is nowhere indicated that during 20 - 22 yearsor during the period of one year after he cameback to the village, he may have moved anyauthority or court agitating against the entriesin the records made in the name of Durganand, ormay have asked them to return the property .Nor that he may have made any effort earlier toget back the property.In this background it doesnot appeal to reason that one fine morning hewould suddenly go armed with a gun to takepossession of the property.On the other handthere is evidence on the record to indicate thatnone else but Padama Ram had told Neel Kanth thatthey may not go out of the house on that day asaccused persons were not happy on the return ofLaiq Ram and some trouble was in the offing onthe fateful day.So far appeal against acquittal isconcerned, PW14 Kanta had stated that Padma Ramwas in the house.A finding has been recordedthat Pramod and Padma Ram do not seem to haveparticipated in the assault and they seem to havearrived at the scene of occurrence later on.Sofar as Smt. Hukmu is concerned, it was foundthat though she was present and participated yether involvement has not been satisfactorilyestablished. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,025,721 | ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2018 23:02:55 :::The respondent no.1 in Criminal Application No. 587 of 2016 and Respondent nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Application Nos. 447 of 2016 and 448 of 2016 had filed applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Baramati, Pune apprehending their arrest in Crime No. 313 of 2016 for offences under Section 306, 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.The learned Addl.Heard Shri Naikwadi, the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties.::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2018 23:02:55 :::The brother of the deceased had lodged a complaint stating that Rakesh Shelke used to consume alcohol and ill-treat the deceased.He has further stated that all other family members of said Rakesh Shelke had demanded Rs.5 lakhs for purchase of a four wheeler and that they used to subject deceased to cruelty since they were unable to satisfy their demands.He therefore claims that applicant Rakesh and his family members had abetted commission of crime.The learned Sessions Judge, whilst granting bail in ABA/281/2016 has considered the fact that the respondent nos.1 and 2 in Criminal application no. 448 of 2016 are above 70 years of age.The learned Judge has also observed that the nature of the allegations do not justify custodial interrogation.::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2018 23:02:55 :::However, the FIR reveals that the allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty are made against each and every member of the family.Furthermore, the allegations are general in nature.The material on record does not indicate that the applicant Rakesh or his family members had provoked, instigated, goaded, enticed or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide.There are no supervening circumstances to cancel the bail.The order is no perverse and is not based on irrelevant material.::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2018 23:02:55 :::In my considered view, no case is made out for cancellation of bail.Hence the applications are dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2018 23:02:55 ::: | ['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,028,888 | most of them having been served.The petitioner complains of the police authorities not taking appropriate steps despite complaints of criminal conduct by the private respondents.There will be no order as to costs.Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 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. |
193,030,307 | The facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 17/18.8.2010 at about 2.00 A.M., the first informant Salah Uddin (PW1) was sleeping in the house of his brother Iqram, right then the informant heard some sound because of which he had woken up and saw that four persons were standing by the side of the cot on which Iqram was sleeping and he switched on the torch and asked who were they, then Raj Kumar son of Kanhaiya (Appellant), Satendra @ Pappu son of Amar Singh, Kaluwa son of Rishipal, Gopal son of Sukhvir (other co-accused) all the residents of village Bhataula, P.S. Sikandra, District Bulandshahar were standing there.Right then Satendra @ Pappu exhorted to kill him and on exhortation forthwith Raj Kumar (Appellant) made a fire upon the Iqram (deceased).After hearing the sound of fire, wife of Iqram Shamsina identified all the accused and other persons of the village had also seen the accused fleeing from there and while they were fleeing they stated that if any of them gives evidence, he would have to face the same consequences.The brother of the first informant Iqram died on the spot.A written report (Exhibit Ka-1) in this regard was submitted by the first informant on 18.8.2010 at P.S. Kotwali Dehat and on the basis of the written report, constable 711 Ramesh Chandra, PW-4 registered Case Crime No.92/520 of 2010 on 18.8.2010 at 8.30 p.m. against Raj Kumar (Appellant) Satendra @ Pappu, Kaluwa and Gopal under section 302 IPC and prepared chick FIR (Exhibit Ka-7) and made entry of this case in G.D. (Exhibit Ka-8) at report no. 8 time 8.00 A.M.Investigation was assigned to SHO Alok Singh (PW-9) who immediately thereafter after having obtained all the police papers, recorded statement of eye witness Salah Uddin (First Informant), prepared the recovery memo (Exhibit Ka-10) of the bed sheet which was having blood stains, bedding (Dari) and pillow cover and one mosquito net which were collected from the place of occurrence.He also made inspection of the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Exhibit Ka-1/A).Thereafter on 2.11.2010 the accused-appellant was arrested by him on the basis of information received from informant and his statement was recorded wherein he confessed to have committed the offence with his companion after having made a plan and further stated that on 27.5.2010 his distant uncle Sukhbir was murdered in village Kaurali by Sultan @ Chooha, Ejaz resident of village Karauli, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar and Zakir resident of village Sitari, a case regarding which was filed against them by son of Sukhbir Bahadur at P.S. Sikandrabad.He further stated that Iqram used to plough the field of Satendra @ Pappu on ''Batai' and he used to disclose the talks of his side to his opponent by going to village Kaurali and because of this reason he along Satendra @ Pappu son of Amar Singh, Gopal, son of Sukhbir and Kalua son of Rishipal hatched conspiracy to murder Iqram otherwise he would get anybody killed any day, therefore, in the intervening night of 17-18/8/2010 at about 2.00 a.m. while he was going to village Kaurali he had killed Iqram by making fire on him by his pistol.This fire was made by him and the said pistol was concealed by him in a jungle of village Kaurali from where he could get it recovered.He should be excused for this offence.Thereafter, the Investigating Officer at his instance went to recover the said weapon which was allegedly used in commission of this offence on 23.11.2010 with his companion.The police personnel vide report no. 10 at 7.30 A.M. reached at the road which was going from Kaurali to village Bhatola where accused-appellant got down from the jeep and after having travelled few steps towards east from the Chakroad and after digging soil of the field, he took out a pistol of .315 bore and life cartridge of .315 bore which were wrapped in a polythene and handed over them to the police.The said weapon alongwith cartridges were sealed on the spot and sample seal was prepared and an effort was made to get a public witness to prove the recovery but no one was ready to be a witness.She stated that when her husband received gun-shot injury, she had woken up but did not see the accused.She further stated that the accused who appeared in the court were resident of her own village but they had not murdered her husband.Her 'gher' and house and 'gher' and house of Salauddin were separate, both her husband and Salauddin and their family members were living separately.Salauddin lives in Delhi where he used to stitch caps.from right ear vertically, margins inverted.Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.)Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, Sri Jai Narayan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record.Rest accused persons have been acquitted.A memo of recovery (Exhibit Ka-12) was prepared at 8.00 A.M. and signatures thereon were obtained of the witnesses after having read its contents to them and its copy was also provided to the accused.Thereafter, the accused along with said articles were brought to police station and another Case Crime No.697 of 2010 under section 25 Arms Act was registered against the appellant.After committal of the case to the court of session, charge was framed against the accused-appellant along with co-accused under section 302 read with 34 IPC and a separate charge was framed against appellant under section 25 Arms Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.From the side of the prosecution as documentary evidence, following documents were presented.Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C on 21.12.2013 wherein he stated that he was falsely implicated by the complainant side because he was a witness in the case of murder of his father.It would be pertinent to refer here to the statement made by the first informant who is also an eye witness as well as other eye witness Smt. Shamsina wife of the deceased who have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively as they are star witnesses of the prosecution and also to analyze as to whether the trial court has been able to appreciate their evidence in proper perspective to arrive on a right conclusion or not because after having considered the entire evidence on record, learned trial court has held guilty only accused-appellant Raj Kumar under section 302 IPC and 25 Arms Act while rest of the accused have been given benefit of doubt and have been acquitted of the above mentioned charges.Learned trial court has recorded in the judgment that PW-1 Salah Uddin, who is the first informant, has stated in examination-in-chief that in the intervening night of 17-18/10.2010 at about 2.00 p.m. when he was sleeping in the house of his brother deceased Iqram, he had woken up in the night after hearing some sound and he saw that by the side of the cot of the deceased Iqram four persons were standing.When he switched on his torch to see who were they, he found that the accused persons who were present in court namely, Kaluwa, Gopal, Satendra @ Pappu and Raj Kumar who belonged to village Bhataula which was adjacent village, who were known to him from before were there.Right then Satendra @ Pappu exhorted to kill and thereafter accused-appellant Raj Kumar fired upon his brother Iqram and after hearing the sound of fire, wife of Iqram Smt. Shamsina, PW-2 identified the accused persons and other villagers also identified them who had seen the accused running away from there.While they were fleeing there from, they were threatening if any of them had summon up the courage to give evidence against them, he would be killed.His brother died on the spot.His brother deceased Iqram was witness in a case against the accused persons eight years ago.In cross examination, this witness has stated that the deceased Iqram was having a ''Parchoon' shop adjacent to which there was a ''Gher' of about 300 sq. yards in length and width.To the north of this ''Gher' there was a thatch (Chhappar) which belonged to Iqram.There was no room in this ''Gher'.It was wrong to say that his three brothers had separate houses and were living separately.The Investigating Officer had reached the spot in the morning at about 7-7.30 A.M. and had seen the dead body at the place of occurrence and remained in the village for 1 to 2 hours and thereafter he had taken the dead body along with him to the police station.They had reached the police station at about 10.30 a.m. where dead body remained kept for 2 to 2 ½ hours.During this period the paper work with respect to the deceased were performed by the Investigating Officer and a report was got written from him and his signatures were obtained thereon.He had put his signature on written report, Exhibit Ka-1 at police station which was written by Irfan Khan at Police Station.He had shown the torch to the Investigating Officer in the light of which he had seen accused but no signatures were obtained with respect to this fact nor any written report was prepared in that regard.Occurrence took place in the night and 10-12 years prior to that he had got married.He and his children and all his brothers were residing in one and the same house.There was one another house which was located about 100 to 200 yards away in the village, in which children of both the brothers were residing at the time of occurrence.He was having tailor shop in the house.On the date of incident, his children were sleeping in other house and wife of his brother and her son Danish aged about 3 years were sleeping in ''Gher'.There was no boundary wall around the ''Gher'.They were sleeping when fire was made.His cot was 3 to 4 ft. away from the door towards east.The cot of his brother was 3 ft. away from the cot on which he was sleeping and cot on which his ''Bhabi' was sleeping was also 3 ft. away from the cot on which his brother was sleeping.When the Investigating Officer visited the spot, he had seen these cots.The cot on which his brother was sleeping, mosquito net was also fixed and there was pillow and bed sheet which had got wet by blood and all those clothes were taken in possession by the Investigating Officer and memorandum was prepared in that regard and these articles were taken away by him to Police Station.Further, this witness stated in cross examination that the accused belonged to village Bhatola.When he opened his torch all the accused were surrounding the cot of his brother and as soon the torch was switched on, fire was made.As soon as the fire was made the accused fled from there.The bullet had hit his brother in head.He had tried to save his brother.The residents of nearby houses had come there who all found that his brother had died.Further he has stated that about eight years earlier to this occurrence, murder had taken place of Amir Khan in the village in which his brother was a witness.This fact was also mentioned by him in the FIR but it is recorded, he could know its reason.In the said case Raj Kumar, appellant accused was a witness but he immediately again stated that he was not a witness but further stated that the statement of his brother was recorded in that case.Apart from that case, there was no other enmity with the accused side.The statement of this witness in cross examination was again recorded by the trial court after five months of the above recorded statement in which he has given totally different version from the earlier statement and has stated that they were three brothers who were living separately since five years back and had their separate work, their houses were also separate in the village and were living separate with their wives, children.He was doing tailoring work and he used to make caps and was living in Delhi where he used to sell caps after having stitched them.In the night of the incident, he was in Delhi and as soon as he received information of the incident, he arrived in the village next day.The body of the deceased was sealed by the police and there was lot of crowd standing outside his house.The villagers had given information about murder of his brother to the police personnel.Prior to this occurrence, the father of the accused Gopal had been murdered in jungle of village in which son Ajaz of nephew Insar of the deceased Iqram and Qasim along with one another were accused.After paper work, the police had taken him to Police Chowki where lot of people followed him along.Further, he stated that in the murder of Sukhbir, Kaluwa and Pappu were witnesses.Accused Raj Kumar-appellant had retired from Army and was living in Noida.The villagers who had accompanied him had taken the name of the accused persons and on the basis of the same Irfan had written report.This report was written on the advice of his neighbour and villagers as he was in Delhi on the date of occurrence and he had not seen the occurrence himself.After hearing the narration made by the villagers, police started dictating and the same was written by Irfan Khan in the report and the said report was never read out to him and he had put his signature on the said report at the direction of the police personnel.The police had taken away few clothes belonging to the deceased.He was residing in Delhi since long, therefore, he did not know the parentage of the accused persons.The house of Iqram (deceased) and his ''Gher' were built on a land of ''Pokhar' which belonged to Gram Samaj, in which Iqram used to live.One house of Iqram was also situated in village where his children used to live.He used to live in Delhi and the accused Raj Kumar was not living in the village, hence he did not recognize him.In the village, the land of Raj Kumar was being ploughed by the deceased Iqram and there was a dispute with regard to land of Raj Kumar in respect of partition as he wanted to give his land to some other person, because of this the deceased Iqram and his family members were annoyed.Further, he stated that because of the enmity on account of murder of Sukhvir, on the suggestion of the villagers and the named witnesses, he had lodged the FIR although he does not recognize the accused appellant even today as he used to live in Noida.Further, he stated that his house was situated 200 to 250 meters away from the place of incident; the Investigating Officer did not prepare the site plan at his instance.His entire village has muslim majority population while village of accused is Thakur dominated.His brother was an accused in 33 to 39 criminal cases at P.S. Dhaulana.He further denied to have any knowledge that the deceased Iqram was an accused in criminal case under section 395, 397 IPC of police station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar in which the case was contested in court of FTC No. 15 and it was denied that some unknown person had murdered his brother and on suggestion of other villagers he had lodged the report in the present case against such witnesses who were doing pairvi in the case of murder of Sukhvir.This witness further stated that the statements being given by him today in the court were correct, because in the night of incident he was in Delhi and not in the village.At this stage, A.D.G.(Criminal) cross examined this witness wherein this witness stated that the statement which was given by him on 2.8.2011, he had stated that he was doing work of labourer and in the statement made on 7.8.2012 he again stated that he was doing work of labourer and had not disclosed that he was doing tailoring work in Delhi and to this he replied that no one had asked about this.Further, he stated that at the direction of the police personnel he had given statement that on the date of occurrence he was sleeping in his house because he was threatened that if he did not give such statement, he would be implicated in a false case.On the said date, he gave statement that he was living in Delhi because no question was put to him in that regard.Further, he stated that the report was made by him and it bears his signature which was written at the suggestions of the villagers.He had no ration card or identity card showing that he was living in Delhi 'today'.He further stated that he knew well that the accused-appellant was living in Noida and was in the Army and whatever statement was made about him earlier as well as other accused persons, were made under pressure from police.She has stated in examination-in-chief that she is illiterate lady and on the date of occurrence, she was sleeping on a separate cot.He had come to the village only next date of the occurrence in the morning when he came to know about the incident.Salauddin had not told her as to who had killed her husband.On the date of incident, lots of villagers gathered on the spot and consultation was being done as to whose name be mentioned in the written report.Her statement was recorded by the Inspector who had not read out that statement to her, therefore, she could not know as to what was written in that statement.Further it was stated that when her husband received gun shot wound, she could not see the accused persons and reiterated her statement that accused who was present in the court had not killed her husband.He has found fire arm wound of entry, 1.2 cm.X 1 cm.x brain cavity deep on top of head on right side, 2 cm.on mid line and 11 cm.Blackening, tatooing and singeing were present at the margins.The metallic bullet about 3 cm.long and 3 cm.He has opined that the deceased had died due to said fire arm injury and further stated that he could not tell as to what was the bore of the bullet.Next important piece of evidence presented by the prosecution was report of F.S.L. with respect to the country made pistol and the use of cartridge which was sent for being examined and the report is Exhibit Ka-19 on record wherein it has been stated that the country made pistol which was marked as 1/2011, its barrel was found containing copper and led remnants of firing and the bullet marked as EB-1, .315 bore was found to have been used.It appears that the learned trial court had exhibited this report in view of the provision under Section 294 Cr.P.C. it being an expert report.Rest of the witnesses which have been mentioned above are only formal witnesses, the statements of whom would be considered later on, if required as they have only proved the other challani papers of the prosecution side and are not eye-witnesses.We have to see as to whether the trial court has been able to rightly hold the accused appellant guilty on the basis of the oral evidence and the evidence of doctor who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased as well as report of F.S.L. with respect to the weapon used in commission of the offence.The learned trial court has expressed its opinion that P.W.-1, Salauddin's testimony would show that on the date of incident, he has stated himself to be in Delhi but he has failed to disclose as to at whose intimation he came to the village.Apart from that, this witness has stated that he had lodged the report at P.S, Kotwali Dehat in the morning at 08:00 a.m. which makes it clear that immediately after the incident, this witness was in village Karauli when the incident took place and there was no sufficient evidence on record that on the date of occurrence, he was in Delhi.Moreover this witness has not stated in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he was in Delhi on the date of occurrence.This witness was cross-examined twice and subsequently in the statement made by him, he was declared hostile which shows that second statement given by this witness was given to protect the accused after having been won over and it was quite evident that he has failed to prove that at the time of incident, he was in Delhi.Further trial court has held with respect to P.W.-2 other eye-witness, Shamsina who is the wife of the deceased that when her husband received fire arm injury, she had woken up but she had not seen the accused persons and subsequently stated that the accused persons who were present in the court had not murdered him.It was mentioned in the judgement of the trial court that on the one hand, it was stated that she had not seen the accused persons at the time of the occurrence while on the other hand, she has stated that the accused present in the court had not murdered her husband, which appears to be a wrong statement because how can it be possible that the accused persons who were present in the court had definitely not murdered her husband when she had not actually seen the accused and this further makes it clear that she appears to be interested in saving the actual accused persons.The learned trial court has relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli and Ors.State of Gujarat (2011) 11 SCC 111 wherein it was laid down that the statement of prosecution witness cannot be discarded as it is only on the ground that he has been declared hostile and the prosecution has elected to cross-examine such a witness.It was also argued before learned trial court from the side of defence that Investigating Officer had not prepared the site-plan correctly because the occurrence which was shown to have taken place, could not have taken place in the aforesaid manner.In this regard, it is mentioned by him that in the matter of offence under Section 302 I.P.C., S.H.O., Alok Singh, who investigated the case, had prepared the site-plan (Exhibit Ka-11) in which he has shown the place of occurrence as well as the situation at nearby places.By 'A', he has shown the place where the deceased, Ikram was lying on cot and where he was murdered; by 'B', he has shown the place where the deceased's wife was lying on cot; by 'C', the place where informant Salauddin (P.W.1) was sleeping, was shown.Further it is mentioned that from perusal of the site-plan, it was evident that the distance between A and B was only two steps and distance between place A and C was only about seven steps.Learned trial court has further taken up the argument of defence that the police has shown false recovery of country-made pistol at the instance of the accused appellant, Raj Kumar and as such there was no such recovery made at his instance nor from his person.In this regard, the learned trial court has held that it was evident from the evidence on record that from the side of prosecution, constable-901, Pratap Singh, P.W.(7) was examined who has stated that on 23.11.2010 when he was posted at P.S. Kanpur Dehat as constable, had gone with S.H.O., Alok Singh vide report No.1 time 7:30 a.m. in government jeep with driver Chaman Lal and accused appellant, Raj Kumar of Crime No.92/520/10 under Section 302 I.P.C. for the purpose of recovery of the weapon by which offence was committed and they had started from police station towards village Karaula, and from there, he proceeded towards P.S. Bhataula then the accused appellant got the jeep halted and after getting down from it, he took them to vacant field of Kabula Singh of village Karauli by the side of Chak road and thereafter, digging the land, he gave them one pistol of .315 bore in running condition, live cartridge of .315 bore which was given wrapped in polythene and also stated that by this weapon, he had murdered Ikram and, thereafter, he had concealed this weapon here.The said weapon and the cartridges were sealed on the spot and recovery memo was prepared by S.H.O., Alok Singh on the spot and after having read out the same to him, his signature was taken thereon by him.Further it is stated that they had attempted to take public witness for recovery of weapon but none came forward and, thereafter, accused along with recovered pistol and cartridges were brought to the police station.On the basis of statement and the accompanied evidence, the learned trial court had held that the prosecution had recovered one pistol of .315 bore at the pointing out of the accused-appellant and a bullet, which was taken out from the body of the deceased, Ikram and both the bullet as well as the said pistol of .315 bore were sent to F.S.L. for being examined.In the said examination report (Exhibit Ka-19), it was found that the bullet which was recovered from the body of the deceased was found to have been fired from the pistol which was recovered at the instance of the accused appellant, therefore the said evidence was sufficient piece of evidence to hold that the same pistol was used by the appellant in committing the murder of deceased, Ikram which also finds corroboration with oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses.The learned trial court has also held that the accused i.e. Satendra @ Pappu, Kalwa and Gopal did not have sufficient evidence on record against them as prosecution witness has not provided evidence in respect to their involvement, moreover, it was also held that had there been any intention on the part of these accused of committing murder of Ikram, they would certainly have committed some act of killing him but from the post-mortem report, only one bullet is found to have caused the death of the deceased which proves that these accused were not present on the spot at the time of incident and, accordingly, they have been acquitted of charge under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. while only accused appellant, Raj Kumar was held guilty on the basis of above evidence.Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that four accused have been named in the F.I.R. by the informant (P.W.1) out of whom, three have been acquitted and only the present appellant had been held guilty erroneously because according to the prosecution version, all of them were together on the place of occurrence when this incident happened.If the presence of three co-accused i.e. Satendra @ Pappu, Kalu and Gopal are disbelieved on the same piece of evidence by the prosecution, the same benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the present accused-appellant also.Further it is argued that the pistol which is alleged to have been used in commission of this offence, is shown to have recovered from the appellant three months after the occurrence from an open place which is an easily accessible place, hence, it could not be ruled out that some other persons might have planted it there to implicate him falsely.The next argument made is that one bullet is alleged to have been recovered in post-mortem from the body of the deceased which is of .315 bore which is being held to have been fired from the pistol which is also alleged to have recovered at the pointing of the accused appellant but no evidence is there on record to show that the said pistol which was recovered at the pointing out of the deceased was also of .315 bore.In the F.S.L.'s report, Exhibit Ka-19, the said pistol is only found to contain the remnants of copper and lead firing in its barrel but it is not mentioned in the said report that the said pistol was also of .315 bore, therefore, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the present appellant.Next it was argued that the motive to murder the deceased, if at all, was to co-accused, Gopal whose uncle was murdered and in which case, he was an accused and not to the present appellant and lastly it was argued that P.W.-2 who is wife of the deceased has turned hostile stating that she has not seen the accused appellant nor the other co-accused having committed murder of her husband.As regards statement of P.W.1 who is informant, it is argued that even he has not wholly supported the prosecution version as initially he supported it but later on he has also stated that he had not seen the occurrence but the learned trial court appears to have held the accused appellant guilty only on the basis of the earlier part of his (P.W.1's) statement in which he supported the prosecution version coupled with the F.S.L.'s report and recovery of the pistol allegedly made at the pointing out of the accused-appellant, erroneously.On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has strongly supported the conviction of the present appellant stating that it was the accused-appellant only who had murdered the deceased because P.W.1 who is first informant and the brother of the deceased had clearly stated in examination-in-chief and also in first part of his cross-examination that he had seen the occurrence and the weapon of commission of offence was also recovered at the pointing out of the present appellant which would be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and from the F.S.L.'s report it is proved that the weapon which was found to have been used in commission of offence was actually used and the bullet which was recovered from the body of deceased was found to be of .315 bore, therefore, it can easily be concluded that the same weapon was used in commission of the present offence by the accused appellant and the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant must be upheld.We have gone through entire evidence on record and arguments of both the sides at length.From the perusal of written report, Exhibit Ka-1, it appears to be a case of prosecution that in the intervening night of 17-18/08/2010 at about 02:00 a.m. in the morning, P.W.1, Salauddin who is brother of the deceased, Ikram, was sleeping in the house of his brother (deceased), Ikram who had woken up after hearing some noise and he saw that four persons were standing near the cot of deceased and when he lighted his torch and said who were they, he found that the present appellant, co-accused Satendra @ Pappu, Kalua and Gopal all residents of Bhataula, P.S. Sikandrabad were standing there.Right then, co-accused Satendra @ Pappu exhorted to kill and soon after accused-appellant, Raj Kumar fired shot at Ikram and after hearing the sound of firing, the wife of Ikram had also woken up who saw the accused persons and recognized them and other villagers had also seen the accused persons fleeing from there who were saying that if any one of them gave any evidence, he would meet the same fate; his brother, Ikram died on the spot.This report was given at the P.S., Kotwali Dehat on 18.08.2010 at 08:00 a.m. while distance of the place of occurrence from village Karauli is 7 k.m., therefore, F.I.R. seems to be prompt as occurrence was of the intervening night of 17-18.08.2010 at 02:00 a.m. In site-plan, Exhibit Ka-11, by 'A', place is shown where deceased was lying on his cot and where he was murdered; by 'B' is shown where his wife Shamsina, (P.W.2) was lying on cot; by 'C' is shown where Salauddin, P.W.1 was lying on cot and the distance between 'A' and 'B' is recorded as two steps while distance between 'A' and 'C' is recorded as seven steps.It is evident from the site-plan which has been proved by the I.O. that at the time of occurrence, the informant was sleeping in close proximity of the deceased and even P.W. 2 was also sleeping almost adjacent to the deceased.In testimony of P.W.1 which was given prior to his turning hostile, it has come that the torch, in the light of which he had seen the accused-person, was not shown to the I.O. nor any memorandum in respect of that torch was prepared by the I.O., therefore, it cannot be held proved beyond doubt that actually the occurrence was seen by this witness in the light of torch because if the same was correct, the torch ought to have been given to the I.O. and also its recovery-memo ought to have been prepared.The occurrence is of dead of night of 02:00 a.m., therefore, it must have been very dark and without there being any source of light, it could not have been possible for the P.W.1 to have recognized the appellant as well as co-accused.No other source of light has been disclosed by the prosecution.It has also to be taken into consideration that this witness has stated that these accused persons including the present appellant belonged to the adjacent village, Bhataula whom he knew from before, then there could be possibility of recognizing them even by their voice as one of them had exhorted that the deceased should be killed but no such suggestion has come in evidence that they were recognized by their voice.It also seems to be very unrealistic that when P.W.1 was lying so close (seven steps away from the deceased), why did he not try to save the deceased and allowed the assailants to flee from there.Natural conduct would have been to give some resistance but nothing of the sort has happened which also makes presence of P.W.1 doubtful on the place of occurrence, particularly, in the light of the evidence that he had two houses, one in which his family was staying while P.W.1 on the fatal night was lying in the house of the deceased.Why P.W.1 had chosen on the said night to stay in the house of deceased, has also not come on record.It is quite possible that only to make himself an eye-witness of the occurrence, he may have so stated that he was sleeping very close to his deceased brother.It is also a circumstance which also appears not to be natural that in the dead of night, lot of people of village would have assembled there who had seen the accused fleeing from there because at 02:00 a.m., normally the villagers might have been fast asleep in their respective houses.Moreover, this witness has turned absolutely hostile in cross-examination which was made five months after his earlier statement in which he has clearly denied to have seen the occurrence and has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was living in Delhi as he used to sell caps which were being stitched by him and returned only on the date of occurrence when he came to know about this incident.He has also clearly stated in his second cross-examination that he did not recognize any accused person because he used to live in Delhi and 'even today he does not recognize accused-appellant because he lives in N.O.I.D.A.' He had given this statement that he was sleeping on the fateful night in the house of deceased because he was told to say so by the police and in case he denied to say so, he would be implicated in false case, therefore, the statement of this witness does not appear to be trust-worthy.Now we would like to discuss the statement of other eye-witness i.e. Shamsina, wife of the deceased, she has turned hostile at the very beginning as she has stated that when her husband got bullet injury, thereafter, she had woken up and could not see the accused persons and the present accused had not murdered her husband.She has also stated that her house and house of her brother-in-law (devar), Salauddin, P.W.1 were separate and both were living in their separate houses and P.W.1 used to live in Delhi and he had come next day of the occurrence.The F.I.R. was lodged after consultation, therefore, her testimony has not given support to the prosecution case at all.The next most important point relates to recovery of bullet from the body of the deceased which according to the prosecution was found to have been fired upon the deceased by a country-made pistol of .315 bore which was recovered at the pointing out of the accused-appellant.First of all we would consider the confessional statement of the accused that after getting the recovery made of the country made pistol of .315 bore from the field of Kaboola Singh of village Karauli, he also stated before police that by the said weapon, he had murdered Ikram and, thereafter, he concealed the said weapon at the said place. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,034,398 | And In re.: Tajmahammad @ Taj. .......... Petitioner Mr. Saidur Rahaman.... for the petitioner Mr. Pradipta Ganguly.The petitioner is in custody for 28 days.He is the owner of a hotel, namely, New Heaven as also the Hotel Rajdhani.On a source information, the police held a raid at another hotel, namely, White House and from there, four girls were rescued, whose services were being utilized for the purpose of prostitution and out of them three are minor.The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that those girls were also engaged in prostitution at the Hotel of the petitioner and draws our attention to the 161 statements of those girls.Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned Judge, Special Court, under POCSO Act, 2012, Lalbagh, Murshidabad.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.) | ['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,036,310 | Even otherwise, no criminal antecedents haunts the applicant and a false case has been registered against him.He undertakes to cooperate in the trial and would make himself available as and when required.He prayed for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State opposed the prayer and categorically informs this Court that applicant suffers three cases and therefore, bears criminal history.He prayed for dismissal of the application.At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant seeks withdrawal of this application.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.13786/2019 (Chandan Kushwaha Vs. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,930,391 | Chandrakant Subhan Salvi.It is the case of the prosecution that accused persons as well as the prosecution witnesses are residing in the same locality known as Kannamwar Nagar Vikhroli, (East), Bombay.There were two Mandals in the said locality, one known as Mahad Taluka Mitra Mandal and another as Om Jaya Datta Mandal.It appears that tournaments use to take place among these two Mandals and in the said tournaments there was quarrel in which (P.W. 7) Sadashiv took leading part on behalf of his mandal i.e. Om Jaya Datta Mandal, as a result of which the said Mandal was disqualified from further participation in the tournaments and this appears to be the genesis of the dispute between these two Mandals.Shri Mohite belonged to the Mandal of prosecution witness i.e. Om Jaya datta Mandal.After the party was over the prosecution witness were returning back.When Arun Patil, (P.W. 3), Satish (P.W. 2), Mohan the deceased, Sunil Vichare (P.W. 5) and Chandrakant (P.W. 6) came upto the building No. 90 Chandrakant went ahead of Sunil at a distance of few paces.Then Sunil asked him ''Kuthe Paltos Bhauji Sarkha''.On accused No. 2 questioning Sunil Vichare as to whom he was addressing in these words, Sunil told him that they were not meant for him.On this accused No. 2 threatened Sunil Vichare.In the meantime Sadashiv came to the spot.Accused No. 2 told him about this incident.Sadashiv told the witnesses not to tease the members of the group of accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and asked Sunil Vichare to a apologize.Accordingly Sunil apologized and then accused as well as the witnessess returned to their respective places.According to the prosecution thereafter on 23rd October, 1975 at about 7.45 p.m. When Satish, Mohan, Sunil, Arun and Prabhakar were going for a walk.According to the prosecution accused No. 1 had stick and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 each had iron bars in their hands.Accused No. 1 then gave stick blows on the back near left buttock of Satish (P.W. 2).Accused No. 3 also assaulted him with iron bar on his back.He also saw then accused No. 4 standing near the motor lorry.Satish was also lying there nearby.Arun and Prabhakar (P.W. 3 and 4) ran away and ultimately came to the house of Sadashiv Terse (P.W. 7) and informed him about the quarrel.These two witnesses came to the spot with Sadashiv.However, in the meantime they found that Mohan and Satish were already removed to the hospital by a police constable.Therefore they also went to the hospital.He also speaks about the two mandals i.e. Om Jaya Datta Mandal and Mandal Taluka Mitra Mandal.According to this witness also prosecution witnesses are the members of the Om Jaya Datta Mandal Whereas accused were members of the Mahad Taluka Mitra Mandal so far as the actual assault which took place on 23rd October, 1975 is concerned, this witness has also stated that at about 5.30 p.m this witness, Sunil, Prabhakar and Chandrakant were sitting together near the bus stop.At about 7.45 p.m. Mohan also came there, Satish also joined them.Accused No. 3 also gave blow of iron bar on the back of Satish.Then Prabhakar and Mohan went to the rescue of Satish.According to the witness accused Nos. 3 and 4 followed Mohan.Prabhakar ran away out of fear.gave one blow by his stick ion his face and accused No. 2 gave one blow of iron bar on his abdomen.Then he speaks about his going to the house of Sadashiv (P.W. 7) and coming to the spot with him, he also went to the hospital.His statement was also recorded by the police.He admitted in his cross-examination that they had not decided to go for a walk towards the building No. 89 but just casually want to that side.He also admitted that none from two persons who were with him told him that accused persons were sane hiding behind the motor lorry.Then he gave details as to how he, Satish, Mohan received injuries.He also admitted that there was no fixed place or time for their going to walk.JUDGMENT C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.This is an appeal filed by the original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in sessions Case No. 363 of 1976 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Mohan and then sentencing them for the said offence to suffer imprisonment for life.The present appellants were also directed to suffer imprisonment for 3 years on other counts also for assaulting the prosecution witnesses i.e. (P.W. 2) Satish Jairam Salunke, and (P.W. 3) Arun Laxman Patil.They came upto the corner of the building No. 89 and then returned back for going to their respective houses by the same road.When they reached upto the place where Motor lorry was packed they saw accused coming ahead on the road from behind the motor lorry armed with weapons.In the hospital Satish and Arun were treated by Dr. Mrs. Sangamnerkar.Arun and Satish were discharged from the hospital after some treatment.The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mohan was conducted by De.Mrs. Randive (P.W. 15) who noticed the following external and internal injured on the person of the deceased :''1) Sutured wound on right forehead 2 1/2 in length.2) Sutured wound on the occipital region 2'' in length.3) Minor abrasions over vertex.4) Linear contusion 6'' in length right side of back.5) Linear contusion on left number right 4'' in length.6) Linear abrasion 8'' in length left side of back.'' Internal;1) Extensive haematomain scalp extending from frontal to parietal region more on the right side.2) Fracture multiple linear in pariatoccipital region also extending into temporal plate.3) Extensive subarachnoid haemorrhage.4) Laceration of carebellum left side.5) Small are of laceration of temporal lobe''.According to her the cause of Mohan's death was traumatic intracranial haemorrhage with laceration of brain and facture of skull.Dr. Sangamnerkar (P.W. 13) also found 8 injuries o the person of Satish and in the same hospital Dr. Maste had examined Arun (P.W. 3) and had noticed about 6 injuries on his person.As a result of the information receiver P.S.I. Ground came to the spot and drew the necessary panchanama.He also seized the articles such as sticks and iron bars.The statement of Satish was recorded vide Exh. 13 which was ultimately treated as first information report in the case and thereafter accused persons were arrested.Thereafter usual investigation was carried on all these accused were prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C as well as under section 324 read with section 34 of the I.P.C.In support of its case the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witness Sunil, (P.W. 5), Chandrakant (P.W. 6), Sadashiv Terse (P.W. 7) speak about the incident which took place on 22nd October, 1975, which according to the prosecution was the motive for ultimate assault which took place on 23rd October, 1975, Satish (P.W. 2), Arun (P.W. 3) and Prabhakar (P.W. 4) are the eye witnesses.Other witnesses are formal in nature being panch witnesses.So far as the medical evidence is concerned Dr. Parikh (P.W. 12), Dr. Mrs. Sangamnerkar (P.W. 13), Dr. Janardhan Dayabhai Patel (P.W. 14) and Dr. Mrs. Nilima Uday Randive (P.W. 15) proved the various injury reports as well as the post-mortem examination report.The prosecution has also examined some other police officers to prove the arrest and other panchanama.The defence of the accused was one of total denial.According to the accused person they were falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Sadashiv terse (P.W. 7).The defence has not led any evidence in support of its defence.After appreciating all the evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the deceased Mohan died a homicidal death on 24th October, 1975 as a result of assault by the accused persons.For the same assault he held accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 guilty for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. He also held them guilty for the assault on Satish (P.W. 2) and Arun (P.W. 3).Therefore ultimately the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellants for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. for the murder of Mohan and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for life.He also sentenced them to suffer R. I. for a period of 3 years for the other offences.So far as the accused No. 1 is concerned he sentenced him for the offence under section 324 of the I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for the period equal to the period of his detention.As already observed the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused No. 1 of the offence of murder.Shri Kamat, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused, contended before us tat the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error on convicting accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for the offence of murder with the aid of section 34 of the I.P.C., when the learned judge has found accused No. 1 is not guilty of the said offence.According to Shri Kamat on the basis of the same reasonings accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also could not be held guilty for the offence of murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. Shri Kamat further contended that from the evidence of Sadashiv (P.W. 7), it is quite cleat that some disputes were going on between two mandals and Sadashiv had a reasons to implicate accused persons falsely in the present case, Shri Kamat, further contended that it is quite obvious from the evidence of Sadashiv (P.W. 7) as well as the evidence of other prosecution witnesses i.e. Satish (P.W. 2), Arun (P.W. 3), Prabhakar (P.W. 4), Sunil (P.W. 5) and Chandrakant (P.W. 6) that they had a grudge against the accused persons.It is also clear from their evidence that their evidence is discrepant and self contradictory.Satish (P.W. 2) has come with a different version at different stages and has tried to improve the story from time to time other witnesses have also practically done the same thing.In these circumstances according to the learned Counsel, it will not be sale to convict the accused persons for the serious crime of murder on the basis of such discrepant and unreliable evidence.On the other hand it is contended by Shri Parkar the learned Public Prosecutor., that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that all these accused persons acting in furtherance of their common object assaulted the deceased as well as the prosecution witnesses.According to the learned Public Prosecutor, Satish (P.W. 2) and Arun (P.W. 3) were actually injured in this assault and were also treated in the hospital.Immediately after the incident a report was also lodged to the police in which the names of accused persons, were also disclosed.The evidence of all these prosecution witnesses is trust worthy and was rightly accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Shri Parkar further contended that as a matter of fact acquittal of accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C., itself is illegal and, therefore though this Court cannot alter his acquittal into conviction as the State has not filed any appeal, this Court can safely record a finding that his acquittal is wrong and illegal, and therefore other accused persons could safely be convicted for the offence of murder, with the aid of section 34 of the I.P.C.Therefore, from the rival contentions raised before us it is quite clear that accused -appellants are not challenging the fact that some incident took place on the 23rd October, 1975 in which deceased Mohan as well as the prosecution witnesses Satish (P.W. 2) and Arun (P.W. 3) received certain injuries which were found on their persons by the Doctor.Finding of these injuries on the persons of the prosecution witnesses or on the deceased is not challenged before us.The only contention raised before us on behalf of the accused is that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were either involved in the assault or were responsible for causing injuries found on the person of Mohan, Satish or Arun.In view of the contentions raised before us, it is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the medical evidence on record.Evidence according to the Additional Sessions Judge besides the direct evidence of the prosecution witnesses and particularly that of Satish (P.W. 2) Arun (P.W. 3) and Prabhakar (P.W. 4), there is no other independent circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime.It is no doubt true that certain iron bars and sticks were discovered at the instance of accused but obviously the said weapons are not connected with the crime because no blood stains etc. were noticed on the said weapons.Even the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in para 13 of his judgment has observed that the evidence of the discovery of the weapons adduced by the prosecution witnesses is of doubtful character.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also relied upon the evidence relating to the finding of blood stains on the clothes of the victim as well as at the scene of the offence he has accepted the evidence of the eye witnesses and on that basis has recorded the finding of guilty, qua each of the accused persons, Before us also he learned Public Prosecutor Shri Parkar has merely relied upon the evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. Satish (P.W. 2)., Arun (P.W. 3) and Prabhakar (P.W. 4) which gets substantial corroboration in the evidence of Sunil (P. W. 5), Chandrakant (P.W. 6) and Sadashiv (P.W. 7) as well as the medical evidence on record.Thus in substance in this case prosecution is mainly relying upon the evidence of eye witnesses.From the evidence of Sadashiv (P.W. 7) as well as Sunil (P.W. 5) and chandrakant (P.W. 6), it is quite clear that the accused as well as the prosecution witnesses are staying in the same locality.There are two Mandals in the said locality.Complainant party belongs to the Mandal known as Om Jaya Datta Mandal whereas the accused belongs to one Mahad Taluka Mitra Mandal, On 22nd October, 1975, Satish Arun, Sunil, Chandrakant and Mohan attended the birthday party at the residence of one Mohite.After the said party was over they were returning home.At that time accused persons also came there.Chandrakant went bit ahead and, therefore, Sunil asked him ''Kuthe Paltos Bhauji Sarkha.'' On this accused No. 2 questioned Sunil as to whom he was saying like that.Sunil tried to tell him that those words were not meant for him.Ultimately Sadashiv (P.W. 7) came to the spot.He consoled accused No. 2 and asked Sunil to tender apology.Accordingly an apology was tendered by Sunil.Thereafter they dispersed.This part of the evidence of all these witnesses is wholly consistent and trustworthy.He also contended that they were not knowing the accused persons very well and from their evidence it also appears that it was not possible for them to give full name of Mohite at on whose place they had gone for the birthday party.It was not possible for them even to tell the name of the daughter of Mohite, whose birthday was being celebrated and gifts were given to her.From the evidence of these prosecution witnesses, namely evidence of Satish (P.W. 2), Arun (P.W. 3) Prabhakar (P.W. 4), Sunil (P.W. 5) Chandrakant (P.W. 6) and Sadashiv (P.W. 7), it is quite clear that such an incident took place on 22nd in which ultimately Sunil was asked to tender an apology.From this evidence it is further clear that because of certain utterance of the prosecution witnesses, accused persons were offended though it is true that ultimately the matter was amicably settled after tendering of an apology by Sunil.So far as the incident which took place on 23rd October, 1975 is concerned, we have on record direct evidence of Satish (P.W. 2), Arun (P.W. 3) and Prabhakar (P.W. 4).Out of them P.S Satish and Arun had actually received injuries in the said incident.From the evidence of Satish (P.W. 2) it is quite clear that he knew all the accused persons very well.According to him on the night of the 22nd October, 1975 accused No. 2 had given him threats.Then on 23rd October, 1975 as usual they had gone for a walk towards building No. 88 with Mohan and others.They went upto the corner of building No. 89 and then returned to their respective places by the same road.Thereafter they saw accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 coming towards them from behind the motor lorry, armed with weapons.Accused No. 1 had a stick in his hand whereas accused Nos. 2 and 3 had iron bars in their hands, then they started assaulting Satish (P.W. 2).When this assault was going on, deceased Mohan Gaikar and Arun Patil came to the rescue of Satish (P.W. 2) and thereafter they were also assaulted by the accused persons i.e. accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with the iron bars, as a result of this assault Mohan fell down and ultimately died in the hospital.Satish (P.W. 2) was also removed to the hospital by Pawar (P.W. 11).Doctor has noticed 6 injuries on his person.Dr. Sangamnerkar (P.W. 13) speaks about these injuries According to her the injuries found on the person of Satish could have been caused by the weapon before the Court.From the cross-examination of Satish (P.W. 2) it is quite obvious that he has tried to improve the story from stages to stages.From the first information report lodged by this witness, it is quite clear that at the earliest opportunity he has not spoken about the motor lorry which was standing on the road nor it was possible for him or give the details about the names and addresses of the accused persons.It was not possible for him to give the names of the members of his mandal or mandal of the accused.It has also come in his evidence that on 23rd October, 1975 they had gone for a walk after they met each other casually on the road.There is some discrepancy in his deposition as to the actual place where the incident took place.Certain omissions and contradictions from his earlier statement before the police were brought on record.Before the Court he stated that he did not see accused No. 4 assaulting anybody.From his deposition it is also clear that when he was being assaulted by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 deceased Mohan came to his rescue and, therefore, accused assaulted him.Similarly Arun Patil was assaulted when he came to his rescue.Then he speaks about his injuries.When the previous statements made by him before the police were brought to his notice he want to the extent of saying that these statements were not read over or explained to him.Ultimately he had to admit in his cross-examination that he was knowing the accused No. 2 only for 7 or 8 days prior to the incident and not for 7 or 8 years as stated by him earlier.He also admitted that he had seen accused No. 1 once and thereafter he saw him for the first time at the time of assault.Suggestions made to him that he has falsely implicated accused at the instance of Sadashiv, were denied by this witness.However from his deposition it is quite obvious that an incident took place on 23rd October, 1975 wherein he was assaulted by the accused persons i.e. accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by sticks and iron bars.It is further clear from his deposition that when he was being assaulted, deceased Mohan came to his rescue and, therefore, he was assaulted by accused persons.Similarly Arun Patil came to his rescue and, therefore, he was also assaulted.According to Arun while they were about to pass motor lorry the accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 came forward running from behind the motor lorry armed with sticks and iron bars.Accused No. 1 had a wooden stick in his hand whereas accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 each has iron bars in their hands.Then all of them rushed towards them.Accused No. 1 gave a blow of stick on the buttock of Satish.Accused No. 2 gave blows of iron bar on the face, left arm and back of Satish.Then certain contradictions from his depositions were also brought on record.The evidence of this witness gets substantial corroboration in the evidence of Dr. Mrs. Sangamnerkar who speaks about the injuries found on his person.As many as 6 injuries though minor in nature were found on his person and one of them was C.L.W. 1/2'' x 1/4'' over left eye brow.There is also lenear swelling about 2'' in length over right abdominal wall.From the evidence of this witness, therefore, it is also clear that on 23rd October, 1975, when this witness, Satish, Mohan, Prabhakar had gone for a walk accused persons assaulted them.As a result of this assault by the accused persons Mohan received several injuries and ultimately died in the hospital.He himself and Satish (P.W. 2) had also received injuries in this assault.Prabhakar (P.W. 4) also gave some what same story.After telling the Court about the incident which took place on 22nd October, 1975, this witness has also stated on oath that on 23rd October, 1975 he had gone for a walk with Satish, Arun and Mohan.According to him near about building No. 89 they were assaulted by the assured persons and at that time accused No. 1 had a stick and another had iron bar.However according to him he did not receive any injury because he ran away from the spot.It is no doubt true that in the cross-examination it was not possible for this witness to give details about the names of the members of the Mandal.However the story given by this witness is in conformity with the version given by Satish (P.W. 2) and Arun (P.W. 3).Therefore, in our opinion if the evidence of these 3 eye witnesses is read together with the medical evidence on record as well as the evidence of Sunil (P.W. 5) Chandrakant (P.W. 6) and Sadashiv (P.W. 7), then a finding could safely be recorded that on 22nd October, 1975 a minor incident took place wherein ultimately Sunil (P.W. 5) tendered an apology.However it is also clear from this evidence that accused persons were offended because of certain utterance.It is also clear from the evidence that on 23rd October, 1975 when they were going for a walk accused persons assaulted them with sticks or iron bars.Hence in our opinion the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in accepting the testimony of these witnesses so far as the actual assault is concerned.However it cannot be forgotten that Satish (P.W. 2) who was the first person to be assaulted, has admitted in his cross-examination that accused assaulted Mohan and Arun when they came to his rescue.From the evidence of these prosecution witnesses, therefore, it is quite clear that Satish (P.W. 2) was the main target and only because the deceased Mohan and Arun Patil went to his rescue they came to be assaulted by the accused persons.In this context that accused No. 1 was it is also pertinent to note the main person.It has also come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that they had no fixed place for going for evidence or prosecution witnesses that they held no fixed place for going for evening walk.The finding of the motor lorry is not referred to in the first information report.Therefore, if whole of this evidence is read between the lines, it does not appear to be true that any motor lorry was standing on the road and accused persons were hiding behind any such motor lorry as alleged by prosecution witnesses including Satish (P.W. 2).It further appears from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that accused wanted to assault Satish (P.W. 2) and the deceased Mohan came to be assaulted only because he went to the rescue of Satish.Therefore, it cannot be said that the common object of these accused persons was either to assault or murder Mohan, though it could be said that common object of the accused was to assault Satish.The prosecution witnesses Satish (P.W. 2), Arun (P. W. 3) and Prabhakar (P.W. 4) have stated in the clearest terms the these accused persons were armed with weapons like iron bars.They assaulted Mohan with the said iron bars.Though it is true that initially they had no intention to assault Mohan, ultimately Mohan received injuries at the hands of the accused by the iron bars only because he tried to intervene and rescue Satish.From the nature of the injuries found on the person of Mohan, it is quite obvious that the weapon used must have been heavy one.The assault on Mohan was neither preplanned nor intentional .Any particular part of the body was neither chosen nor any particular injury was intended by the accused persons.Therefore it is not possible to attribute to the accused that they intended to cause precise injuries which were ultimately found on the person of the deceased.In a melee when Mohan was trying to rescue and was in a moving position he received injuries on the various parts of his body.He was assaulted only because he tried to intervene in the assault.For the offence under section 324 of the I.P.C., they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years.They had already undergone that period.In view of this accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Vijay Pundalik Sagwekar, Baburao Tukaram Shelar and Chandrakant Subhan Salvi are entitled to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case as they are being sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,044,258 | This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, District-Agra in Criminal Revision No.113 of 2015 (Shankar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby the order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Agra u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. in respect of Case No.23 of 2013 (Shankar Singh vs. Vinod Kumar Bhagnagar and others) u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B I.P.C. has been set aside and aforesaid criminal revision has been allowed.Heard applicants' counsel as well as learned A.G.A.Entire record has been perused.To appreciate the controversy involved in the present case, it is necessary to have a look over the facts of the case in brief, according to which the opposite party no.2 Shankar singh filed one application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of Magistrate, which was treated as complaint case vide order dated 15.01.2013 and thereafter statement of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and subsequently summoning order dated 23.07.2013 was passed by the court of Magistrate, whereby the present applicant and one another person Govind Bhargava were summoned to face trial for offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B I.P.C. The applicant and co-accused challenged that summoning order before this Court by means of Criminal Misc.In continuation to the said order dated 14.8.2014 passed by this Court, the present applicant along with co-accused preferred one discharge application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. on 5.9.2014 and the complainant/opposite party no.2 submitted his objection on the discharge application and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the court of Magistrate vide order dated 27.04.2015 accepted the discharge application of accused persons and discharged them in the proceedings of complaint case for offence u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B I.P.C.The record reveals that against the order of discharge dated 27.4.2015, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision No.113 of 2015 before Sessions Court, which after due opportunity to the parties was allowed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Agra vide order dated 30.4.2016 and the order of discharge u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. was set aside.Thereafter against this revisional court's order dated 30.4.2016, the accused-applicant and his co-accused preferred one Criminal Misc.Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.18195 of 2016 which was allowed by means of order dated 31.5.2016 passed by this Court and the revisional court's order dated 30.4.2016 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the revisional court to decide afresh as per law.In compliance to the order of this Court dated 31.05.2016, the proceedings of criminal Revision No.113 of 2015 again commenced afresh and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the lower revisional court has passed the order dated 07.01.2017 which is impugned herein before this Court.Submission on behalf of applicant is that he being the Secretary of the Society at the relevant point of time has executed the sale deed of property in dispute in favour of opposite party no.2 and the physical possession thereof was also handed over to opposite party no.2 and since then 10 years have elapsed during which the opposite party no.2 has not reported any grievance regarding possession of plot.Learned A.G.A. has refuted the contentions made on behalf of applicant and has submitted that the material placed on record before the concerned courts below, which finds place in various orders appended with this application, goes to show that the opposite party no.2 is an innocent purchaser of plot in question who became the Member of Vinayak Sahkari Awas Samiti and deposited necessary amounts relating to development expenses up to 12.03.2003 and the accused-applicant in the capacity of the Secretary of the co-operative Society executed one sale-deed in the month of March, 2003 in respect of Plot No.217 admeasuring 403 sq. yard said to be situated in Mauja Babatpur, Tehsil and District Agra and the sale deed was registered on 27.03.2003 in the office of Sub-Registrar-Ist, District-Agra. | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,049,488 | C.R.R. 2127 of 2019 SB Ct. No. 33 In Re : Sibu Malik & Ors.SB Ct.Learned counsel appearing for the State has handed over a report of Officer-in-Charge, Bhatar Police Station.Let the same be kept with the record.Petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan in G.R. Case No. 1928 / 2017 in connection with Bhatar P.S. Case No. 204 /2017 dated 12.06.2017 under Sections 147 / 148/ 149/ 324/ 325/ 307/ 354B/427/392/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.From the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties as well as from the materials placed on record, it appears that all the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail in connection with abovementioned case and from the report submitted by the Officer-in-Charge, Bhatar Police Station addressed to the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta, it transpires that all the petitioners furnished bail bonds in connection with their anticipatory bail.But due to oversight warrant of arrest was issued against them on the ground that they did not furnish bail bonds.As such the impugned order as well as the connective order including the order dated 30.10.2017 are hereby set aside.Thus the revisional application being C.R.R. 2127 of 2019 is disposed of.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of requisite formalities.(Madhumati Mitra, J.) | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,305,468 | Heard on admission.Also heard on I.A. No.13076/2019, an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for grant of bail and suspension of custodial sentence on behalf of appellant Ajit Kumar Patel.The appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I., for 7 years and under section 498-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I., for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each respectively, with default stipulations.the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in her parental house.It is found that the appellant- accused demanded dowry and due to non-fulfillment of dowry he tortured and humiliated her wife, therefore, she committed suicide.Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that there is no material available on record on which it can be said that the appellant- accused demanded dowry from the deceased and her parents.Narendra Patel P.W.-1 is the father of the deceased.He admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant-accused deposited Rs. 67,000/- in the account of the deceased.He also admitted that so may gifts were given to the deceased by the appellant-accused and the deceased has come her parental house to take all the ornaments from there where she committed suicide by hanging herself.The mother of the deceased Shanti Patel has also admitted the aforesaid fact Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 16/01/2020 11:46:50 2 CRA-4756-2019 so there is no material available on the record regarding demand of dowry, humiliation and torture to the deceased.It is also submitted that appellant- accused produced the witnesses in his defence namely, Keshav Patel (DW/1), Chandramani Patel (DW/2), Basant Kumar Tiwari (DW/3) and Shankar Prasad(DW/4).All these witnesses deposed before the trial that huge amount was deposited in the account of the deceased by the appellant-accused and his family members.In fact, the deceased did no want to live with the appellant-accused at her matrimonial house and she committed suicide at her parental house.Final disposal of this appeal will take time.If the appellant is not released on bail, purpose of filing this application will be futile.There is no probability of his absconding.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellant may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended and he may be released on bail.Learned PL for the respondent-State has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Considering the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the deceased committed suicide in her parental house, this appeal is of the year 2019 and final haring of this appeal will take time, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence awarded to the appellant and grant bail to him.Consequently, I.A. No. 13076/2019 is allowed subject to furnishing the fine amount, if already not deposited.The custodial sentence awarded to the appellant shall remained suspended during the pendency of this appeal.It is directed that the substantial sentence of the appellant Ajit Kumar Patel @ Guddu Patel shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 16/01/2020 11:46:50 3 CRA-4756-2019 of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20.04.2020 and on such other dates as may be directed from time to time in this regard.I.A.No.13076/2019 stands allowed and disposed of.Let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE kundan Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 16/01/2020 11:46:50 | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,055,168 | It was alleged that theaccused kidnapped the victim aged about 15 years andcommitted forceful sexual intercourse with her atPanvel.He lodged complaint/FIR(Exh.28).By this application the applicant/accused whohas been convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simpleimprisonment of 6 months for the offence punishableunder Section 363 of Indian Penal Code, to sufferrigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine ofRs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergosimple imprisonment of 6 months for the offencepunishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code,to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay afine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 ::: (2) criappln3237.18undergo simple imprisonment of 1 year for the offencepunishable under Section 376 of the India Penal Code andto suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to paya fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine toundergo simple imprisonment of 1 year for the offencepunishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Childrenfrom Sexual Offence Act, 2012 by the judgment and orderdated 06.10.2018 passed by the Additional SessionsJudge, Bhokar, District Nanded in Special (POCSO) CaseNo.3 of 2016 has prayed to suspend the sentence pendinghearing and final disposal of the criminal appealchallenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence and toenlarge him on bail.::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 :::The informant (PW-1) father of the victim hadfiled missing report on 06.03.2016 in Police StationHimayatnagar that his daughter the victim who wasstudying in 10th standard at the relevant time wasmissing as she did not come to house on 05.03.2016 afterannual examination of English paper.Thereafter, he cameto know from one Ramrao Babarao Bhise that the victimwas at Panvel near Mumbai.Thereupon, he alongwithothers went to Panvel and after going to the Police ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 ::: (3) criappln3237.18Station the victim was found.After trial the applicant wasconvicted as stated earlier.::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 :::3. Learned counsel for the applicant submittedthat the victim was not minor aged 15 years and 9 monthsas observed by the trial Court, but she was major on thedate of incident.It is submitted that the prosecutionhas not produced the certificate of Grampanchayat aboutbirth date of victim as well as the prosecution has notproduced the record of school regarding initialadmission of the victim in 1st standard in which birthdate of the victim was recorded on the basis ofcertificate of birth issued by Grampanchayat.Therefore, according to the learnedcounsel for the applicant the aspect whether victim wasmajor needs to be considered in the appeal.It issubmitted that from the evidence of the victim (PW-2)and her father (PW-1) it is seen that, there was loveaffair of accused and the victim since 2015 and prior tothe incident and therefore according to learned counselwhen the victim was not minor at the time of incident,offences under the Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act forwhich applicant/accused has been convicted cannot beattracted and said aspect needs to be considered in theappeal.Learned counsel for the applicant furthersubmitted that during the trial the applicant wasenlarged on bail by this Court as per order dated16.06.2016 in Criminal Application No.2173 of 2016 andthe applicant has not misused the liberty granted to himwhile on bail and therefore sentence recorded againstthe applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 ::: (5) criappln3237.18pending the hearing and decision of appeal by allowingthe application.::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 :::4. Learned APP for the respondent/State opposed togrant the application on the ground that afterconsidering the evidence the trial Court has convictedand sentenced the applicant and maximum sentence awardedto the applicant is of 10 years.Moreover, it has come on record in the cross-examination of father of the victim and the victim thatthe victim used to frequently talk with the accusedthrough mobile phone of her father and the victim'sevidence shows that she and the accused had decided torun away and that her love affair with the accused wasstarted since Panchami festival prior to the incident.Considering all these facts and the fact that duringtrial the applicant was on bail and that he has notmisused the liberty granted to him, it is just toconsider his request made in the application.::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 :::Here, it is useful to refer decision in thecase of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and others Vs.As mentioned earlier through-out the trial except the period mentioned in theimpugned judgment the applicant was on bail and he hasnot misused the liberty.Thus, there appears noexceptional circumstance for not suspending thesentence.Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, I find thatthe applicant has made out the case for suspending thesentence and releasing him on bail on certainconditions.Therefore, following order is passed.::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 :::applicant in Special Case No.3 of 2016 by the Addl.::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 :::He shall not give threat of any kind to them.(5) Compliance of the order be made before thetrial Court.[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]ssp/Mar.19/criappln3237.18 ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 04:53:35 ::: | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,058,413 | (Delivered on 21/08/2018) This common judgment shall also dispose of Cr.A. No. 578 of 1999 filed by co-accused Mukesh Bilwal.On 18- 12-1994, Rajesh (P.W.2) and Sanjay Patel (P.W.3) had gone to attend the marriage of one Raju @ Rajesh along with his barat.It is alleged that the appellants and other co-accused persons, caused injuries to Rajesh (P.W.2) as a result of which the injured Sanjay Patel (P.W.3), brought him back to his house in an injured condition, by an auto-rickshaw.The injured Suresh (P.W.1) was standing outside the house, and at that time, the appellants and the co-accused persons came there and the appellant Mukesh assaulted the injured Suresh (P.W.1) by means of a knife which landed on the right thigh of the injured Suresh.The appellant Pradeep @ Bhaiyu caused a knife injury on the chest of the injured Sanjay Patel.As there was a hue and cry in the locality, therefore, the appellants and other co- accused persons ran away.It is further alleged that the co- accused Sanjay and Ram had assaulted the injured persons by means of fists and blows.The incident was witnessed by Mangesh and Ashok.The injured Suresh (P.W.1) lodged a F.I.R. The injured Suresh and Sanjay were sent for medical examination.The spot map Ex. P.14 was prepared.The statements of the witnesses were recorded and the appellants and the co-accused persons were arrested.The appellants are on bail.(2) The present appeals have been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 20-4-1999 passed by 13 th A.S.J., Indore in S.T. No. 119/1995, by which the appellants have been convicted for the following offences :-Appellant Pradeep :Under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. for causing injury to injured Sanjay and under Section 324/34 of I.P.C. for causing injury to injured Suresh.Appellant Mukesh: Under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. for causing injury to injured Sanjay and under Section 324 of I.P.C. for causing injury to injured Suresh.(3) The appellants, for offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C.have been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default imprisonment and for offence under Section 324 or 324/34 of 2 I.P.C., the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and a fine of Rs. 250/- with default imprisonment.(4) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 18-12-1994, at about 9:30 P.M., the appellants caused injuries to the injured Suresh and the appellant Pradeep @ Bhaiyu, attempted to commit murder of Sanjay by causing injury to him, by means of a knife.The police after concluding the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the appellants and the co-accused persons Sanjay and Ram for offence under Section 307 (wrongly mentioned as 302 in the impugned judgment) and 324 of I.P.C 3 (5) The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 307,324/34 of I.P.C. against the appellant Pradeep and under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 of I.P.C. against the appellant Mukesh.(6) The appellants and the co-accused persons, abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.(7) The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Suresh (P.W.1), Rajesh (P.W.2), Sanjay (P.W.3), Neeraj (P.W.4), Mangesh (P.W.5), Ashok (P.W.6), Lekhraj (P.W.7), Sunil (P.W.8), Suraj (P.W.9), Dr. Pradeep Goyal (P.W.10), ChandrakantBhamare (P.W.11), Dr. Arun Kumar Mishra (P.W.12) and Anil Bakshi (P.W.13).(8) The appellants and co-accused Sanjay and Ram did not examine any witness in their defence.(9) The Trial Court by judgment and sentence dated 20-4- 1999 convicted the appellant Pradeep for offence under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 of I.P.C. and convicted the appellant Mukesh for offence under Sections 307/34 and 324 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and a fine of Rs. 250/- with default imprisonment, respectively, and acquitted the co-accused Ram.Neither the State nor the complainant has challenged the acquittal of the co-accused Ram, therefore, any reference to his name would be for the purposes of considering the allegations against the appellants.The co-accused Sanjay was also convicted.(10) The co-accused Sanjay had filed a separate Criminal Appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 644/1999, however, he expired during the pendency of the appeal and his appeal is accordingly dismissed as having abated.(11) Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below, the appellants have drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 5-11-1999, passed by this Court, 4 which reads as under- :"In these three connected appeals i.e., Cr.A. No. 644/1999, Cr.A. No. 578 and Cri.Appeal No. 614/99, an application (I.A. No. 4192/99) is filed in Criminal Appeal No. 614/99 for compounding.The same will be considered at the time of final hearing.However, today the injured Sanjay Patel along with his lawyer Shri Chouhan is present.He says that he would like to compound as per the application and the compounding is of his free-will.The application will be considered at the time of final hearing."(12) It is further submitted that although the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured Sanjay Patel and Suresh are not disputed, however, in view of the fact that the incident of assault on the injured Suresh and Sanjay Patel, took place in front of the house of the accused persons, therefore, it is clear that the injured persons were the aggressors and the appellants had acted in exercise of Right of Private Defence.It is further submitted that since, the complainant Sanjay has compromised the matter, therefore, the effect of compromise may be considered for the purposes of quantum of sentence.To buttress his contentions, the Counsel for the appellants have relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Hasi Mohan Barman and another Vs.State of Assam and another reported in 2008 (1) G.L.H. 523 and submitted that the period of jail sentence already undergone by the appellants would serve the ends of justice, as the incident had taken place in the year 1994 and more than 24 long years have passed and the appellants were young lads at the time of incident.It is further submitted that even otherwise, the prosecution witnesses have changed their original version, and have stated in the evidence that Sanjay had caused knife injury the injured Sanjay and accordingly, the Trial Court, itself has acquitted the appellant Pradeep for charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. and has convicted him under Section 307/34 of I.P.C.(13) Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State 5 that the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence which has come on record has passed a well reasoned order, and the evidence of the witnesses is trustworthy therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants may be dismissed.(14) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.(15) As the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured Sanjay and Suresh have not been challenged by the appellants, therefore, it would not be necessary to consider the evidence of the Dr. Pradeep Goyal (P.W.10) and Dr. Arun Kumar Mishra (P.W.12).Accordingly, considering the M.L.C., Ex. P.12,, Bed Head Ticket, Ex. P.14, and Query report, Ex. P.15 of Sanjay and M.L.C. Ex. P.13 of Suresh as well as the evidence of Dr. Pradeep Goyal (P.W.10) and Dr. Arun Kumar Mishra (P.W.12), it is held that the injured Suresh (P.W.1) had sustained simple injury, whereas the injured Sanjay (P.W.3) had sustained stab wound in his chest which was dangerous to life.Accordingly, the findings given by the Trial Court with regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured Suresh (P.W.1) and Sanjay (P.W.3) are hereby affirmed.(16) It is next contended by the Counsel for the appellants that according to the prosecution case, the incident took place in two parts.By referring to the evidence of Sanjay (P.W.3), it is submitted that according to this witness, on 18-12-1994, the injured had gone to Pandrinath Dharamshala along with Rajesh, where they found that the appellant Mukesh was having hot altercation with some boys and Rajesh tried to intervene in the matter, at that time the appellant Pradeep and co-accused Sanjay also came on the spot.In the meanwhile, Rajesh sustained a knife injury on his thigh (Appellants have not been tried for causing injury to Rajesh).Thereafter, this witness took Rajesh to his house on a rickshaw.The mother of Rajesh instructed that the matter be informed to the mother of co-accused Sanjay.Therefore, this witness along with Rajesh went to have a talk with the mother of Sanjay.4-5 minutes 6 thereafter, the appellants also came there, as a result of which, there was a scuffle with Rajesh.The appellants and co-accused Sanjay had knives in their hands.This witness was trying to pacify the situation, however, the co-accused Sanjay caused knife injury to this witness and therefore, this witness told Rajesh that since, he has sustained injury, therefore, he would go.This witness and Rajesh tried to run away, but they were chased by the accused persons and this witness, some how succeeded in escaping.He met with a friend namely Devendra who brought him to the police station, where he informed the police personals that the co-accused Sanjay has caused knife injury to him.(17) Thus, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that it is clear from the evidence of the injured Sanjay (P.W.3), that in the first part of incident, some dispute arose between the appellants and co-accused Sanjay and Rajesh as a result of which Rajesh sustained a knife injury and on the instructions of the mother of Rajesh, this witness and Rajesh went to talk to the mother of the co-accused Sanjay, where there was a scuffle, and the co-accused Sanjay caused knife injury to this witness.Sanjay (P.W.3) doesnot speak about the presence of Suresh on the spot, but he has stated that in fact Rajesh had sustained the knife injury and none of the accused was tried for causing injury to Rajesh, because in fact, Rajesh had not sustained any injury.It is further submitted that Suresh (P.W.1) has stated that he and Sanjay (P.W.3) had sustained injuries in one incident only.(18) Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellants.True it is that the incident of assault on Sanjay (P.W.3), took place in front of the house of the co-accused Sanjay, therefore, the next question for determination would be that whether the injured was the aggressor and whether the appellants had right of private defence and whether they have exceeded their right of private defence.(19) It is clear from the evidence of Sanjay(P.W.3) that in the first part of incident, there was some hot altercation between the appellant Mukesh and some unknown persons and Rajesh was trying to intervene in the matter and during that he sustained a knife blow on his thigh.Thereafter, admittedly, Sanjay (P.W.3) along with Rajesh came to the house of co-accused Sanjay, where the incident of assault on Sanjay (P.W.3) took place.Thus, it is clear that the appellants have failed to point out any situation which had given any reasonable apprehension in their mind, thereby giving a right of private defence of causing injuries to Sanjay (P.W.3) by means of knife .Thus, it is clear that the appellants had exceeded their right of private defence.(20) So far as the injury caused to the injured Suresh (P.W.1) is concerned, the evidence of Suresh (P.W.1) is reliable and nothing could be pointed out by the Counsel for the appellants, which may make the evidence of Suresh (P.W.1) untrustworthy.Thus, it is proved that the appellant Mukesh, caused simple injury to the injured Suresh (P.W.1) on his thigh by means of a knife.(21) Since, the presence of the appellant Pradeep on the spot was not innocent presence and thus, it is held that he was sharing common intention with other three accused persons, and accordingly, the appellant Pradeep is held guilty of committing offence under Section 307/34, and 324/34 of I.P.C., and the appellant Mukesh is held guilty of committing offence under Section 324,307/34 of I.P.C.(22) So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, no minimum sentence is provided for offence under Section 307 and 324 of I.P.C. As already held that in fact it was the injured Sanjay (P.W.3) and Rajesh (P.W.2), had gone to the house of the co-accused Sanjay and thus, it can be safely said 9 that they were the aggressors, however, as they were bare handed, therefore, it has already been held that in fact the appellants had exceeded their right of private defence.During the pendency of this appeal, the injured Sanjay (P.W.3) has filed an application for compromise.He had also made a statement before this Court with regard to his willingness to enter into a compromise with the appellants.The Court followed the view taken in 10 the case of Ram Pujan (supra) and having regard to the fact that the parties had compromised and a period of ten years had elapsed from the date of the incident reduced the sentence of five years R.I. imposed under Sections 307 and 326 IPC to the period of sentence already undergone which was three months and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-.Following the view taken in the above noted cases we are of the opinion that the complainant and the principal accused having already married it will be in the interest of justice if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.Their sureties and bail bonds are discharged.'' (23) In the present case, the appellant Pradeep had remained in jail for a period of 12 days during trial and has remained in jail for a period of approximately 50 days after his conviction.Similarly, the appellant Mukesh had remained in jail for a period of 12 days during trial and has remained in jail for 50 days after his conviction.Thus, it is clear that both the appellants have remained in jail for a period of more than 2 months.Under the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as in view of the fact that Sanjay (P.W.3) had compromised the dispute, (although there is no application for compromise by another injured Suresh (P.W.1)), as well as the fact that the incident took place in the year 1994 and 24 long years have passed, this Court is of the considered opinion, that Jail 11 sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months respectively for offence under Section 307/34 and 324 or 324/34 of I.P.C. can be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants, by enhancing the fine amount.Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Sanjay (P.W.3) and Suresh (P.W.1), for offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C., the appellants Pradeep and Mukesh are awarded the jail sentence of period already undergone by them and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and for offence under Section 324 of I.P.C., the appellant Mukesh is awarded the jail sentence of period already undergone by him a fine of Rs. 15,000/- whereas for offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C., the appellant Pradeep is awarded the jail sentence of period already undergone by him and a fine of Rs.15,000/-.The enhanced fine amount shall be payable within a period of 3 months from today, otherwise, the jail sentence awarded by the Trial Court shall automatically get revived.(24) With aforesaid modification, the judgment and sentence dated 20-4-1999 passed by 13th A.S.J., Indore in S.T. No. 119/1995, is hereby affirmed.(25) The appellants are on bail.(26) The appeals succeed and are Allowed in part.(G.S.Ahluwalia) Judge MKB* Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2018.08.21 18:08:40 +05'30' | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,062,997 | Further, in her dying declaration, the deceased has stated that there was a quarrel between her and the accused the previous night and the same was corroborated by PW-1, her son and PW-2, her neighbour.P8, Accident Register, informs 'burns by known person'.Though it did not inform the name of the accused, it clearly states that the deceased did not attempt suicide.The case of the prosecution is that on 24.04.2011 at about 10.30 p.m., appellant/husband of the deceased quarreled with the deceased, poured kerosene and set her on fire, owing to which the deceased, despite treatment, died on 03.05.2011 at about 01.40 p.m. A case was registered in Crime No.666 of 2011 on the file of respondent.Upon completion of investigation and filing of final report informing commission of offence u/s.302 IPC, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.304 of 2011 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 28.08.2012, convicted the appellant/accused for offence u/s.304 Part I IPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.20,000/- i/d 6 months R.I. There against, the present appeal has been filed.3. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Government Advocate [Crl.side].In convicting the appellant/accused, trial Court has found as follows:(ii) The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on the day after the occurrence by PW-10 and till such time, nobody had seen the deceased at hospital and hence, the contention that the deceased was tutored was unacceptable.(iii)It was the evidence of PW-1 that before the occurrence, accused made some disparaging remarks about the conduct of the deceased and poured kerosene on her.Though PW-1 had not actually seen the accused setting the deceased on fire, it could be presumed that accused was the person, who set her on fire.(iv)Though the accused, in Section 313 questioning, has gone to the extent of stating that there was no kerosene in his house on the occurrence day, PW-13, Doctor, who conducted postmortem, has reported that the deceased's hair smelt of kerosene even after 10 days of occurrence.(v)Taking into account the evidence of PW-13, Doctor, that the deceased had suffered septicimia, the trial Court held that the accused was guilty of offence u/s.304 Part I IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.20,000/- i/d 6 months R.I.This Court finds that a well-reasoned approach has been adopted by trial Court in convicting the accused for offence u/s.304 Part I IPC and in sentencing him to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.20,000/- i/d 6 months R.I.The Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed.Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.24.04.2017Index:yes/noInternet:yesgmToThe I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.C.T.SELVAM, JgmCrl.A.No.200 of 201424.04.2017http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,930,645 | The charge was framed against the appellant as well as the original accused No.2 that on 23rd December, 2005, accused Nos. 1 and 2 at about 10.10 hrs., within the jurisdiction of Narpoli Police Station, Bhiwandi, committed murder of one Pramod Amrit Ram, aged 27 years, in furtherance of their common intention and accordingly committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.It is also alleged against the accused Nos.1 and 2 that after committing murder of Pramod Ram on the aforesaid date, they tried to cause evidence of commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.The accused did not plead guilty to the charge.The prosecution, in all, examined 11 witnesses.The prosecution case is that the parties involved in the matter hail from Bihar and that they had come in search of job at Bhiwandi and were working as powerloom workers.Initially accused Surendra had not brought his wife viz. Indu to Bhiwandi.As per the case of prosecution, the victim Pramod was residing with his brother Vinod and his cousin brothers Uday and Mukesh Ravi @ Rakesh in one room and the accused was residing in the adjoining room in the same locality.Accused Surendra later on brought his wife, original accused No.2-Indu, to Bhiwandi and since then accused Nos. 1 and 2 were residing together.The deceased Pramod and his cousin brothers were residing in another room.It is alleged that the victim had an illicit relationship with the said Indubai which resulted into quarrel between the accused and victim Pramod about one year prior to the incident in question.The accused Surendra had sent back his wife Indubai to his village in Bihar State but subsequently about one month prior to the incident he brought her back to Bhiwandi and shifted to another room in the same area belonging to one Ravindra Adep.It is also the case of the prosecution that on 22nd December, 2005, victim Pramod had gone to attend to his work.Vinod and cousin brother Rakesh had night shifts on that day.Their cousin Uday and Mukesh were at the room.Accused Surendra at that time came to make enquiry about the victim Pramod.He was informed that Pramod would ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 ::: 4 return back at about 10.00 p.m. Pramod thereafter returned back and was taking his dinner.At the relevant time accused Surendra again came to the room of deceased and gave him call from the window of the room.At that time Pramod was wearing a towel around his waist.In response to the call, he came out and accompanied the accused.His roommates waited till 1.00 a.m. but he did not return.In the morning, while Vinod was returning back on his way, he was informed by his cousin Mukesh that Pramod who had accompanied accused Surendra did not return back and in the meantime they came to know that somebody was killed and his dead body was thrown on garbage at the fish market in Ramnagar area.Before they could reach there, PW 5, Vijay Lambture, along with Senior PI-PW 11 - Tawade, and panch witnesses had arrived a the place, in response to one anonymous phone call.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::They found one dead body wrapped in one plastic white coloured gunny bag.On opening the said bag, they found a pair of chappal, one railway ticket from Kalyan to Patna dated 5th October, 2005 and one receipt dated 21st December, 2005 on which the name of Pramod was mentioned and the name of one photo studio was also mentioned.In the presence of panch witnesses, Police Officer Tawade completed the procedure of preparing the inquest panchanama and spot panchanama.The dead body was thereafter taken to Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Bhiwandi for post-mortem examination.In the meantime, Vinod, Uday and others reached the said hospital and they identified the dead body of Pramod.The Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem examination opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure and asyphyxia due to throttling.It is also the case of prosecution that the accused Surendra was interrogated in the presence of panch witnesses while he was in police custody when he confessed the guilt and made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of clothes, saree, blouse and towel from the residential premises of the accused.The Investigating Officer also noticed bloodstained tiles at the said place and he seized two pieces of tiles having bloodstains.During investigation he also seized one lungi from the accused.According to the prosecution, in view of the alleged strained relationship between the victim and accused Indubai, both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of the victim and threw away the dead body on the garbage of fish market in Ramnagar area, after wrapping the dead body on plastic gunny bag.2 cm.X ½ cm.On cut section haemorrhage under cutaneous tissue and muscles over thyroid cartilage.2. C.L.W. over vertex of the scalp, size about 3 cm.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2006, by which the learned Judge has convicted the appellant-original accused No.1 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter "IPC").By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Judge acquitted the original accused No.2-Indubai, wife of the present appellant for the alleged offence.The appellant was awarded life imprisonment and was directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 ::: 2 rigorous imprisonment for six months.Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge, the appellant-original accused No.1 has preferred this appeal through jail.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased Pramod died of a homicidal death.The learned Judge, however, found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the aforesaid act was committed in furtherance of common intention by both the accused.Accordingly, accused No.2 was acquitted and accused No.1 was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 ::: 3 convicted for the alleged act.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::The Investigating Officer thereafter ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 ::: 5 recorded the statement of witnesses and subsequently arrested both the accused in connection with the crime in question.Since injuries were noticed on the person of both the accused, the Investigating Officer referred them for their medical examination.The Medical Officer reserved opinion as regards thumb injury found on the person of accused Surendra, lower jaw injuries in respect of accused Indubai.In respect of other injuries, he opined that the same were simple in nature and were possible by hard and blunt object.The Investigating Officer, on the aforesaid basis, completed the investigation and submitted charge-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::The plastic bag containing the dead body was opened in his presence.According to the said prosecution witness, police had prepared inquest panchanama in his presence which bears his signature.The following injuries were noticed by the said doctor."1. Contused abrasion on either side of thyroid cartilage region of neck.It is reddish in colour, size about 2 cm.X ½ cm.X 1 cm.Skin deep."The prosecution has also examined one Mohammad Shaikh as prosecution witness No.3 at Exh. 15 who was called as a panch witness.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::Another panch witness Shabu Solse was examined as prosecution witness No.4 in connection with the arrest of the accused.Thereafter he went to the scene of offence along with Senior PI Tawade and two panch witnesses.A dead body in the plastic gunny bag was found at the relevant place and thereafter panchanama was prepared.Another panch witness, Pundalik Sambharan was examined as Prosecution Witness No.6 in whose presence the accused made a disclosure statement regarding production of the clothes which were on his person.The said witness has stated that he knew both the accused persons as both are husband and wife.He stated that he was staying along with his brother Mukesh as well as cousin brother Vinod and all of them were residing together and working at different places.According to the said witness, the incident took place on 22nd in the year 2005 and he stated that he did not recollect the month.As per the evidence of the said witness, on the aforesaid date at about 9.00 a.m. when he and his brother Mukesh were at the room, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 ::: 8 accused Surendra came and enquired about his cousin Pramod.He informed him that he would return at about 10 p.m. The victim returned back home at about 10.15 p.m. and after taking wash, he has changed his clothes.He was wearing towel and sat for dinner.While he was taking dinner, accused Surendra again came there and gave a call to Pramod from window.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::Thereafter Pramod accompanied him and at that time he was wearing towel.The said witness has further stated that Pramod did not return back to room and they waited for him till about 1.00 a.m. On the next day, at about 9 a.m. One person by name Ramvilas Yadav informed him that one dead body was found tied in one gunny bag in garbage near fish market and the said dead body was having resemblance with deceased Pramod.Thereafter they reached at the said place but they did not see the dead body and they were told that the dead body is taken to Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Bhiwandi.Thereafter he went to the said hospital and the dead body of deceased Pramod was found there.In the cross-examination, the said witness has stated that his relationship with the accused prior to the incident were cordial but the relations between deceased Pramod and accused were not cordial.The said witness has denied the suggestion that deceased Pramod used to harass ladies residing in the said locality.Thereafter accused No.1 had sent his wife back to the village but after about one year the accused No.1 again brought back her to Bhiwandi.The said witness has stated that he and his brother Pramod as well as his first cousin brothers were all residing together and accused were residing just near their room at a distance of hardly one minute's walk.In the cross-examination, the said witness has stated that initially his relationship with the accused were cordial but subsequently the said relationship was strained because of Indubai.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::The prosecution has also examined Dr. Tawade as prosecution witness No.9 who examined accused Surendra.The doctor examined the said Surendra regarding the injuries which he had sustained.According to the doctor, the injuries were simple and in his opinion the age of injuries was within 24 hours and injury No.2 was possible by hard and blunt object and injury Nos. 3 and 4 were possible by hard and rough object.Regarding thumb injury he suggested examination through Orthopaedic surgeon.According to the said report, the said injuries were all possible during scuffle.The accused No.2 Indubai was also examined by the doctor and he found that there was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 ::: 10 bruising over forehead 1 cm.X 1 cm.and bruising above right eye-brow.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::According to him, the colour of the injuries were bluish black and he had noticed discolouration and central (lower) incisor was broken of the lower jaw.Regarding injury No.2, he had referred the patient to Dental Surgeon.According to him, the injury noticed on the person of original accused No.2-Indubai is possible during scuffle.He is the landlord of the premises occupied by the accused.According to the said witness, both the accused had come to him on 20th November, 2005 as they were in need of room on rent.He provided them room owned by him on rent.According to the said witness, the incident took place after about one month of providing the room to the accused .On the relevant day at about 10.00 p.m. he had returned back from duty and after taking dinner he was standing in front of his house and at about 10.30 p.m. one person had accompanied accused.He was having towel on his person.Both of them had entered the room which was let out to the accused-Surendra and thereafter he heard a loud talking inside the room.On the next day he came to know that somebody was killed near fish market.He saw the dead body at I.G.M. Hospital, Bhiwandi.The said dead body was of the person who had come along with the accused on the previous night.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::The prosecution also examined Police Officer Tawade as prosecution witness No.11 who had carried out the investigation of the case.In the cross-examination, the said police officer has stated that he had recorded the statement of PW 10 Ravindra.He had not stated in his statement that he came to know that somebody was murdered near the fish market and he had not specifically stated that he had been the I.G.M. Hospital at Bhiwandi where he saw the dead body and that it was of the same person who had accompanied Surendra in the previous night.The said witness has stated in the cross-examination that it is true to suggest hat he did not produce any document along with the charge-sheet that the said room is owned by witness Ravindra Ade, though he denied the suggestion that the accused persons were never residing there.Mr. Murtaza, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that since appellant and original accused No.2 were charged under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and when accused No.2 is acquitted, no conviction could have been recorded against the appellant.According to the learned advocate, if co-accused is acquitted then naturally the said benefit should also go to the appellant when it is proved that there was no common intention for committing the alleged offence.It is required to be noted that even though the house of the victim and his brother and cousins was just adjacent to the house of the accused, it is not possible to believe that till morning they could not ascertain the whereabouts of the deceased.It is submitted that the motive attributed is also stale one as so-called incident of illicit relationship of the wife of accused No.1 with deceased is alleged to have been one year old and thereafter for one year the wife of the appellant was residing in her native place in Bihar.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::As both the accused were charged under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, no specific role of the present appellant is brought on record and the appellant could not have been convicted for the alleged offence.It is submitted that since no independent charge under Section 302 of the IPC has been framed, the appellant could not have been convicted.No specific question was asked to the accused in this behalf under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code pointing out to the accused that as per the evidence on record, he had committed the murder of the deceased.It is submitted that even the blood group of the deceased and the appellant was the same and the blood group of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 ::: 13 the wife of the appellant was different.Therefore, it cannot be said that the blood group of deceased was found on the clothes of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::Mrs. Shinde, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that simply because separate charge under Section 302 is not framed, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant.The learned APP submitted that in view of the evidence of P.W. Nos. 7, 8 and 10, the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased and the doctor has also explained the injury sustained by the appellant-accused.It is submitted that in view of the same, since the motive is proved, as the appellant was having doubt that his wife is having illicit relationship with the victim and when the appellant-accused was last seen in the company of the deceased, the learned Judge has rightly convicted the appellant-accused.We have heard the learned counsel appearing in the matter at great length and have gone through the entire evidence.It is required to be noted that as per the evidence of PW 7 Udaykumar, the accused came to the room of the victim at the relevant time and the victim left along with the accused and had not returned till about 1.00 a.m. and thereafter they went to bed.As per the evidence of the said witness, the victim had left home along with the accused on the relevant day ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 ::: 14 at the relevant time.So far as witness No.8 Vinod Ram is concerned, the said witness has also left the room at about 9.30 p.m. but he was subsequently told by Mukesh that his brother had accompanied the accused and that he did not return back.So far as evidence of this witness is concerned, it is true that he had not seen the victim leaving the room along with the accused on the relevant day.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::PW 10, Ravindra, who is the owner of the room in question which was occupied by the accused, in his evidence has stated that at the relevant time one person accompanied accused Surendra and he was wearing towel on his person.He has stated that he heard a loud talking inside the room.Considering the evidence of the aforesaid witness, it can be said that at the relevant time accused had gone to the house of the deceased and thereafter the deceased accompanied him and went to the house of the appellant-In the aforesaid case, a charge was framed under 1 AIR 1994 SC 772 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 ::: 15 Sections 364, 302 /34 of the IPC against the accused for the kidnapping and murder of 6 year old child.In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as under:::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a further point for our consideration.According to him, there was no independent charge under Section 302, Indian penal Code either against the husband or against the wife.The husband having been acquitted and there being no independent charge u/s 302, IPC against the wife, she cannot be convicted for the said offence.1 1993 AIR SCW 1014 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 ::: 16::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::In the instant case, none of the witnesses have seen as to who was instrumental in strangulating the deceased.The blood group of the accused and deceased is found to be the same.Even as per the evidence of the landlord, he heard loud noise inside the room meaning thereby that some hot exchange of words might have taken place inside the house of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::It is also required to be noticed that the prosecution has failed to prove that after the accused had brought her wife back at Bhiwandi subsequently illicit relationship between his wife and the deceased continued.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.(P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) (R.G.KETKAR,J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:01 ::: | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,932,923 | The Division Bench by the very same judgment dismissed the appeals filed by A-1, A-6, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-17 and A-18, affirming the order of conviction, but the sentence for the conviction recorded by the trial court under Section 302 IPC (5 counts) as against A-1, A-6, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-17 and A-18 should run concurrently and not consecutively as ordered by the trial court.Consequently, the appeals filed by them in Criminal Appeal Nos.140 of 2005, 1032 of 2006, 15 of 2007, 162 of 2005, 1412 of 2004 and 1395 of 2004 were all dismissed.5.The present appeal was not even numbered at that time and therefore, the judgment dated 1.2.2007 could not deal with the case of A-2, who is the appellant in this appeal.6.On the side of the prosecution, as many as 35 witnesses were examined and 107 documents and 39 Material Objects were marked.All of them went to Sub Jail, Salem in the jeep bearing registration number TN 27 G 1013 driven by Tamilarasan, PW3 and having taken the aforesaid remand accused concerned in Crime No.334 of 1997 on the file of the Mettur Police Station proceeded via Omalur to Mettur and after the order of remand was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Mettur they were returning to Salem via Omalur.At about 4.45 pm on the said day, when the vehicle was crossing the railway gate at Omalur, there was a speed breaker and as a result of which PW3 had to slow down the vehicle.At that point of time, one Koola Nagarajan A1, Saravanan A9 and Murugesan A2 along with more than 15 persons came armed with lethal weapons and intercepted the vehicle.Country bomb was thrown at the vehicle and it exploded in front of the vehicle.The aforesaid persons having entered into the vehicle attacked the remand accused indiscriminately.When the deceased Natarajan, Sub Inspector of Police attempted to shoot the assailants, he was attacked all over his body and the gun he held was also snatched away.The remand accused were dragged out of the vehicle and were attacked indiscriminately which resulted in their instantaneous death.A1, Koola Nagarajan, sped away by Yamaha motorcycle.P.Ws.1 to 3 also sustained injury in the occurrence.8.PW1 saw the first accused speeding away in Yamaha vehicle.Thereafter, he got lift in a TVS 50 moped and proceeded towards Mettur.He found Mr.Promoth Kumar (PW34), Superintendent of Police, Salem coming from Mettur.He stopped his vehicle and informed him of the occurrence.Thereafter, PW34 proceeded to the scene of occurrence along with PW1 in his vehicle and having found the assailants taking to heels, he along with other police officials chased them.One of the accused threw a country bomb and as a result of which PW34 and other police officials sustained injuries.He shot the assailants and also ordered other police officials to shoot them.As a consequence, three persons were shot dead.In the said process, he also sustained injuries.10.The Sub Inspector of Police, Natarajan, since deceased, was retrieved from the scene of occurrence by one Selvaraj, Police Constable and was admitted to Government Hospital, Omalur for treatment.John Gurupatham, PW30, admitted the said Natarajan at about 5.20 pm on 29.10.1997, examined him and found him sustained some simple injuries.The wound certificate issued to Natarajan is marked as Ex.He descended at the scene of occurrence at about 6.45 pm on the same day and having retrieved P.Ws.1 to 3 therefrom admitted them to Government Hospital, Omalur at 7.00 pm on the same day.Kalyanaraman, PW27, having admitted P.Ws.1 to 3 for treatment, issued wound certificates Exs.P69, P70 and P71 classifying the injuries they sustained as simple in nature.12.Gowthaman (PW32), Sub Inspector of Police attached to Omalur Police Station, having received information Ex.P99 from Government Hospital, Omalur, proceeded to the Hospital at about 6.30 pm on 29.10.1997 along with Pachamuthu, PW24, Head Constable attached to the said Police Station.As the Sub Inspector of Police, Natarajan, was not in a position to script the first information, Pachamathu, PW24 reduced into writing the oral statement of the said Natarajan who was taking treatment.13.As per the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Inspector of Police Mr.P.Raju, PW35, having received a copy of the FIR at about 6.15 pm on the said day, proceeded to the scene of occurrence.15.At about 8.15 pm on the said day, PW35 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer.He also drew rough sketch Ex.P103 reflecting the scene of occurrence.The damaged jeep was recovered by him at 9.00 pm on the said day.Gun powder, M.O.1, Bullets, M.O.5 and M.O.6, Country Bomb, M.O.7, glass pieces, M.O.8, blood stained mud, M.O.9 and sample mud, M.O.10 were also recovered from the scene of occurrence in the presence of witnesses.Siddique Basha, PW31, photographer was engaged to take photographs of the scene of occurrence.A10, Anbarasan, was arrested at about 10.30 am on 13.10.1997 and on the basis of the admissible portion in his confession statement, knife was recovered at Chingalapatti Tank.The apparels worn by A10 were also recovered from him.Vallinayagam, PW23 conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the remand accused Murugan.He, having found as many as ten cut injuries all over his body, opined that he died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and issued post mortem certificate Ex.He also conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the remand accused Durai alias Duraian.He found as many as 13 cut injuries and subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage.He opined that the said Durai alias Duraian had died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of multiple injuries in the post mortem certificate Ex.He also conducted autopsy on the dead body of the remand accused Raja and having found as many as 16 cut injuries and subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage on both cerebral haemorrhage opined that he had died of head injuries in the post mortem certificate, Ex.17.The post mortem Constables recovered apparels and other articles found on the body of the aforesaid remand prisoners after the post mortem examination was over and entrusted them to PW35 for the purpose of investigation in this matter.On 4.11.1997, at about 7.00 am, PW35 arrested A4 Lakshmanan and on the basis of the admissible portion in the confession statement given by him, blood stained billhook was recovered at his instance.18.On 6.11.1997, at about 1.30 pm, A8 Kamaraj, A12 Selvam, A14 Shanmugam, A15 Karuppiah, A16 Manoharan, A17 Moorthy and A18 Dhanapal, were arrested and on the basis of the confession statement given by each of the accused, arms and ammunitions from the respective accused were recovered under the cover of relevant mahazars.19.On 10.11.1997, at about 9.30 am, A5 Saravanan, A6 Surendran and A11 Sankar, were arrested in the presence of witnesses.On the basis of the confession statements given by them, the weapons of offence were recovered at their instance.As A1 was arrested later in point of time, he was not subjected to Test Identification Parade.Likewise, A3, A7 and A13 also were not subjected to Test Identification Parade.On 1.2.1998 at about 3.00 pm, A13 Saminathan, who was involved in another Crime No.109 of 1998 on the file of Omalur Police Station, was arrested for the purpose of this case.On the basis of the confession statement given by him, a billhook was recovered at his instance.On 12.2.1998, at about 2.30 pm, A1 Nagarajan, who was involved in another Crime No.156 of 1998 on the file of Omalur Police Station, was arrested and on the basis of the confession statement given by him, Yamaha motorcycle and billhook were recovered at his instance.PW4 Kuppusamy, PW5 Govindaraj and PW6 Lakshmanan have spoken to the role of the accused in the ghastly crime of multiple murders.(The judgment of the court was delivered by S.RAJESWARAN, J.) Totally eighteen accused were charged in S.C.No.34 of 1999 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.2.A1 to A18 were charged for offences under sections 148, 307 read with 149 and 332 read with 149 IPC, and section 3(1) of the TNPPD Act read with section 149 IPC, A1 to A6 under sections 341 IPC and 3 of Explosive Substances Act, A7 to A18 under section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, A6 to A11 under section 332 IPC, A1 to A5, A7 to A10 and A12 to A18 under section 332 read with 149 IPC, A1 to A10 and A14 under section 302 read with 34 IPC, A2 to A9 and A11 to A13 and A15 to A18 under section 302 read with 149 IPC, A3, A4 and A8 under section 302 read with 34 IPC, A1, A2, A5 to A7 and A9 to A18 under section 302 read with 149 IPC, A5, A7, A15 and A17 under section 302 read with 34 IPC, A1 to A4, A6, A8 to A14 under section 302 read with 149 IPC, A2 to A6 and A18 under section 302 read with 34 IPC, A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A17 under section 302 read with 149 IPC, A11, A12, A13 and A16 under section 302 read with 34 IPC and A1 to A10, A14, A15, A17 and 18 under section 302 read with 149 IPC.3.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salem found A4, A5, A8, A12, A14, A15 and A16 not guilty under any of the aforesaid offences and found A1, A2, A3, A6, A7, A9, A10, A11, A13, A17 and A18 guilty for offences under sections 148, 341 and 302 IPC (five counts) and section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act and sentenced them each to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 148 IPC, one month simple imprisonment for offence under section 341 IPC and life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000/= each in default to undergo a further period of two years rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 302 IPC (five counts) and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. The sentence imposed for offences under sections 148 and 341 IPC and 3 of the Explosive Substances Act were ordered to run concurrently, but, the sentence imposed for offence under section 302 IPC (five counts) were directed to run consecutively.Fine amount imposed was directed to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the victims.It is pertinent to mention here that by a common judgment, dated 1.2.2007, the Division Bench of this court allowed the appeals filed by A-3, A-7 and A-13 by setting aside the conviction and acquitting them of all the charges.Consequently, the appeals filed by them in Criminal Appeal Nos.1439 of 2004, 195 of 2005 and 290 of 2005 were allowed.On the side of the defence, 13 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were marked.One K.K.Palanisamy, Additional Superintendent of Police was examined as court witness and four documents were marked as Court Exhibits.7.The case, in brief, of the prosecution, as unfolded by the witnesses examined on their side during the course of Trial, is as follows:-Both FIR and printed FIR were despatched to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur.The proceedings of the Test Identification Parade conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Muthusamy PW26 were marked as Exs.20.A3 Paramaswaran, who was involved in another Crime No.72 of 1998 on the file of Omalur Police Station, was arrested on 21.1.1998 at about 6.30 pm.They could also identify the first accused who participated in the occurrence.PW35 sent all the Material Objects for chemical examination.Having completed the investigation, PW35 laid final report as against the accused.21.The incriminating circumstances spoken to by the witnesses examined on the side of prosecution were put to the accused to respond under section 313 Cr.P.C. A4, A8, A12, A14, A16, A17 and A18 have set up a plea of alibi.The other accused have totally denied their role in the commission of murder of the remand accused.On the side of the defence, D.Ws.1 to 13 were examined.N.R.Dhanapal, DW9 was a Panchayat Councilor.Both of them have spoken to the surrender of A4, A8, A12, A14, A16, A17 and A18 by the public to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was camping at the Travelers Bungalow at Mettur.23.Balasubramaniam, DW2 and Nagarajan DW7 who are Labour Union Leaders have deposed to the effect that there was a surrender of the aforesaid accused by the public to the Deputy Superintendent of Police.They have also spoken to the effect that A4, A8, A12, A15 and A16 who worked as contract labourers in the Thermal Plant participated in the strike at Mettur at the time of the alleged occurrence on the fateful day.24.DW8 deposed that A17 and A18 worked in his field at the time when the occurrence unfolded.Bhuvaneshwari DW3 is none other than the wife of the first accused Nagaraj.She would state that the arrest of A1 was not effected as stated by the prosecution and in fact, A1 was taken away by the police from her residence at Tirupur.She would also state that A1 was manhandled by the investigating sleuths and as a result of which A1 sustained multiple injuries.25.Jaya, DW4 who is the wife of A14 Shanmugam and Selvi DW5 who is the wife of A12 Selvam have stated that their husbands worked in Thermal Power Station and participated in the strike on the fateful day.Santhi, DW6 would state that she went to the place where the strike was going on and discussed with her husband A4 Lakshmanan about the family problem at the time of occurrence.Mahaesraj, DW10, who is a relative of A7 Kalaivanan, would state that A7 was with him.Vasantha, DW11, mother of A10 Anbarasan would state that A10 was innocent but, the police apprehended him.Vellachi, DW12, the mother of A3 Parameswaran would also state that without any rhyme or reason, A3 was apprehended by the police.Jaya DW13, wife of A8 Kamaraj would state that A8 participated in the strike at the Thermal Plant at the time of occurrence.The wound certificate of PW3 was marked as Ex.27.The Trial Court, having thoroughly perused the evidence on record, found that A1, A2, A3, A6, A7, A9, A10, A11, A13, A17 and A18 were members of unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons and committed an offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and they have also obstructed the police escort jeep from proceeding further on the main road and thereby they committed an offence punishable under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.As the Trial Court was convinced that the aforesaid accused, as per the evidence available on record, used country bombs at the time of occurrence, they were found guilty of an offence punishable under section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act also.The aforesaid accused also were convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 read with 149 IPC (five counts) for the murder of five remand accused.As there was no legal evidence on record to establish the role of individual accused in attempting to murder of P.Ws.1 to 3, they were acquitted of the charge under section 307 IPC.A4, A5 A8, A12, A14, A15 and A16 were relieved of all the charges framed as against them as the prosecution could not establish beyond reasonable doubt their role in the crime alleged against them.28.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A-2 would vehemently contend that the First Information Report had not been recorded at the time when it had been allegedly recorded.The date seal found on the First Information Report does not synchronize with the date of signature of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned.The trial court failed to see that no weight could be attached to the conduct of the identification parade as the identification parade was conducted after a considerable delay.Further, the procedural formalities to be followed while conducting identification parade were not at all followed.He further contends that the trial court ought to have eschewed the evidence relating to the recovery of weapons as the weapons were recovered from the open place and there was no discovery of weapons pursuant to the confessional statement said to have been given by the accused.It is his further contention that no independent witnesses were examined and no credence could be given to the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 as they identified the accused in the court only that too for the first time.Therefore, he contends that A-2 should have been given benefit of doubt.29.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that P.Ws. 1 to 3 have categorically deposed before the court that A-2 was one of the assailants who participated and committed the ghastly crime as alleged against him.The First Information Report reached the court within a short span of time and therefore, the First Information Report is beyond the pale of any doubt.There is nothing wrong in recording the statements of the injured witness by a Grade I Constable.His association during the course of investigation does not prejudice the interest of the accused.Esak, PW17 has categorically stated that on receipt of information, he went to the scene of occurrence and retrieved P.Ws.1 to 3 and admitted them to hospital for treatment.John Gurupatham, PW30 has given treatment to the injured Natarajan and issued wound certificate Ex.Though P.Ws.1 to 3 have stated that unknown persons participated in the occurrence, the injured Natarajan has stated before Dr.John Gurupatham, PW30 that four known persons and some more unknown persons participated in the occurrence.The wound certificates further reveal that the injured Natarajan was admitted to hospital for treatment at 5.25 pm itself.Within 45 minutes, he had been taken to the hospital for treatment.Of course, it has been recorded in the wound certificate Ex.P96 that one Selvaraj, a Constable attached to K.Kudal Police Station accompanied the injured Natarajan.Unfortunately, the said Selvaraj was not examined before the court.But, such a lapse does not persuade us to disbelieve the testimony of Dr.John Gurupatham PW30 who issued the wound certificate Ex.31.The First Information Report, Ex.Both of them have stated that as the injured Natarajan was not in a position to reduce his version in writing, Pachamuthu, PW24 helped him to script the First Information Report.On a careful perusal of Ex.The learned Judicial Magistrate has received the said report along with the printed First Information Report, Ex.P100 at 8.25 pm on 29.10.1997 itself.Within a few hours, the vital documents had reached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur.32.The prosecution relied on two circumstances, i.e. identification of the accused by the witnesses and the recovery of weapons used by the accused during the occurrence, on their information.P.Ws.1,2 and 3 participated in the parade and P.W.1 identified all the accused except Shanmugam and Lakshmanan (A-14 and A-4).P.W.2 also identified all the accused except A-4. P.W.3 identified all the accused.Most of the accused have been arrested between 30.10.1997 and 10.11.1997 and identification parade was conducted on 12.11.1997 and therefore, it cannot be contended that there was an inordinate delay in conducting the identification parade.The arrest of the accused and the recovery of weapons have been supported by the evidence of private witnesses and nothing is brought forth from the evidence of private witnesses that there was necessity for them to give false evidence.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no independent witnesses were examined was only to be rejected as P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 have been examined as independent witnesses in this case and they are stated to be near the place of occurrence and this fact was not seriously disputed by the accused.All the aforesaid three witnesses have stated about the occurrence.In fact, they also spoke about A-1 leaving the place in the motor cycle, which tallies with the prosecution case.Further, the appellant herein (A-2) along with A-9 was caught red-handed near the occurrence place soon after the occurrence and ample evidences are available in this regard.33.We are convinced with the available evidence on record that the second accused also was a member of the unlawful assembly and having intercepted the police escort jeep, threw country bomb and committed the murder of the five remand prisoners along with other accused.There is no warrant for interference with the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court as against the second accused.Therefore, the above Criminal Appeal No.922 of 2007 stands dismissed.Further, there cannot be two terms of life for an individual.In that sense also, it will be ludicrous to order consecutive sentence of life.35.In view of the above, affirming the order of conviction as against A-2, Criminal Appeal No.922 of 2007 stands dismissed, but the sentence for the conviction recorded by the Trial Court under section 302 IPC (five counts) as against A-2 shall run concurrently and not consecutively as ordered by the Trial Court.The I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.Inspector of Police, Omalur Police Station.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,296,844 | 1 .11.2018 p.b.CRR 1385 of 2010 With CRR 2988 of 2008 CRAN 109 of 2018 In Re: Based Ali & Ors.None appears on behalf of the petitioner.I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.The brief facts leading to this revisional application is that the complainant Selina Bibi had lodged the FIR on 14th March, 1993 at 4 P.M against the petitioners including others, and the Kaliachak Police Station Case No.68 of 1993 2 was started and registered as G.R. Case No.340 of 1993 and on investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 148/448/ 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons.On 24th March, 2010 an application was filed under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the prosecution for alteration of additional charge on the contention that injured Naser Ali sustained cut injury on his left chest wall which is vital part of the body which could cause his death.The petitioner has alleged that no additional charge under Section 307 can be framed on the contention that the xerox copy of the injury report and the discharge certificate filed by the prosecution are all manufactured documents and there is no material before the court to believe prima facie that the accused persons attempted to cause murder of the alleged injured Naser Ali.By the order impugned dated 24th March, 2010 the learned trial Judge was of the following view:-"On perusal of the xerox copy of injury report and the discharge certificate, I find that the injured sustained injury on the vital part of his body and he was medically treated as an inpatient at Malda District Hospital for about two months.Therefore, if an additional charge u/s. 307 of IPC is framed, then the prosecution will get an opportunity to show that the xerox copy of injury report and the discharge certificate can be accepted as secondary evidence.On the other hand, the defence will also get opportunity to prove that those documents are manufactured documents, so neither party will be prejudiced.Therefore, considering all the circumstances, I think that the petition filed by the prosecution should be allowed for the ends of justice.Accordingly, the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution for framing of additional charge is considered and stands allowed.Fix 20.4.2010 for framing of additional charge u/s 307 of Cr.P.C. The accused persons on bail as before."Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that when there is an allegation and iota of prima facie evidence of injury on the chest part of the injured, the learned Judge has rightly passed the order with observation.Thus, the revisional applications and CRAN are disposed of.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order if applied for shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.(Shivakant Prasad, J.) | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,297,425 | Collector wherein the Dy.However,the presentapplicanthasnotparticipatedwiththeprocess ofinvestigationandheisabsconding.TheAuthorities havenotbeenabletotakefurtherstepsinthematter.Commissioner, Cooperative Societies was directed to register FIR againstapplicantMadanlalforillegally,unauthorisedly and fraudulently transferring the land in question.It wasfurtherstatedthattheapplicantwasappointedas Power of Attorney holder by Harjindersingh and Gyansingh, but the applicant has unauthorisedly and illegallytransferredthelandinquestiontoNavbharat GrihNirmanSahkariSanstha,Indore.Learnedcounsel for the objector has prayed for rejection of the bail application.The application deserves to be rejected and is accordinglyherebyrejected.However,itisclarifiedthat anyobservationmadebythisCourtshallnotbetreated asfinalopinionofthisCourtonthemerits/demeritsof thecase.CertifiedCopy,asperRules.This Court has carefully gone through the earlier orders passed in the matter as well as the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,330,238 | ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:47 :::The facts in brief, are as under : The complainant- Shri Dnyaneshwar Shalikram More had lodged a complaint against one Shri Trimbak Tukaramji Khandaray and his wife Sumitrabai Khandaray.According to complainant in January 2004 Sanjay ( late son of the accused persons) was in need of loan in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- which was given by the complainant.Late Sanjay repaid the hand-loan by cheque dated 28.2.2004 which complainant had encashed.Further, according to the complainant, a false suit was filed by the accused persons against the complainant taking unfair advantage of the entry of the cheque in the passbook of late Sanjay.Accused wanted to recover Rs. 15,000/- by filing a suit bearing No. RCS No.127/ 2004 instituted in the Court of learned Civil Judge, JD, Akot.The complainant further stated that cock and bull story was made out by the accused.The accused had also produced and used in evidence document Exh.29 knowing that it is a forged and fabricated document but used it against the complainant in judicial proceedings.The learned ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:47 ::: 3 Civil Judge, JD, Akot had dismissed that suit filed by the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:47 :::According to the complainant the document( Exh.29 ) in that suit was a forged and fabricated document which accused had used in a judicial proceeding knowingly although it is a false and fabricated.Thus, it is alleged that the accused committed offence punishable under section 196 IPC.Using the said forged document, they also committed offence punishable under section 463, 464, 465, 466, 470 and 471 of the IPC.On this ground, the complaint was instituted for to take action and punish the accused for the aforesaid offences, It appears that verification of the complainant was also recorded in support of the complaint.The learned JMFC who perused the complaint and documents and also scrutinized the report of police under section 202 Cr.P. C. prima facie observed that it was a civil dispute between both the parties in the Court and prima facie there was no evidence on record to show that the accused committed the alleged offence.Aggrieved by this order, the Revision Application No.45/ 2006 was filed by the complainant challenging the validity, legality ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:47 ::: 4 and correctness of the same.The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akot found that document labeled as 'Akhiv Patrika' in the Regular Civil Suit No.127/2004 with a certificate issued by the Nazul Office, Akot, made it clear that the accused had produced disputed document Akhiv Patrika in the suit.According to the complainant, there was no such plot standing in his name and no such record in the Nazul Office to show that complainant owned plot No. 370 from Akot town.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:47 :::According to the complainant, the disputed document Akhiv Patrika had no basis on the Nazul record of Akot town and, therefore, the accused had prima facie produced a false document using it against the complainant in the suit.The complainant made a grievance that no opportunity was given to the complainant to lead evidence at all in respect of the accusation.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:47 :::The impugned order reads thus :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:47 :::Learned Magistrate appears to have ignored essential procedure mentioned in Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge who took into consideration the ruling in Iqbalsingh's case referred to above, rightly allowed the Revision Application by the reasoned judgment.The learned Magistrate is expected to deal with the complaint filed before it in accordance with law and precautions will have to be taken as mentioned in Chapter XV of Cr .P.C. read further with section 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. the procedure ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:47 ::: 9 as contemplated in accordance with law in the light of interpretation as observed by the Apex Court in Iqbalsingh's case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:47 :::For all the above reasons, no ground whatsoever is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order in exercise of inherent powers by this Court.The Application is dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:47 ::: | ['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,933,030 | R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, D. P. Singh and A. K. Gupta,for the appellants.At the material time, the two deceased, along with the mem-bers of their family, and the appellants lived in villageNir in District Hardoi, and, except for appellants JugalKishore and his brother Kailash Narain, they are closerelations, their common ancestor being one Jhabha Singh.The evidence, however, shows a long-standing enmity betweenthe members of the branch of Sobaran Singh, one of the sonsof Jhabha Singh, on the one hand and the rest of thedescendants of Jhabha Singh on the other.It also showsthat since 1950, there has been intermittently civil andcriminal litigation between the parties, the last of suchlitigation before the incident in question being in respectof an incident which took place on April 3, 1966 whenappellant Ram Kumar charged the deceased Harihar and LalSingh, and witnesses Jitendra and Virendra and two otherswith rioting and witness Virendra, in turn, filed a crosscomplaint against the appellants and some others.According to the prosecution, at about 1 p.m. on June 5,1966, Lal Singh was irrigating his field with canal waterwhen appellants L8 Sup.C.1.168-10776Karnesh and Avdesh diverted the water into their field.There was an exchange of abuses between them in the courseof which appellant Karnesh was said to have threatened thathe would not rest until Lal Singh was done to death.Atabout 5.30 that evening, Jitendra, Virendra and Girendra, P.Ws. 1, 6 and 8 were in the main room of the Chaupal whereLal Singh lived and Lal Singh was in a room nearby.Fiftypaces away from this house is the house where the deceasedHarihar lived, Suddenly, a shout was heard to the effectthat Lal Singh should be dragged out.The witnesses sawappellants Krishna and Chhetrapal armed with guns, appellantKarnesh with a pistol, Rain Kumar and Jugal Kishore withspears, appellants Kaushal and Mahendra with banks and therest with lathis.As soon as Lal Singh came out, appellantsKrishna, Chhetrapal and Karnesh simultaneously fired at himwhereupon Lal Singh fell on the ground.On being threatenedthat the witnesses would also be shot, they ran away andstood at some distance.The other five appellants took LalSingh's body to the Bathis of P.W. 4, Abdul Bari, and burntit there on a heal) of cowdung cakes.Having thus tried todo away with the dead bodies, appellants Kaushal andMahendra scraped the blood.stained earth where Lal Singh hadfallen as also the drops of blood which had fallen on theway.P. W. 1, Jitendra, started on cycle to the Kotwali sixmiles away and lodged the F.I.R. at about 6-45 P.M.Inspector Jaswant Singh, P. W. 17, started for the scene ofoffence reaching there at about 7-45 P.M. The fires were putout but Lal Singh's body had practically been burnt out withthe result that the Inspector could collect only his bonesand ashes.O. P. Rana, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byShelat, J.-This appeal, by special leave is directed againstthe judgment of the High Court of Allahabad which confirmedthe convictions and sentences passed by the Sessions Judge,Hardoi, in respect of the murders of Lal Singh and hisfather Harihar.The ten appellants on being convicted underss.302 and 201 read with S. 149 of the Penal Code wereawarded various sentences.Four of them, namely, KarneshKumar, Krishna Kumar, Kaushal Kumar and Chhetrapal wereawarded death sentence and the rest imprisonment for life.On hearing the shout,these witnesses and Lal Singh came out.Five of these appellants, namely,Chhetrapal, Kaushal, Mahendra, Kailash and Jugal Kishorethen ran to Harihar's house where appellant Jugal Kishorestruck Harihar with a spear in his face and then appellantsKaushal and Jugal Kishore dragged him to where Lal Singh hadfallen.Chhetrapal then fired at Harihar with his gun;Jugal Kishore gave another blow with his spear in the chestand the rest beat him with bankas and lathis.Harihar alsodied on the spot.But he was able to recover the half burnt body.of Harihar.That night he recorded the statements of P. Ws.1, 6, 7, 8, 14 and of certain other persons.On the 7th and8th he recorded further statements.On June 20, he recordedthe statements of Raghubar, P. W. 9 and Gopali, P. W. 12.It appears that statements of these witnesses were recordedlate as these and other residents, presumably on account offear of reprisals or to avoid having to figure as witnesses,had fled from the village.The evidence on which the prosecution mainly relied was thatof the four eye witnesses.of these, Jitendra, P. W. 1, theson and brother of Harihar and Lal Singh respectively,Virendra, P. W. 6, his cousin, and Girendra, P. W. 8, a boyof 14 years of age and the younger brother of Lal Singhdeposed to the assault by the appellants on both thedeceased.Santosh Kumari, P. W. 7, the daughter of Harihar,deposed only to the assault on Harihar in the house.Besides this evidence, the prosecution examined Raghubar,Jeet, Gopali and Surat Singh, P. Ws. 9, 11, 12 and 14, theneighbours of the deceased, who in one part or the othercorroborated the eye witnesses.Gopali's evidence was,however, the only direct evidence as to the scrapping of theblood-stained earth by two of the appellants but thatevidence was not relied upon by the High Court on the groundthat his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and hisstatement was recorded late.There was, however, theevidence of the eye witnesses that blood had dropped whereLal Singh had fallen and of the Investigating Officer thatwhen he inspected the site that night, though he found noblood marks, he noticed that the earth at that place hadbeen scrapped.It is clear that, no one except theassailants, who had burnt of the dead bodies of Harihar andLal Singh to do, away with evidence as to the two murders,would be interested also in doing away with an equallyimportant evidence as to the place where Lal Singh had beenkilled by scrapping off the blood where he had fallen.Scrapping of blood from that place was thus in line with andpart of the stratagem of burning the bodies of the victimsso as not to leave any evidence of the killing of the twomen.This part of the evidence lends support to Jitendra'scase that Lal Singh was fired at and fell at or near theintersection of the roads just outside his house.It is true that only these four members of the familyfigured as eye-witnesses.But that fact alone cannot meanthat P. W. 1 or the investigating agency excluded otheravailable independent witnesses.This is clear from thefact that the F.I.R. mentions a number of persons whom P. W.1. thought to be eye-witnesses.There is evidence that theincident had created panic in the village and a number ofresidents had fled and had stayed away possibly with a viewto avoid having to figure as witnesses.It is, thereforehardly surprising that only the members of the family cameforward as eye-witnesses.But as they were interestedwitnesses both by reason of their being members of thefamily and their sharing the hostility of the two victimstowards the appellants, their evidence had to be examinedwith care and caution.But there was circumstantialevidence to lend support to their account of the incident.That evidence established the following facts (1) the Ionstanding enmity between the parties, (2) the incident havingtaken place at about 5-30 P.m., (3) the burning of the twobodies by the appel-lants, (4) the scrapping of the earth to wipe out the blood-stains (5) P. Ws. 6 and 8 having run to the house ofSurat Singh, P. W. 14, the village Pradhan and havinginformed him of the incident, (6) P.W. 1 lodging the F.I.R.without any delay and giving therein the details of theincident, the names of the appellants and of witnesses whomhe thought to be eye witnesses and (7) the injuries onHarihar's body which could still be seen by Dr. Srivastavathough it had been burnt, indicating three types of weaponshaving been deployed against him, namely, a fire-arm, aspear and a sharp cutting instrument.The trial court and the High Court found from this evidencethat the account of the incident given by the witnesses wasacceptable despite certain discrepancies therein, that itoccurred at about 5-30 P.m., that Lal Singh was shot at andkilled just outside his house, that Harihar was firstattacked inside his house and then dragged to where LalSinghs body lay and was there killed, that the appellantswere responsible for the assault and the consequent deathsof the two victims, that in order to leave no trace of the,two assaults they burnt the bodies of the victims andscrapped the earth where blood had fallen, that they formedan unlawful assembly of which the common object was tomurder the father and the, son and that they attacked andkilled both in furtherance of that common object and thentried to do away with the evidence of their acts and burntthe two bodies.He argued that the trial court and the High Court failed toappreciate from the evidence on record that the prosecutionhad deliberately tried to shift the time of the incident at5-30 that evening though the incident must have taken placesubsequently, in order to enable the four witnesses to poseas eye witnesses.The evidence of Jitendra and theInvestigating Officer was that the F.I.R. was lodged at 6-45P.m.and that Jitendra had started from the village at 6P.m.on cycle for the police station.The evidence of theInvestigating.Officer also is that he reached the spotsoon thereafter, that the body of Harihar was not fullyburnt out, and that he could manage to extract the halfburnt body from the fire.The evidence of Dr. Srivastavasupports this evidence in a large measure.not seen it, he could not have reported it to the policeofficer in time to enable the police officer to arrive atthe scene and extract the half burnt body of Harihar fromthe fire.This fact clearly supports the prosecution thatthe incident took place that evening and not at night.The argument was that if the body had beendispatched to the mortuary soon after it was recovered bythe police officer, it would have reached the mortuaryearlier and the postmortem examination would have beencarried out earlier.But the evidence of Maqbool Khan, P.W. 15, shows that the body was given to him, at 10 thatnight, that, he carried it in a bullock cart, that hestarted at about 1 A.m.but on the way he feared that thebody might be taken away from him and, therefore, he stoppedat an intervening village till sunrise and reached themortuaryat 6-30A.M. It is true that the doctor said that heperformed the post-mortem examination at 5 P.m. and not at 1p.m. as the constable deposed.Obviously, the constableappears to have delayed in his mission and there was a gapof time between the body reaching the mortuary and the timewhen the postmortem examination was performed.But thedelay in the postmortem examination does not mean that theInvestigating Officer had not handed over the body to theconstable that night or that the incident did not take placein the evening of the 5th of June or that the F.I.R. was notlodged at 6-45 P.m.The contention was that if the Investigating Officerhad sent the special report before he started for the sceneof the offence, as stated by him, the Magistrate was boundto receive it on the night of the 5th and not on the 6th ofJune.But the Magistrate admitted that he had not noted thetime when he received it on the 6th.He also admitted thathe could not say whether he was in Hardoi on the 5th ofJune, it being a, Sunday, and that it was possible that hispeon might have received it in the evening of the 5th andplaced it before him on the 6th of June when he noted thedate of its receipt.There is also evidence of the Readerto the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi that his office hadreceived the General Diary of the 5th on the 6th and of the6th on the 7th June.This evidence establishes that the InvestigatingOfficer had sent the special report on the 5th of June andthat report was carried to Hardoi that very night.Consequently, it must be held that the incident took780place in the evening of the 5th of June, and that P. W. 1.was right when he claimed that he had given the F.I.R. at 6-45 P.M.The next contention was that the place of attack on LalSingh was not on the road but in Harihar's house.We findno basis for this contention.The evidence of witnesses onthe other hand, is clear and there is no reason todisbelieve it.That evidence is supported by the evidenceof the Police Officer that he found signs of scrapping ofthe earth at the place where, according to the prosecution,Lal Singh had fallen.The next contention was that witnesses Jitendra and SantoshKumari had tried to make improvements in their evidence, theformer by stating that the three accused who were armed withfirearms had shot simultaneously at Lal Singh though in theF.I.R. he had only said that three shots were fired withoutstating who had fired them, and the latter by stating thatJugal Kishore had struck his spew in the eye of Harihar,which allegation was not borne out by the medical testimony.These infirmities, no doubt, are in their evidence.Butthey were considered by the High Court and yet on anexamination of the entire evidence, it accepted theirevidence as reliable.That three shots were fired wasstated by witness Jitendra both in the F.I.R. and inevidence.It may be that from that fact coupled with thefact that the three appellants were armed with fire-arms, hemight have inferred that all the three had fired.For awitness like him, it was possible not to be able todistinguish between a fact seen by him and an inferencedrawn by him.Failure to appreciate such a distinctioncannot mean that he was deliberately improving upon hisoriginal version.As regards Santosh Kumari, a spear injurywas inflicted on Harihar's face and that injury must havecovered his face with blood.Theseinfirmities, even if they can rightly be so termed, cannotdiscredit their testimony so as to render it unacceptable.Counsel then argued that though P. Ws. 9 and 11 werereferred to in the F.I.R. as eye witnesses, they did notcome out in their evidence as eye witnesses and that factshowed that P. W. 1 had tried to introduce them falsely aseye- witnesses.He forgets, however, that there are twodistinct alternatives, (1) that he saw them at the scene ofthe offence after the incident and believed they had seen itand (2) that though the witnesses had seen it, like theother neighbours, they preferred not to figure as eyewitnesses and circumscribed the scope of their evidence towhat they had seen after the assault.In either event, P.W. 1 cannot be said to have falsely tried to usher them inthe F.I.R. as eyewitnesses.The argument which counsel strenuously urged was that thoughindependent eye witnesses were available, they were pur-posely excluded and only the family members were examined aseye witnesses.In this connection he relied on the F.I.R.where P. Ws. 9 and 11, one Chhuta Bhurji, Alha Singh, LakhanSingh, Paragu, Parsadi, Sishupal, Girdhari Kachhi and "someother men" were said to be witnesses.In his evidence alsoP. W. 1 has mentioned that these persons and a few otherswere present at the time of the incident.And yet thesepersons were not examined.The prosecution, however, didexplain that these persons were not examined either becausethey had been won over by the opposite side or because someof them had failed to identify the appellants from theidentification parades held for them, which, according tothe prosecution, indicated that they had been won over.Theexplanation, however, does not- apply to two persons, viz.,Parsadi and Paragu, for whose non-examination the onlyexplanation given was that they were not necessarywitnesses.The High Court does not appear to have beensatisfied with this explanation and, therefore, has observedthat it would have been better if these two persons had beenexamined., It may bethat if a clarification had been demanded, they would havegiven some explanation.For the reasons aforesaid, the contentions of Mr. Gargcannot be sustained.In imposing the sentenceof death on these four appellants, the trial court made adistinction between them on the one hand and the rest of theappellants on the other.The distinction was made on theground that three of them were armed with fire-arms and thatthey all fired at Lal Singh simultaneously, that appellantChhetrapal had shot at Harihar also and finally, thatappellant Kaushal had given a hatchet blow to Harihar.Inour view, the evidence on which this distinction was madecannot be said to be fully satisfactory.It is true that P.W. 1 while giving evidence stated that the three appellantshad fired simultaneously at Lal Singh, that Chhetrapal hadalso fired at Harihar and that Kaushal had given a hatchetblow to him.But the F.I.R. merely states that three shotswere fired at Lal Singh but does not state that they werefired by the three appellants simultaneously, nor does itstate that Chhetrapal had fired at Harihar after he had been 783dragged out on the road.It is hardly conceivable that ifP. W. 1 had seen these appellants firing either at Lal Singhor at Harihar, he would have forgotten to make a positivestatement about it in the F.I.R. In view of this omission,it is difficult to build the conclusion with any certaintyon his subsequent statement that the three appellants hadsimultaneously fired at Lal Singh and that Chhetrapal hadshot at Harihar after he had been brought out of the house.The possibility of any one or two of them having fired thethree shots in quick succession cannot, therefore, be ruledout.In that case the distinction made on the basis thatall the three of them had fired at Lal Singh cannot besustained.Therefore, the reason given by the trial judgefor imposing the extreme penalty on these four appellants asagainst the rest becomes difficult to sustain.It is truethat these four appellants were armed with firearms and ahatchet.But the others also were armed with equallydangerous weapons, such as spears and bankas.Except for this modification the appeal fails and isdismissed,. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,303,685 | (I) In the event of arrest of applicants in Crime No. 203/2018 registered with Alibaug Police Station, they be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount.(II) Applicants shall attend the Investigating Officer on 17/01/2019, 19/01/2019, 22/01/2019 and 25/01/2019 between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon.(III) Applicants shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence.::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 06:02:22 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,304,172 | This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant no.1 against the judgment and sentence dated 17/2/2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.179/2011 and the applicant no.2 has filed this revision against the judgment and sentence dated 17/2/2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.258/2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind thereby affirming the judgment and sentence dated 19/4/2011 passed by the JMFC, Lahar, District Bhind in Criminal Case No.202/2005 by which the applicants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 452 and 323 of IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of four months and a fine of Rs.200/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 452 of IPC and a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 323 of IPC with default imprisonment.The necessary facts for the disposal of this revision in short are that on 15/6/2005 one Moolchand, the relative of the complainant- Pahalwan, had some dispute with the son of applicant No.2-Ghure Khan.On this issue, at about 8 in the night on 16/6/2005 the applicants came inside the house of the complainant.The applicant no.1 was having an axe in his hand, whereas the applicant no.2 was having a Lathi.Both the applicants started abusing the complainant and the applicant no.2 gave a Lathi blow on the back of the injured- Kanhaiyalal, whereas the applicant no.1 assaulted by the handle of his axe on the waist of the injured-Kanhaiyalal.When the complainant- Pahalwan tried to intervene in the matter, the applicant no.1 assaulted on his left hand, whereas the applicant no.2 gave a teeth bite on his back and pressed his neck.The incident was witnessed by Kathole and Karu Baghel, who intervened in the matter.The FIR was lodged on 17/6/2005 and the police after registering the FIR, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against the applicants for offence under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 Part-II, 324, 34 of IPC.The trial court by order dated 23/11/2005 framed charges against the applicants for offence under Sections 452, 324/34, 323/34 and 506 Part-II of IPC.The applicants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.It appears that during the pendency of the trial the complainant filed an application under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence against applicant no.1-Kailash.The trial court by order dated 29/11/2010 partially allowed the application and discharged the applicant no.1 for offence under Sections 324/34, 323/34 and 506 Part-II of IPC and directed that the prosecution of the applicant no.1 shall continue for offence under Section 452 as well as for offence under Section 323/34 of IPC for causing injury to Kanhaiyalal.After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hearing both the parties, the trial court convicted the applicants for offence under Section 452 as well as for offence under Section 323 of IPC for causing injury to Kanhaiyalal and sentenced the applicants to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four months and a fine of Rs.200/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 452 of IPC and fine of Rs.500/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 323 of IPC.Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentenced passed by the trial court, the applicants filed Criminal Appeals, which were registered as Criminal Appeal No.179/2011 and Criminal Appeal No.258/2011 and were decided by common judgment dated 17/2/2012 and the appeals were dismissed.Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that deterrence is the basic feature of sentencing policy, therefore, where the applicants have trespassed and had caused injuries to the injured persons, then no leniency can be shown to the applicants on the question of quantum of sentence.Heard learned counsel for the parties.10.1 From the record, it is clear that the complainant-Pahalwan had resolved his dispute with the applicant no.1 and had also filed an application under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C. before the trial court itself, which was partially allowed and the applicant no.1 was discharged for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34, 323/34 and 506 Part-II of IPC and since the offence under Section 452 of IPC was not compoundable and the other injured-Kanhaiyalal had not filed any application for compounding the offence, therefore, the applicant no.1 was directed to be prosecuted for offence under Sections 452 and 323/34 of IPC. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,307,456 | However, before entering into the core issue the facts which gave rise to these applications for anticipatory bail be briefly noted.On May 21, 2010 one Madan Tamang a leader of ABGL (Akhil Bharatio Gorkha League), a political party was supervising the arrangement for celebration of the foundation day of their party at a place called Club Side Road Stand just below the planters' club, Darjeeling and at that time, a group of 400 supporters of the rival political party GJMM being armed with khukries, patang, swords, sticks and firearms attacked and brutally killed him.It was alleged by the de facto complainant the incident took place in presence of police, security personnel, media persons and members of the general public and in broad day 11 light.Following the aforesaid incident an FIR relating to the offence punishable under section 147/148/149/427/506/302/120B IPC was registered at Darjeeling Sadar Police Station.Initially, the investigation was undertaken by the local police and then same was handed over to the CID, West Bengal.a) Sessions case pending in the court of the Sessions Judge, Darjeeling was transferred to the court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Calcutta Civil and Sessions Court and the records be sent down to the transferee court 13 within two week from the production of the copy of the order before the court, where the case is pending;b) Upon receipt of the case records the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Calcutta Civil and Sessions Court shall forthwith commence proceeding by ensuring the presence of the accused and the prosecution agency.C.R.M. No. 5221 of 2015 with C.R.M. No. 5222 of 2015 with C.R.M. No. 5223 of 2015 with C.R.M. No. 5224 of 2015 with C.R.M. No. 5294 of 2015 with C.R.M. No. 5295 of 2015 With CRAN 1362 of 2016 Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr.After completion of the further investigation the CBI on May 29, 2015 submitted supplementary charge-sheet under section 150/506/302 IPC and under section 147/148/149/427/506/302/120B IPC respectively against the petitioners and comprehensive report before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bichar Bhavan, Kolkata.Having regard to the fact, upon receipt of the supplementary charge-sheet learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners, on the prayer of the CBI.Apprehending arrest they have now applied for anticipatory bail before this court.All the aforesaid anticipatory bail applications were for the first time listed before this bench for hearing on June 10, 2015 and again on June 12, 2015 and on both the days hearing was adjourned since the counsel of the parties and counsel of CBI were not available.However, on June 15, 2015 and June 16, 2015 the matter was heard-in-part and hearing was adjourned for two weeks on the prayer of the learned counsel for the CBI.Again on July 1, 2015 the hearing was adjourned for a period of four weeks, at the behest of the CBI, since CBI intended to engage a senior counsel.On July 31, 2015 the learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. Manindar Singh (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as the "ASG") appeared on behalf of the CBI and filed an affidavit challenging the maintainability of the aforesaid anticipatory bail applications and hearing was 3 adjourned for a period of 4 weeks for filing affidavit-in-opposition by the petitioners and the same were filed within the stipulated period.It be noted that when earlier on two occasions, these applications were heard-in-part then neither the counsel of CBI nor the counsel appearing for the widow of the victim raised any question on the point of maintainability.Thereafter, as many as on nine occasions, on August 26, 2015; November 17, 2015; December 8, 2015; February 15, 2016; February 17, 2016; March 1, 2016; April 6, 2016; April 26, 2016 and June 29, 2016 hearing was adjourned due to the non-availability of the learned ASG and finally on July 29, 2016 he appeared and concluded his submission on the point of maintainability.The main thrust of argument of the learned ASG rest and emanated from the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with Writ Petition (Crl) No. 159 of 2012 (paragraph 41 and 42) and its conclusion (paragraph 43).It was vehemently contended by keeping the writ petition pending with those unusual directions, the Apex Court clearly and expressly intended to monitor and supervise further investigation and ensure expeditious conclusion of the trial.According to the learned ASG on the face of the direction of the Apex Court that during further investigation CBI shall ensure collection of all required evidence and the accused persons found to be involved in the offence be brought before the court for being dealt with in accordance with law the right of the petitioners, charge-sheeted accused to approach this court for anticipatory bail shall no more survive and simultaneously when a rider added in the order that the petition is kept pending for passing necessary order, if and when required, 4 the jurisdiction of the High Court to even entertain these applications for anticipatory bail stands ceased.Therefore, these applications for anticipatory bail can only be entertained and adjudicated by the Apex Court alone and not by any other court not even by the High Court.He further contended in the above backdrop High Court should decline to entertain this application for anticipatory bail and the petitioners if are so advised they might approach the Apex Court for pre-arrest bail.He further submitted because of pendency of these applications for anticipatory bail, the commencement of trial has been delayed for about a year, although according to the directions of the Apex Court, the trial ought to have been commenced by now.The initial investigation was carried out by the local police then by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), West Bengal and after completion of its investigation on August 30, 2010 charge-sheet was submitted against 30 accused persons for the self-same offences with a prayer for permission to continue with further investigation.On January 19, 2011 pursuant to a notification issued under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 the further investigation of the case was entrusted to the CBI, Special Crime Branch, Kolkata when a regular case was registered (RC-1(S)/11/Kol) for the self-same offences.Thereafter, in the midst of further investigation on August 20, 2011 the supplementary charge-sheet was filed by the CBI against one co- accused that was also for the self-same offences and before the CBI finally closed the investigation, the wife of the deceased moved the aforesaid writ application.On that day and again on 12, 2015 this court suo moto adjourned the haring of those applications since the counsel of the parties including the counsel for the CBI were not available.Thereafter on June 15, 2015 and June 16, 2015 we heard the counsel for the parting including the counsel for the CBI, Md. Ashraf Ali.On June 16, 2015 the hearing was adjourned for two weeks on the prayer of the learned counsel for the CBI.Again on July 2, 2015 the hearing was adjourned for a period of four weeks at the behest of the CBI since CBI intended to engage a senior counsel.It be noted this particular Bench was not sitting from August 3, 2015 to August 17, 2015 since one of us (Malay Marut Banerjee, J) was to sit in Circuit at Andaman Nicobar.Since the counsel for the de facto complainant opposed such prayer for adjournment and insisted for early hearing the counsel for the CBI agreed that the matter be listed on April 6, 2016 and prayer was allowed.In the meanwhile 2 to 4 days the matter was listed before us.On July 28, 2016 the learned ASG as also the learned counsel for the petitioners were heard at length on the question of maintainability of these applications for anticipatory bail and hearing was adjourned till the next day.On July 29, 2016 the hearing was adjourned till August 3, 2016 as jointly prayed for by the counsel for the parties.Again the matter was heard on August 10, 2016 and on the prayer of the learned counsel for the CBI Mr. Ashraf Ali hearing was adjourned for a period of one week.Then again on August 22, 2016 hearing was adjourned till August 29, 2016 on the prayer of the CBI.On August 30, 2016 hearing was again adjourned for a period of another week on the prayer of the CBI.On September 8, 2016 and September 14, 2016 , September 20, 2016 hearing was adjourned on the prayer of CBI.On that day, hearing on the question of maintainability was closed. | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,932,234 | The material part of the written statement filed by them therein marked as Ex. A is as follows:P.W. 3, Tirumal Kone's wife is being kept by Mappilaisami.Thevar for the past two years and she is given jewels worth Rs. 300 and two bulls and eight kalams of paddy through P.W. 2 every year.The said Chottachami Thevar was keeping his wife's cousin Papathi and she is given ten kurrukams of Kolangorvai.them at the instance of Mappilaisami Thevar and his agents.ORDER Rajamannar, J.These two revision cases are closely connected.The petitioners are the same in both. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,932,240 | The charge against the appellant is that at 8.00 p.m. on 08.07.1996,with an intention to murder one Veliah, he attacked the said Veliah with a knifeon his left side chest, left thigh, right ankle, face and on the front of thehead and caused his death, which is punishable under Section 302 IPC.The case of the prosecution, as discerned from the evidence ofprosecution witnesses, is as follows.4.2. P.W.1 Mani is the son and P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased.P.W.5is the brother of the deceased.According to P.W.1, there was prior enmity between the deceased andthe accused on account of the events, namely, a goat belonging to the deceasedentered into the house of the accused and ate the grass kept there and onanother occasion, the cattle belonging to the deceased entered into the house ofthe accused and damaged the grass kept therein.According to P.W.1, at about 8.00 p.m. on the previous day to thedate of occurrence, when he went to the shop of P.W.4 Kumaravel, he casuallyspit on the floor, but the accused, who was coming from the opposite side, feltthat he was insulted and stared at P.W.1 and left the place.Thereafter, on the date of occurrence viz., 8.7.1996 at about 8.00p.m., when P.W.1 went to the shop belonging to P.W.4, the deceased was also onhis way to the Bazaar.On seeing P.W.1, the accused, who was standing near theshop of P.W.4, caught hold of the shirt of P.W.1 and threatened him to stab.P.W.1 warded off.Thereafter, the attempted stab bythe accused fell on the left rib of the deceased, followed by stab injury on theright shoulder and cut injuries on the right thigh, face and forehead.Immediately, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint.According to the prosecution, besides P.W.1, the occurrence was alsowitnessed by the wife and brother of the deceased, namely, P.Ws.3 and 5respectively, apart from P.Ws.2, 4, 6 and 7, who, however, turned hostile.P.W.14, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, based on Ex.P-1 complaint,registered a case in Crime No.459/1996 on the file of Eral Police Station underSections 341 and 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P.W.16, Inspector of Police took up the investigation in the case,reached the scene of occurrence at 11.15 p.m. on 08.07.1996 and prepared Ex.P-2observation mahazar, Ex.P-13 rough sketch and caused the place of occurrence tobe photographed.M.O.4 series are the photographs taken by P.W.10 photographer.He conducted inquest over the dead body between 00.15 a.m. to 02.45 a.m. on09.07.1996, prepared Ex.P-14 inquest report and thereafter sent the body forpostmortem through P.W.13, police constable with Ex.P-6 requisition.Duringinquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements.He recoveredM.O.1, bloodstained earth and M.O.2, sample earth in the presence of P.W.8 andanother.P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem over the dead body andfound five external injuries, out of which four are stab injuries and one isincised wound.P.W.9 was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to havedied of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs, about 14 to 18hours prior to post mortem.After post mortem, P.W.13 removed M.O.5 dhoti, M.O.6, brown colourtowel and M.O.7 waist cord from the dead body and handed over the dead body tothe relatives.P.W.16, Inspector of Police arrested the accused at 12.00 noon on09.07.1996 near the northern entrance of Eral bus stand and examined him in thepresence of P.W.8 and another.Theappeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J) The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.421 of 1999 on thefile of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track court No.II, TuticorinDistrict.He questions the correctness of the judgment dated 29.04.2002rendered in the above stated sessions case, where under the appellant wasconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced toundergo imprisonment for life.P-4 is the admissible portion of thevoluntary statement given by the accused, pursuant to which M.O.3 knife, allegedto have been used for the commission of offence was recovered.He alsorecovered M.O.8, dhoti, and M.O.9, shirt worn by the accused.He sent theaccused for judicial remand.He examined P.W.8 and others and recorded theirstatements.On 15.07.1996 he examined P.W.9 post-mortem doctor and recorded hisstatement.He gave Ex.P-9, requisition to the court for sending the materialobjects for chemical examination.P.W.15 is the Magisterial Clerk, who received the requisition Ex.P-9from the Inspector of Police for forwarding the material objects to thelaboratory under Ex.P-10, Court's letter and also Ex.P-11 Chemical Examiner'sReport as well as Ex.P-12 Serologist's Report.P.W.11 is the Electrician, who deposed that the street lights wereon throughout the night on 8.7.1996, the date of occurrence.No oral ordocumentary evidence was brought forth by the accused before the court.The trial court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidenceplaced before it, found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him asreferred to earlier.The point for consideration in the appeal is whether the prosecutionhas brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts forconvicting him under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo lifeimprisonment.We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions ofthe learned counsel on either side.To prove the guilt of the accused, though the prosecution examined asmany as seven witnesses, besides the mahazar witnesses as well as officials,only P.Ws.1 and 3 spoke about the occurrence as eye-witnesses, and theremaining witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2, 4, 6 and 7 turned hostile.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, namely, son and wife of the deceasedrespectively, corroborates with each other to the effect that just one dayprior to the occurrence, at about 8.00 p.m., when the accused was crossing theshop of P.W.4, P.W.1 spit on the floor casually and as the accused construed itas an insult, he stared at P.W.1 and left the place and that on the fateful day,at about 8.00 p.m., when the accused saw P.W.1 near the shop of P.W.4, he caughthold of the shirt of P.W.1 and threatened to stab, however, P.W.1 warded off.The deceased, who incidentally came to the Bazaar, intervened to rescue his son,P.W.1, leading to the altercation on the backdrop of the incident that tookplace on the previous day in which P.W.1 spit on the floor causing provocationto the accused.P.Ws.1 and 3 further deposed that following the altercation betweenthe accused and the deceased who came to rescue his son, P.W.1 from the accused,the accused attempted to stab P.W.1, but the attempted stab fell on the deceasedcausing a stab injury on his left rib.The evidence of P.W.1 in this regard is so natural and direct.Similarly, P.W.3, wife of the deceased, deposed that she came to thescene of occurrence on hearing the noise and saw the accused fighting with herson, P.W.1 and her husband, the deceased.Her evidence is that following thealtercation between the accused and the deceased as well as P.W.1, the accusedstabbed the deceased with knife, M.O.3 on his left flank, right shoulder, rightthigh, nose and head.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 as to the overt acts bythe accused is cogent, trust-worthy and therefore remains unshaken.Even though the occurrence had taken place at about 8.00 p.m. on8.7.1996, we do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3,because there was sufficient light for the witnesses to see the occurrence, asspoken to by P.W.11, the Line Inspector of the Electricity Board.That apart, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 with regard to the overtacts by the accused causing stab injury and cut injuries by using knife, M.O.3also corroborates the medical evidence, namely, the evidence of autopsy doctor,P.W.9 who found injuries on the left flank, right shoulder, nose, right thighand forehead of the deceased and opined that the deceased would appear to havedied of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries caused to him and issuedEx.P-7 post-mortem certificate.Thus, even though the motive, the occurrence, and the overt acts bythe accused in causing grievous injuries on the deceased are not seriouslychallenged on behalf of the accused, we see some force in the contention of thelearned counsel for the appellant that the accused committed an act of culpablehomicide not amounting to murder, as he had caused grievous injuries on thedeceased, due to sudden provocation instigated by P.W.1 by spitting on thefloor while the accused was crossing which sowed the seeds of enmity in themind of the accused to enter into an altercation leading to cause grievousinjuries one after another on the deceased, of course, with the intention tocause his death.Exception-1 to section 300 I.P.C. deals with homicide committed inthe heat of passion or by way of sudden provocation.The test of grave andsudden provocation is whether a reasonable man belonging to the same class ofsociety as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placedwould be so provoked as to lose self-control.In the instant case, according to P.W.1, there was a wordy quarrelbetween the deceased and the accused preceding the occurrence.In Ex.P-1, thefirst information report itself, P.W.1 has stated that at the time ofoccurrence, there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased andP.W.1 and his uncle and others tried to separate them.Though P.W.2 turnedhostile, he has stated at the time of police investigation that there was awordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused.Of course, had the accused stopped with the first attack, it would havebeen concluded that he had no intention to cause the death of the deceased, butenergised by the sudden provocation, losing self-control, the accusedindiscriminately attacked the deceased which would show that he had intention toinflict grievous injuries on the deceased resulting in his death and hence, theaccused committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder bringing the guiltof the accused under Exception-1 to section 300 I.P.C., punishable under section304, Part-I IPC.In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellantby the trial court under Section 302 IPC are set aside and instead, he isconvicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to undergo seven yearsrigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and also to pay acompensation of Rs.9000/-, which shall be paid to P.W.3, the wife of thedeceased within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,failing which he shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment as defaultsentence.The sentence already undergone by him shall be given set off.The Addl.Sessions Judge, (FTC-II), Tuticorin.The Inspector of Police, Eral Police Station, Tuticorin District.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,231,236 | (Passed on 25 /10/2018) The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C.) for quashment of FIR No.0383/2017 registered at police station Betma District Indore for the offence under Section 3(7) of Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.Brief facts of the case are that applicant is a Private Limited Company registered under the provision of Companies Act 1956 and engaged in the business of seeds.After collecting 3 samples of wheat seeds, the samples were sent to Seed Testing Labortory Gwalior and a report was received vide letter dated 02.12.2016 wherein the germination of 2 samples was found to 2 be 77 & 78 percent germinated respectively, the Central Seeds Certification Board, New Delhi has laid the benchmark as 85% and therefore the said samples were found sub-standard.Since the applicant has produced sub- standard wheat seeds and sold to the farmers for earning profits, hence, on the basis of complaint made by the Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Depalpur an FIR has been registered against the applicant bearing crime No. 0383/2017 for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 420 of I.P.C.In the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the said first information report and consequential investigation by the police are sought to be challenged mainly on the ground that complaint made by the Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Depalpur did not disclose cognizable offence so as to empower the police to investigate into the matter.It is further submitted that in case the offence is diclosed under the Seeds Act then Seeds Inspector empowered under Rule 23 (g) to institute prosecution in respect of the breaches of the Act and Rules.It is further argued that any farmers to whom those seeds have been sold, had not made any complainant against the applicant regarding the quality of the seeds.The applicant has not violated any rules prescribed under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, therefore, there cannot be initiated proceedings against the applicant for the aforesaid offence.Placing reliance upon the decisions in the matter of S.V.R. Rao, Seeds Operation Manager, Hindustan Lever Limited Vs.Bhaskar Tannagi Badkal 7 Ors in criminal application No. 878/1996 by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Criminal Petition No.2638/2014 (M.H Krishnamurthy Vs.State of Karnataka) High Court of Karnataka and Criminal Petition No.2197 /2001 S.A. Jayanarayana Vs.Therefore, there is no bar to the police authorities taking cognizance from the complaint lodged by the Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Depalpur.It is further contended 4 that there is no statutory bar for lodging complaint by the Seed Inspector to the police authorities under the Seeds Act, hence he prayed for dismissal of the application.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,240,754 | Shri Rajesh Shukla, counsel for the applicant.Shri B.Raj Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the State.Shri Harendra Sharma, counsel for the objector.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 29/12/2014 relating to Crime No.34/2013, registered at Police Station Umri,, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294 and 325 of I.P.C.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, having no criminal past alleged against him.Except of offence under section 307 of I.P.C., remaining offences are bailable.It is alleged against the accused-persons that they had assaulted victims Ompraksh and Govind Singh causing fractures on various bones of hands.However, it is alleged that Abhishek sustained fracture of temporal bone.However it is not specifically alleged against the applicant that he had assaulted the victim Abhishek on his head.No common intention or object of the applicant can be presumed with the co-accused 2 Mcrc.788/2015 Devendra Singh Vs.State of M.P.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned Govt. Advocate opposes the application.Learned counsel for objector also opposes the prayer for bail.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.Consequently, it is hereby allowed.It is directed that the applicant, namely, Devendra Singh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) with a surety bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Bhind, to appear before the committal/trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.3 Mcrc.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,248,623 | 2) by sharp cutting object.Heard on IA No.7255/2015 which is an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C filed on behalf of appellants No.3 Nepal and appellant No. 6 Daulatram, for suspension of their jail sentence and grant of bail.The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj District Vidisha in S.T. No. 91/2012 vide judgment dated 02.7.2015 and appellants have been sentenced as follows:On behalf of the appellants No. 3, Nepal and appellant No.6 Daulatram, it is argued that the (Nepal Singh and another Vs.All other injuries received by the injured persons are simple in nature.The appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty granted to them.Appellants further claimed that, the appellant No.3, Nepal was in custody for 50 days during trial and appellant No.6 Daulatram was about 44 days in custody during trial and from the date of judgment ie 2.7.2015 they are in custody.Fine amount has been deposited by the appellants.Therefore, appellants be given the benefit of Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.As per the prosecution story, Mishrilal inflicted injury to Dal Singh by axe and appellant No. 3 Nepal by Ballam (A ballam is a long point weapon).As per the MLC report of Dal Singh (PW-2) Ex. P/2, injury received by hard and blunt object.It is further contended that PW-3 Devilal has ascertained that Mishrilal and Umkar inflicted injury to Dal Singh, whereas, appellant No. 3 Nepal Singh inflicted injury by Farsha (A Farsha is sharp cutting weapon).Daulatram inflicted injury to Dal Singh by Lohangi (A wooden on the top affix the rings).Dal Singh PW-2 and Davilal PW-3 have not said that (Nepal Singh and another Vs.State of M.P.) 3 Cr.A. No. 600/2015 Daulatram inflicted injury to them.They have stated commonly accused persons inflicted injury to Hema and Pritam Singh etc. No other person has received any grievous injury.It is directed that execution of jail sentence of appellants No.3 Nepal and 6 Daulatram shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/10/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard. | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,252,512 | Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest by Police in the aforesaid case, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer for his regular appearance before 3 the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.Present M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.(VIVEK RUSIA) Judge Jasleen Digitally signed by Jasleen Singh Saluja Date: 2020.01.13 18:05:56 +05'30' | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,253,669 | He/she can directly prefer an appeal.Certified copies of documents filed by the petitioner with the petition be returned back to her on substitution of self attested copies of those documents.With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed off. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,260,576 | This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") praying for quashment of First Information Report in Crime No. 147/2015, Police-Station Tonk Khurd, District Dewas registered against the petitioners for offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 452 and 506 of IPC and consequent proceedings in criminal case No.202/2016 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tonk Khurd, District Dewas, wherein charges under Section 147, 148, 294, 323/149 (3 counts) 324/149, 452, 506II of IPC have been framed against the petitioners.The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 10/06/2016, has framed charges against the petitioners.The learned revisional Court declined to accept the prayer for discharge on the ground that as per M.L.C / medical report, of injured Peer Singh, Chatarpal and Mohan have sustained grievous M.Cr.C. No.1552/2017 2 injuries in the alleged incident. | ['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 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. |
193,264,679 | Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the victim-housewife was tortured by the petitioners.We have considered the materials on record.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners, namely (1) Sarifuddin @ Md. Sarifuddin @ Sariful, (2) Sahanara Bibi @ Sanu Bibi & (3) Morjina Bibi @ Hashi Bibi, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) only, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that petitioner no.1 shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week until further orders and shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,327,251 | The second petitioner is a shareholder and a former Director of the firstpetitioner.In or around 1980, the first petitioner acquired a textile millknown as Madhusudan Mills situated at Globe Mills Compound, DelisleRoad, Lower Parel, Mumbai.On 01/04/1995, the Textile Undertakings(Nationalisation) Act, 1995 ('the Nationalisation Act') came into force.Thesaid Nationalisation Act provided for the vesting of the shares ofShubhada S Kadam 3/10 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2020 07:43:21 ::: wp 4140.16.docMadhusudan Mills and the land in favour of the National TextileCorporation (South Maharashtra) Ltd. ('NTCSML').The said NTCSMLwas a Government undertaking and was a subsidiary of National TextileCorporation ('NTC').Oral Judgment : (Per : Ranjit More, J.)The petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the FIRregistered with the CBI bearing RC No.CBI/EOW No.068(E) of2015//EOW/ACB No.5/E of 2015 under Sections 120B and 420 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and under Sections 13(2)and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the PCAct").::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2020 07:43:21 :::Criminal Application No.343 of 2018 is filed by the petitionerseeking directions to respondent No.1 to release the original documentsand articles seized vide Search List dated 17 th June 2015 on terms andconditions as may be deemed fit by this Court.Criminal Application No.308 of 2019 is filed by respondentNo.1-CBI seeking permission for filing charge-sheet in the subject FIRagainst the accused person in the Court of competent jurisdiction.The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:The first petitioner is a company incorporated under theprovisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office atKolkata and is in the business of manufacturing of various textile productsand raw materials, real estate development and other related businesses.The first petitioner was to receive an amount ofRs.2,70,85,000/- as compensation for the said acquisition.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2020 07:43:21 :::The acquisition gave rise to various proceedings beforedifferent High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.The firstpetitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of the NationalisationAct by way of Writ Petition No.1829 of 2004 before the High Court ofCalcutta.In 1995, pursuant to the NationalisationAct, the ownership of the mill came to be vested with NTCSML andthereafter NTCSML initiated proceedings before the BIFR.By an orderdated 25th July, 2002, the BIFR sanctioned a scheme of rehabilitation ofNTCSML.The said scheme provided for sale of assets of theMadhusudan Mills which was already characterized as an unviable mill.There were 7 other unviable mills in all and the order indicated that theconsideration to be realized from the sale of the assets of these 8unviable mills, including the Madhusudan Mills, was approximatelyRs.83,86,00,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2020 07:43:21 :::The firstpetitioner then challenged the said order by preferring SLP (C) No.18726of 2006 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.The said SLP (C)No.18726 of 2006 was finally disposed off by an order dated 27 thFebruary, 2009, in terms of consent terms arrived at between the parties.After about six years of disposal of the said SLP, an FIR wasregistered on 08/06/2015 with the first respondent herein vide RC no.It wasmentioned in the FIR that in the month of May 2014, preliminary inquirywas conducted by the first respondent on the allegation that someunknown officials of NTC and Ministry of Textile, in collusion with thesecond petitioner herein, transferred the land of Madhusudan Mills to thesecond petitioner thereby causing a wrongful loss of Rs.1750 Crores tothe Government Exchequer.The FIR goes on to describe as to how theterms of settlement were unduly favouring the petitioners herein and eventhe price paid by the first petitioner to NTC for the 35% of the land wasgrossly inadequate causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.709.27 CroresShubhada S Kadam 5/10 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2020 07:43:21 ::: wp 4140.16.docapproximately.The FIR has named six accused, including the secondpetitioner, the then Minister of Textile for Government of India and varioushigh ranking officers working with the NTC.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2020 07:43:21 :::Thus, according tothe petitioners, the transactions had attained finality and the ConsentTerms were placed on record before the Hon'ble Supreme Court andtherefore, there was no mala fide intention or fraud on the part of thepetitioners in executing those Consent Terms in respect of thetransactions concerning the land of the said Madhusudan Mills andthereafter there was no question of any offence having been committed.It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations ofcausing wrongful loss to the Government, is without any basis.It wasfurther submitted that by lodging the present FIR, the investigatingagency was overreaching the order passed by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt.It was also submitted that there were no allegations that thepetitioners gave bribe to any of the accused.Ms. Kuttikrishnan, learned counsel for respondent No.1-CBIShubhada S Kadam 6/10 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2020 07:43:21 ::: wp 4140.16.docheavily relied upon the stand of respondent No.1 elaborated in affidavit-in-reply dated 19th December, 2016 and affirmed by Mr. A. V. Pawar,Inspector of Police, CBI, EOW.Kuttikrishnan submitted that in theyear 2002 itself, the price of the land belonging to Madhusudan Mills wasvalued at Rs.157.91 Crores.Thus, when the value was decided in theyear 2009, the market value of the said land was not taken intoconsideration and the figure of Rs.83.86 Crores was intentionally wronglyconsidered which, in turn, meant that 35% of Rs.83.86 crores i.e.Rs.29.35 Crores was considerably lower figure and could not have beenaccepted by NTC.Ms. Kuttikrishnan further submits that the FIR, prima-facie, makes out a case for offences punishable under Sections 120-Band 420 of IPC and under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act. Shelastly submitted to this Court not to interfere in this petition in exercise ofjurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India andSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and soughtpermission to respondent No.1- CBI to file charge-sheet in the subjectcase.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2020 07:43:21 :::The Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22 nd July,2008 passed the following order in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 71 of2017 which was filed by the first petitioner against the Union of India andors., which reads thus :In the meantime, the 2nd and 3rd respondents, if approached by the petitioner for amicable settlement in the matter, may consider the request and decision taken thereof shall be placed before the Court."::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2020 07:43:21 :::In pursuance of the above order, the first petitioner and NTCsettled their dispute amicably and prepared settlement terms, a copy ofwhich is annexed at "Exhibit -R' to the petition.The SLP (C) No.18726 of 2006 was placed before the Hon'bleApex Court on 27th February, 2009 and after hearing the parties, the ApexCourt passed the following order :" The learned counsel for both the parties have requested us to dispose of the abovesaid special leave petition as also the transfer petition in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties which has been signed and certified by both the parties.A copy of the proposed terms of settlement has been filed in Transfer Petition (C) No.71/2007 with I.A.No.2/2008 at pages 28 to 31 of the paperbook.The learned counsel have also filed a copy of additional settlement duly signed by both the parties and their respective counsel, which is also taken on record of these cases.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2020 07:43:21 :::Transfer Petition are disposed of in terms of the proposed terms of settlement and additional settlement.The terms of settlements shall form part of order of this Court.Parties to bear their own costs."The order clearly mentions that 'the terms of settlementshall form part of order of this Court.' The important clause in thesaid Consent Terms was that the NTC was to convey and transfer 35% ofthe land with the structures thereon to the first petitioner, preferably, fortextile relating activities and, the first petitioner was to pay a sum ofRs.29,35,10,000/- to NTC as a consideration being 35% of theaforementioned sum of Rs.83,84,00,000/-.The NTC was to retain theremaining 65% of the land.The first petitioner also was to payRs.1,54,46,439/- for the purpose of meeting statutory liabilities pertainingto the said textile undertaking to make the land free of any encumbranceson account of such statutory liabilities.In this view of the matter, the SLP(C) No.18726 of 2006 was disposed off.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2020 07:43:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2020 07:43:21 ::: | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,273,167 | The first application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 22.3.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2503/2017 and second application was dismissed by order dated 12.6.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.4699/2017 with liberty revive after two months.The applicants have been arrested on 11.2.2017 in connection with Crime No.58/2017 registered by Police Station Pichhor, District Shivpuri for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 307, 506-B, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that according to the prosecution case, the applicants alongwith other co-accused persons assaulted the injured Mahesh, Avtar, Devendra and Nilesh.Nilesh received two injuries on his head region which could have been caused by hard and blunt object whereas Devendra had received on contusion on his elbow joint and Mahesh had received two contusions and one lacerated wound on forearm, ankle joint and thigh respectively.There is no possibility of their absconding of tampering with the prosecution case.2 MCRC No.9203/2017It is directed that the applicants be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,276,465 | It has been proved by Dr. K.K.Banerjee (PW-20) who conducted CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 2 of 20 Ravis post mortem, beyond doubt, that he had a homicidal death, Dr. V.K.Jain (PW-22) proved medical examination of the deceased Ravi vide MLC Exhibit PW-22/A. Dr. D. Mohanty (PW-25) gave his opinion before operation.Ravi, aged about 20 years, was brought to G.T.B hospital, Delhi at about 9.25 P.M. and was examined by Dr. S.K. Gupta who had written the said MLC.The MLC (Ex. PW-22/A) records that Ravi had four injuries, including incised wound on the left lung, left chest and left abdomen.There was an injury on the left forearm also.These injuries were caused by a sharp weapon.Smell of alcohol was present.Ravi was referred for surgery and for further management and opinion.Dr. S.K.Gupta had left the services of the hospital and the MLC, including the handwriting of Dr. S.K.Gupta, were proved by Dr. V.K.Jain (PW-22).The Post Mortem Report (Ex. PW-20/A) records that Ravi had bled profusely, due to the stab wound on the left lumber region.Packing of the wound was done but Ravi expired, at around 11 P.M. on 26th October 2005 on the operation theatre table, before any surgery could be conducted.The cause of death, as recorded in the Post Mortem Report, is shock due to ante mortem injuries to major blood vessels and internal organs, caused by a pointed single edged weapon.Injury No.5, it has been opined, was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.The post mortem CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 3 of 20 was conducted on 27.10.2005 at 12.10 P.M.CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 2 of 20CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 3 of 20The prosecution primarily relies upon the statement of the injured witness Jagdish (PW-2).PW-2 has averred that he was a friend of Ravi and they used to sell toys, together, on a patri shop.Four to five days before Diwali, one Niranjan had come to their shop and had picked up a toy.When Niranjan was asked to pay for the toy, he had threatened them that they did not know him and he would teach them a lesson.He asked, both of them, to not to meddle with him, broke the toy and went away.Next day, Jagdish and Ravi, at about 11.30 A.M., started for village Farukh Nagar to purchase crackers and reached there at about 2.30/3.00 P.M. Around 8.30 P.M., the two were returning to Chamunda Mandir, without purchasing crackers.On Jail Road, at the corner of Harsh Vihar, near the kiosk pan shop, the appellant, along with Niranjan and Abhishek, was standing.Three of them approached Jagdish and Ravi and Niranjan, in a threatening manner questioned them why they had asked for the cost of the toy.Niranjan took out an iron gupti and attacked Ravi.Ravi and Jagdish tried to save themselves.A scuffle followed.Abhishek took out a churra and the appellant Imran took out a button operated knife.The three attacked them and, as a result, both of them received injuries.Jagdish fell down on the spot and became unconscious.Ravi tried to escape but the CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 4 of 20 appellant Imran and others started chasing him.PW-2 saw the three, chasing Ravi before he became unconscious.PW-2 regained consciousness after four days, in G.T.B hospital, where he came to know that Ravi had died.PW-2s relatives met him and the police recorded his statement.CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 4 of 20Next month, on the 14th day, the police came to his house and asked him to join investigation and, despite his serious condition, he agreed.The appellant Imran and the other two accused, Niranjan and Abhishek were found standing on a vacant plot and, on seeing them, the three accused started running.The police apprehended them, after a chase to some distance.PW-2 identified the three assailants who had caused injuries to him and Ravi, on the date of the incident.Thereafter, he came back to his house.The Additional Public Prosecutor examined PW-2 on certain aspects.He admitted that he knew the appellants Imran, Abhishek and Niranjan from before.He accepted the position that the three appellants, including Imran, were apprehended not in front of a vacant plot but a plot which was not properly constructed.PW-2 further clarified that he had tried to run, to CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 5 of 20 save himself, but he fell down at some distance, on a slab in front of a shop, while the deceased Ravi ran towards Subhash Kansal Marg.He stated that the appellant Imran had chased him and Ravi with an intention to kill them.He submitted that, in the earlier portion of his statement-in-chief, he has not stated these facts as he was an illiterate.On further examination, PW-2 stated that Niranjan had taken out a gupti from his possession and had attacked him and Ravi.PW-2 has stated that Ravi was wearing a pant and shirt at the time of the incident but he did not remember the colour.PW-2 was wearing blue colour jeans and T-shirt but he did CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 6 of 20 not remember the colour of his T- shirt.He recollected that the police apprehended the three assailants, at about 10 A.M, but not the day on which arrest was made or names of the police officers who were with him.He could only reveal that there were shops near the place of occurrence, including residential houses and rehriwalas and khomchawalas were standing there.It was a crowded area but there was no street light.However, there was light from the shops, as well as, the khomchawalas.Ravi was about 5 steps ahead of him, when PW-2 fell down.No grappling took place amongst the three accused and them, before the incident.He denied the suggestion that the appellant Imran had not caused any injury to him or Ravi.He denied that Imran was on his duty somewhere else, at the time of the incident, and had been falsely implicated.He voluntarily stated that on seeing the incident of stabbing, the public started running away.He admitted that there was a police booth, near the corner towards Harsh Vihar, Jail Road but the said booth was established about 1 or 1-1/2 years back and was not there on the date of the occurrence.After the arrest of the appellant, PW-2 was brought to his house by SI Ajay Singh Negi (PW-CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 6 of 2026), one of the police officers.Two more police officers were with him.He denied a suggestion that the accused were not arrested in his presence.SI Ajay Singh Negi (PW-26) has testified that, on 14.11.2005, at about 9.00-9.15 P.M, a secret informer revealed that three accused were seen in Nand Nagiri area and could be found in the appellant Imrans relative house.D.D entry Ex.18/A was recorded and a raiding team was formed.After making recce of the area, they went to PW-2s residence and requested him to join the investigation.Thereafter, they returned and the injured PW-2 was shown the accused, from an open window.PW-26 knocked on the house door and when the door was opened, the three assailants, including the appellant Imran, were apprehended.PW-2 identified Imran by his name.They also interrogated Niranjan and Abhishek, who were arrested.Disclosure statements were recorded and, on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. PW-11/D), the appellant Imran took out a button actuated knife from the tand of the house.He took out one pant of saleti colour along with a shirt of white colour.PW-26 has stated that both the knife and the clothes were blood stained.H.C. Sohanbir (PW-21), allegedly part of the raiding team, could not state number of storeys of the house but stated that the house was constructed in an area of 25 sq.yds.He did not remember number of CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 8 of 20 rooms in the house or whether any family members were present at the spot.Similarly, Const.Ramesh Kumar (PW-17) has averred that the button actuated knife was recovered from the tand of the house.Clothes were recovered too.He joined investigation, at 9.25 P.M. from the police post, and they raided the house of PW-2, appellants, maternal uncle at 10.00 P.M. He has stated that SI Ajay Singh Negi (PW-26) had got the door opened and, on interrogation, the appellant told them about the knife and clothes.He did not remember who took out the knife from the tand.Similarly, ASI Jagbir Singh (PW-11) has stated that the police team had reached the house of Imrans maternal uncle, at 10.00 P.M. 6-7 persons were present, including Imrans uncle, his aunt and 4-5 children.The knife was recovered from a tand, at the instance of the appellant Imran.CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 8 of 20The Trial Court has rightly pointed out that while PW-2 had stated that they entered the house in Sunder Nagri at 10 A.M., the entire police team has stated that they reached the spot at 10 P.M. Some police witnesses stated that the knife was recovered from the tand on the pointing out of the accused.CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 9 of 20Mohanlal (PW-1), deceased Ravis father, stated that in the night, intervening 26th /27th October 2005, he was on duty at Old Delhi Railway Station, as a booking clerk.He received a telephone call that some boys had injured his son Ravi and his friend Jagdish and they were admitted in G.T.B hospital.When he reached the hospital, his son had expired and Jagdish was admitted in the ICU.He identified the dead body of his son, preserved in the mortuary, vide memo Ex.PW-1/A. Naresh (PW-3), Jagdishs brother, has stated that, at about 9 P.M on 26.10.2005, he came to know that Jagdish and his CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 10 of 20 friend Ravi were lying injured, on the corner of Bhopura Theka, Jail Road.He informed the PCR, called an ambulance and reached Jail Road.When he reached there, he found Jagdish lying unconscious.Ravi was lying at 23 ft road.PCR Van took Ravi to the hospital and Jagdish was taken in CAT ambulance to GTB Hospital.When PW-3 reached the Emergency Ward Room of G.T.B Hospital, Jagdish and Ravi were unconscious.Police also met him in the hospital.Ravi expired in the hospital on the same night.ASI Jalbir Singh (PW-11) has stated that, on receipt of DD Entry 24, he, along with Constable Arjun, reached the crime spot but found that the injured had been taken to the hospital.They went to G.T.B hospital and collected the MLC of Ravi.He was later a party to the raiding team which arrested the assailants.In the cross-examination, he has stated that no eye witness could be found, at the spot.He collected the MLC of the injured Jagdish (PW-2).The injured PW-2, as well as, Ravi were declared unfit for statement, when he had visited the hospital.Manoj (PW-13) avers that, on 26.10.2006 at 09.30 P.M., while patrolling they reached at Subhash Kansal Marg, Gali No.2, Harsh Vihar and found blood spots there.On verification, PW-13 came to know that one Ravi had been stabbed.CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 11 of 20 From the spot, blood and earth sample were lifted and sealed.Arjun (PW-14) has stated that, at about 09.05 P.M., DD No.24 was received by ASI Jalbir and thereafter, both of them went to Jail Road, Bhopura Theka, Harsh Vihar and found the blood lying.On inquiry, they came to know that two persons had been stabbed and one injured was taken by PCR van while other injured was taken by CAT ambulance.The injured were Jagdish and Ravi.Photographer took pictures of the crime spot from different angles.Blood and blood control earth was lifted and sealed for forensic examination.Later on, they came to know that Ravi had expired and post-mortem of the dead body was conducted.ASI Maha Singh (PW-15) has stated that he was in charge of PCR Van No.14 and, on 26.10.2005 at about 09.00 P.M., he reached the site in question and from there had taken a boy, named Ravi, in injured condition to GTB Hospital.SI Mukesh Kumar Jain (PW-23) is a draftman who had visited the spot and, after taking measurement, prepared rough notes of the spot.The scaled site plan (Ex.PW-23/A) was prepared by him.In the cross-examination, he has stated that he prepared site plan with the directions of public witness Jagdish (PW-2).SI Ajay Singh Negi (PW-26), incharge of PP Harsh Vihar, PS Nand Nagri, was on patrolling duty.He reached the spot and found that Const.Arjun (PW-14) was present.Blood was lying on the CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 12 of 20 slab of the shop at Amar Hardware, Bhopur Road, Jail Road Corner, Harsh Vihar, Delhi.He was informed by Const.Arjun (PW-14) that an injured had been removed to the Hospital and that there was another injured lying at Subhash Marg, outside Gents Beauty Parlour.He reached and noticed that blood, in substantial quantity, was spread, in front of Gents Beauty Parlour, on the road.Manoj (PW-13) informed that injured had been removed to the hospital in a PCR van.Later on, an old man named Satpal came and informed that the names of the two injured were Jagdish and Ravi.The crime team reached there, inspected the spot, and took photographs.PW-26 went to the GTB Hospital and met Naresh (PW-3) brother of injured Jagdish (PW-CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 10 of 20CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 11 of 20CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 12 of 202).The injured were under treatment and MLC had already been collected by ASI Jalbir (PW-11).PW-26 came back to the spot for inspection where blood and earth control sample were sealed, for chemical examination.After Ravi expired, Section 302 was added to the FIR and investigation was conducted by Insp.Veer Singh Tyagi (PW-24), SHO, PS Nand Nagri and SI Ajay Singh Negi (PW-26) assisted him in the investigation.On 30th Oct 2005, he along with PW- 24 went to GTB Hospital and recorded the statement of Jagdish (PW-2), who was by then declared fit for statement.PW-2 named Niranjan, Abhishek and Imran as the assailants.Thereafter, attempts were made CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 13 of 20 to arrest the assailants.They were later on arrested.CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 13 of 20Imran has filed this appeal impugning judgment dated 25.05.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, convicting him for murder of Ravi u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The appellant has also been convicted u/s 307/34 IPC for having attempted to cause murder of Jagdish who has appeared as PW-The appellant has been, by order of sentence dated 27.05.2009, sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs.30,000/-.In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo S.I for a period of one year.For the offence u/s 307 IPC, the appellant CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 1 of 20 has been sentenced to R.I of ten years and fine of Rs.20,000/-.In default of payment of fine he has to undergo S.I for six months.The fine, if recovered, has to be paid as compensation to the dependents of deceased Ravi and injured Jagdish, in equal proportion.CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 1 of 20We have heard Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Advocate who has appeared as amicus curiae in this appeal.He has submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from various infirmities.Firstly, injured Jagdish (PW-2) was not an eye witness as he did not see who actually gave the alleged fatal blow/injuries, to the deceased Ravi.Secondly, there is no evidence to establish common intention u/s 34 IPC.Thirdly, he argued that Jagdish (PW-2) and the deceased Ravi, both had consumed alcohol and probably this led to a sudden quarrel, causing injuries.Both of them started running.Thereafter, the appellant Imran took out a knife and Abhishek took out a churri and the two were attacked, repeatedly.CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 5 of 20PW-2 was cross examined at length but no facts came forth which could cast doubt on his testimony.In the cross examination, PW-2 accepted that his statement was recorded, on several occasions, by the police.He admitted that there was a case, u/s 304 IPC, pending in the Karkardooma Courts, against him.Some minor contradictions in the statements made by PW-2, u/s 161, were put to him, in the cross examination, but these do not materially effect the credibility or truthfulness of his statement.CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 7 of 20CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 7 of 20In the impugned judgment, the trial court has doubted the arrest of the appellant and the recovery of the knife, thereafter.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial court.However, Const.Ramesh Kumar (PW-17) has stated that the knife was wrapped in a cloth and was found when they searched the house.He did not remember who had taken out the knife from the tand.It was noticed that H.C. CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 9 of 20 Sohanvir (PW-21) did not know, whether the house, in question, was single or double storeyed and was fully constructed or partially constructed.As noticed above, PW-2 has stated that the house was not fully constructed.The Trial Court has further recorded that public witnesses were not joined.However, this by itself, does not mean that we cannot rely upon the oral statement of Jagdish (PW-2), regarding the actual incident which resulted in injuries caused to him and led to Ravis death.We have already referred to the statement of Dr. K.K.Banerjee (PW-20) who conducted the post-mortem on Ravis body.He had seven ante mortem injuries and injuries No.4 and No.5 were stabbed injuries, caused by sharp edge weapon.He has stated that injury No.5 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and when shown the weapon of offence i.e. button dar knife, he further deposed that injuries No.4 and 5 were possibly caused by sharp edge weapon.Injuries, as recorded in the Post Mortem Report, are as under :" Ante mortem injuries :Abrasion 4x3 cm reddish present over tip of left shoulder.Abrasion 2x1.5 cm reddish present over front of left shoulder.Incised would 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 2 cm with one angle more acute than the other, muscle deep present over the outer aspect of L upper arm oblignely placed 19 cm below the tip of L shoulder and 10 cm above the tip of L elbow.Stab wound 1 cm x 0.5 x 2 cm present on the outer aspect of L side of chest 6.5 cm below the L posterior ancillary fold, 22.5 cm above the L anterior sngrerior iliac spine on the posterior ancillary line directed upward muscle deep, one end is acute and other end blunt.Stab would 3.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep present on the outer aspect of back of lower part of L side of abdomen 8 cm lateral to the mid line, 2 cm below the L costal margin, the lower angle was acute and the upper angle was blunt being wedge shaped, on probing the would was directed inwards and upwards into the abdominal cavity.On opening the abdomen the would was found to have cut CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 14 of 20 tangentially the posterior surface of L kidney, the blood vessels around L kidney and abdominal position.The length of the track was 12 cm.CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 14 of 20Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x S.C tissue deep present on back of L forearm 7.5 below tip of L elbow, 16.5 cm above the L wrist.Small abrasions, reddish present over knuckles and middle fingers."Dr. V.K. Jain (PW-22) has proved the MLC Ex. PW-22/A. He has, as noticed above, referred to the injuries suffered by the deceased, and as recorded in the MLC Ex. PW-22/A, which are:Incised wound 3x1 cm left loin2. Left forearm 4x1 cmLeft chest third intercostals space 3 cmLeft abdomen 6x4 cmJagdish (PW-2), the injured witness, had suffered extensive injuries too.His MLC (Ex.PW-12/A) shows that he had deep penetrating wound of 4 cm length on left lumber region; 3 cm penetrating wound on mid sternal region; 3 cm penetrating wound on right hypocondrial; 2 cm deep penetrating wound of 1.5 cm on mid sterna region.These injuries cannot be caused by one single edged weapon as these are large in number and several injuries are grievous CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 15 of 20 and serious in nature.PW-2, the injured witness, is clear and categorical that the three assailants including Imran, who had knife, Gupti and chhura with them, had attacked him and then he saw them attacking Ravi.Both of them tried to run away.In the process, he fell down outside a shop, on the floor.At that time, he saw Imran and others chasing the deceased Ravi.He had indicated the reason or motive for the occurrence, as earlier i.e. one day before, Niranjan had come to their shop, on the patri near Chamunda Mandir, Bhopura theka Moad, Delhi and there was an altercation between them since Niranjan wanted to take away a toy, without paying.At that time, Niranjan had threatened them that he would see them and they do not know what he could do and they should not make up any quarrel or protest or question his action.It is further apparent that the appellant was one of the persons who had attacked both, PW-2 and the deceased Ravi.Statement of injured witness is entitled to considerable weight and is generally considered to be reliable.The injuries suffered by witness PW-2 shows that there is a guarantee of his presence, at the crime spot and that he and the deceased were unprepared when the assailants attacked them.In the facts, it is not possible to hold that the injured witness PW-2 would falsely implicate the appellant.In In Abdul Saeed vs. State of M.P. 290 (10) SCC 259, in which several decisions CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 16 of 20 have been referred to, it has been held that:CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 15 of 20CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 16 of 20The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court.Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness.He had been examined by the doctor.The operative CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 18 of 20 findings were laceration over the right lobe of liver, perforation over anterior wall of stomach, perforation of transverse colon, with hemoperitoneum.CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 18 of 20We may note that the MLC Ex. PW-12/A mentions that injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and it is also recorded that the nature of injuries suffered were grievous.In view of the injuries suffered by PW-2 (Jagdish), we are satisfied that the Trial Court has rightly recorded the findings that offence under Section 307 IPC have been established and made out.Keeping in view the nature and extent of injuries suffered by PW-2, we uphold the appellants conviction under Section 307 IPC and maintain the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years imposed on him for the said offence.We also uphold the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Ravi.The appeal is accordingly disposed of.CRL.A. 488/2011 Page 19 of 20 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,377,250 | % Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:These appeals are against the impugned judgment dated 9 th October 2012 Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 1 of 28 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.11/2011 arising out of FIR No.03/2011 registered at PS Anand Parbat convicting the Appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and additionally, the Appellant Chander Prakash @ Chhotu (A-3) for the offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act.Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 1 of 28The PCR form is marked as Ex.PW-15/A. Another call was made at 2.36 am, by one Naseem stating that a quarrel had taken place in front of 3/98, Punjabi Basti, Gali No.5, Anand Parbat.The PCR form in this regard is marked as Ex.PW-34/DA.In the PCR form (Ex.A. 184/2013 Page 2 of 28 that when the PCR van reached the spot at around 3.05 am it was noticed that Babloo, son of Kishan, had had a fight with 3-4 boys and the injured had been taken to the Lady Harding Hospital.Subsequently, it was noticed that at 3.35 am on 16th January 2011 that at Lady Harding Hospital the doctor had declared the injured dead and that there were three bullet wounds in the back and there were injury marks on the wrist.Post-mortemThe Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) of the deceased (Ex.Two firearm injuries were noticed on the anterior abdominal wall each of diameter 1 cm near lateral border of rectus abdominus; a contaminated wound on the left hand; cut skin on the proximal palmer crease of the left hand; 10 cm long cut mark on the right cheek and 5 cm long cut mark on the anterior aspect of the left leg.The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Devender Kumar Atal (PW-35).In his report (Ex.PW-35/B), inter alia, two firearm entry wounds in the abdomen were noticed apart from several other contused, lacerated, and incised wounds.Firearm exit wounds on the left chest wall and right chest wall was also found.While removing the clothes of the deceased from his back, a firearm projectile, i.e. a metal-jacketed bullet except on the tip of 3 cm length and 2.5 cm circumference, was recovered in a distorted condition.Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 3 of 28The cause of death was stated to be shock as a result of multiple injuries to the chest and abdomen "caused by rifle firearm from a close range".The two firearm entry wounds along with their corresponding exit wounds were stated to be fatal in the ordinary course of nature collectively as well as separately.On receipt of the PCR information, PW-36 reached the spot at Gali No.5, Punjabi Basti, Anand Parbat and found the deceased in an unconscious condition.Parking the van about 50-60 yards away from the dead body, since the gali (street) was narrow and a van could not pass through, PW-36 along with the help of public persons removed the injured and shifted him to the Lady Harding Hospital in the police van itself.According to PW-36, Anju (PW-3), the wife of the deceased, and Virender (PW-2), the brother-in- law of the deceased, and the mother-in-law of the deceased accompanied the deceased in the police van, apart from two other public persons.Version of PW-2A key witness to the occurrence was Virender (PW-2) who stated that he was sleeping in his house, which was G-17, Gali No.5, Punjabi Basti, and at around 2.40 am he got up after hearing the sounds of a quarrel.After opening the door of his house, he noticed that a quarrel was going on in front of the house of Prem (PW-6) located at a distance of four houses from his own house.He noticed that his brother-in-law, the deceased Dalip @ Babloo, was caught hold of by Devender @ Pappu (A-2) from behind whereas Chander Prakash @ Chhotu (A-3) had a katta in his right hand and Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 4 of 28 was pointing it at the deceased.Naval Kishore @ Naval (A-1) was assaulting the deceased with an iron patti.PW-2 claimed that he rushed to save the deceased but A-3 had fired a shot from the katta.The deceased was already lying on the road as he was already assaulted by the accused persons.Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 4 of 288. PW-2 then rushed to call his sister Anju (PW-3), the wife of the deceased.When PW-2 and PW-3 returned to the spot, they noticed that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood.PW-2 noticed A-1, A-2, and A-3 escaping from the place of occurrence on a motorcycle behind the gali from where the murder had taken place.He claimed to have seen the incident in a street light as there was an electric pole near the place of occurrence.PW-2 claimed that PW-6 emerged from his house and gave a call to the police and thereafter the PCR van reached the spot.In his statement to the police, PW-2 claimed that he had heard A-3 say that the deceased should be eliminated.He stated that A-2 had pushed the deceased to the ground and A-3 had fired a shot at the deceased.He further stated that the accused persons had told PW-2 that if anybody tried to depose against them they would also meet the same treatment.Version of PW-3The other eye witness was Anju (PW-3), the wife of the deceased.She claimed that about four days prior the incident, i.e. on 12th January 2011, A- 2 and A-3 had threatened to kill the deceased within three days.However, no complaint was made to the police in that regard.She further claimed that Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.PW-3 claimed that on the intervening night of 15 th-16th January 2011, at about 2.40 am, PW-2 asked her to open the door and informed her that A-1, A-2, and A-3 had killed her husband after firing upon him.As they left her house and were going towards the place of the incident, PW-3 claims to have seen the three accused fleeing from the spot on a red-coloured TVS motorcycle.As they reached the spot they saw the deceased lying in front of the house of PW-6 in a pool of blood having been injured by a bullet.The door of the house was open but at that time PW-6 was in the bathroom.Thereafter, PW-6 made a call to the PCR and the police reached the spot.She claimed that she along with PW-2, PW-6, and his father, Ramesh Chand (PW-9), took the deceased to the Lady Harding Hospital where he was declared as having been brought dead.Arrests and recoveriesThe investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Birender Kumar Singh (PW-37), the Investigation Officer (IO).At about 7.35 am, when he received FIR No.3/2011 registered under Section 302/34 IPC, he reached the spot along with Constable Suresh (PW-11).He prepared a rough site plan (Ex.PW-30/C).There, Prem (PW-6) and his father, Ramesh Chand (PW-9), met PW-37 and their statements were recorded by him.On 17th January 2011, PW-37 conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared inquest report (Ex.PW-37/A).At that time Hoshiar Singh (PW-Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.On 20th January 2011, at around 11.10 pm, PW-37 received secret information that A-1 and A-2 would come near Anand Parbat Market.Thereafter, PW-37 along with SI Bal Mukund (PW-24), Ramvir (PW-8) and Ct.Shamsher left PS to apprehend the accused.At 11.20 pm, they noticed two persons coming towards the fruit market.15. A-1, in his statement, is supposed to have disclosed that he had thrown a weapon of offence, i.e. a knife, near the CNG pump on Military Road while fleeing from the spot on a motorcycle.Both A-1 and A-2 informed that A-3 was in the possession of country made pistol/katta and offered to get him arrested and recover the said weapon. A-2 further stated that A-3 was in the possession of a red-coloured motorcycle which belonged to A-2 and that he could get it recovered.The knife was recovered on 21st January 2011, at about 7.30 am, in the barren area opposite the CNG petrol pump on Military Road.There were blood-stained marks on the knife.On 21st January 2011, secret information was received that A-3 had been arrested in FIR No.11/2011 under Section 25 Arms Act wherein he had disclosed his involvement in the present case.DD No. 15/A was lodged at Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A-3 was then arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded.A-3 disclosed that he had parked the motorcycle in F-Block, Mangolpuri.However, in his cross-examination, PW-2 states that he had vacated the said house after the death of his father but he could not recall when his father had expired.He went on to state that "I even do not remember the date, month when he expired.The scaled site plan (Ex.Dalip was already on the road as he was being assaulted by the accused persons.I rushed to call my sister Anju.When I along with my sister rushed back to the place of occurrence, I saw my brother-in-law was in pool of blood and I saw accused Chander Prakash, Devender and Naval were escaping from the place of occurrence on motor-cycle from the gali behind where murder had taken place.I had seen the incident in the street light was there was electric pole near the place of occurrence.Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.Though, Dalip @ Babloo was residing in the same Gali, yet I do not know his house number.It is wrong to suggest that Dalip @ Babloo was also residing at Sadar Bazar.It is wrong to suggest that Dalip @ Babloo had married my sister after threatening her."These appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 12th October, 2012 whereby the Appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.A-3 was sentenced with fine of Rs.1.5 lakhs and, in default of payment of fine, to further simple imprisonment (SI) for three years.A- 1 - Naval Kishore and A-2 - Devender @ Pappu were sentenced to a fine of Rs.75,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for one year.For the offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, A-3 was sentenced to RI for five years with fine of Rs.15,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for six months.Case of the prosecutionA call was received by the Police Control Room (PCR) at 2.35 am on 16th January 2011 from one Senthil Kumar stating that a quarrel had taken place in front of 15/80, Gali No.5, Punjabi Basti.It was further mentioned at this time that Devender, Chander Prakash and Naval had fled from the spot.Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 2 of 28She claims to have made a PCR call and also lodged a report in PS Anand Parbat.Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 5 of 28Pursuant thereto, his motorcycle was seized.Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 7 of 28From the spot, two fired cartridges and two bullets were recovered.These were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for its report.The pullanda containing biological exhibits was also sent on 28th February 2011 to the FSL.By an order dated 21st October 2011, the following charge was framed against the three accused:"That on 16.01.2011 at about 2:40AM, in front of H. No. 576, Gali no. 5, Punjabi Basti, Anand Parbat within the jurisdiction of PS Anand Parbat you above mentioned all the accused persons in furtherance of your common intention committed murder by causing the death of Dilip @ Bablu by giving him fire arm injury and thereby all of you committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this court of Session."By a separate order on the same date, a charge under Section 27/54/59 Arms Act was framed against A-3, Chander Prakash.The prosecution examined 38 witnesses during the course of the trial.No witnesses were examined on behalf of the Appellants.In his statement under Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 8 of 28 Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC), while denying the circumstances against him, A-1 claimed to have been falsely implicated by PW-2 and PW-3 who he alleged were acting in collusion.He pointed out that the witnesses examined during the course of trial were either interested witnesses or police officials.A-1 claimed that the knife was falsely planted on him and that he has been falsely arrested in this case.Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 8 of 2822. A-2 also denied the circumstances against him.He too claimed to have been falsely implicated by PW-2 and PW-3 and that all the witnesses who spoke to the incident were police witnesses or those related to the deceased.As regards A-3, he took the plea of alibi.According to him, at the relevant time he was with his in-laws in Wazirabad.A-3 denied that any country made pistol was recovered from his possession and that no motorcycle was recovered on his pointing out and it had been planted on him to falsely implicate him in this case.By the impugned judgment dated 9th October 2012, the trial Court came to the following conclusions:(iii) The evidence of an interested witness who happens to be a close relation must be closely scrutinized for any improvements and inconsistencies.The mere relationship of the deceased will not automatically give rise to an adverse inference.Presently, I am residing at the house of my sister along with my mother.Nor I have brought the same today in the Court.From the rough site plan (Ex.PW-30/C), it can be seen that G-17 is two doors down from 5/167 (the house of PW-6 who turned hostile).The rough site plan shows the spot X right in front of G-17 as "the place where eye witness was present".If PW-2 was not residing in G-17 at the relevant time, there was no occasion for him to be present in front of G-17 to view the incident.It must be recalled that PW-6 did not support the case of the prosecution and denied that he had actually witnessed the occurrence.PW-16/A) shows G-17 as the house of Manak Chand.The spot B in the scaled site plan, from where the PW-2 witnessed the incident, is shown slightly down the road from where the spot X figures in the rough site plan.The place where the crime is said to have taken place is shown in front of 576, Gali No.5 and is more or less similar to the location shown in the rough site plan.The relevant portion of the deposition of PW-2 reads as under:"After opening my door, I saw that my brother-in-law Dalip @ Babloo was caught hold by accused Devender from behind whereas accused Chander Prakash @ Chhotu had a katta in his Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 16 of 28 right hand and he had pointed out the same at my brother-in- law Dalip @ Babloo whereas accused Naval was assaulting my brother-in-law by the means of the patti, which was of iron.My brother-in-law Dalip was trying to save himself.I rushed towards him to save my brother-in-law.However, accused Chander Prakash had fired a shot from the katta which he was carrying.A. 184/2013 Page 16 of 28Prem also came out from his house.Prem had informed the police on 100 number.PCR van reached the spot.Since the street was narrow, we took injured Dalip @ Babloo to the PCR van on the cot.PCR van took the injured to Lady Harding Hospital.I and my sister Anju accompanied the PCR officials.After checking doctor declared him brought dead.I made a statement to the police in the hospital.My statement is mark Ex.PW-2/A which bears my signatures at point A. I do not know why the accused persons had killed my brother in law.(Vol.They might have some enmity with him).I am not aware if some litigation was going on with my brother in law and the accused persons.Accused persons fled away from the spot on the red colour TVS Motor Cycle.On the spot, two empty cartridges and one piece of chain of wrist watch having yellow colour was also found on the spot.Though, two empty cartridges were recovered yet only one shot was fired in my presence."He now added a crucial statement Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 17 of 28 that when PW-2 rushed towards the deceased to save him, A-3 stated that "let Dalip be eliminated today".He further added that when A-3 fired a shot, the deceased was caught hold of by A-2 and the deceased was lying on the road and A-3 put his leg on the chest of the deceased and thereafter fired a shot.However, PW-2 even at this stage was insisted that:Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 17 of 28"Accused had fired only one shot in my presence.It is wrong to suggest that Chander Prakash had fired twice at Dalip.It is wrong to suggest that I stated before the police that Chander Prakash had fired again and due to which Dalip fell down on the road.(Confronted with portion B to B of Ex. PW-2/A wherein it is so recorded)."The Court finds that the trial Court has only extracted the first sentence of the above paragraph that the accused had fired only one shot on the deceased.It has failed to extract the next sentence where, despite the APPs suggestion to PW-2 that A-3 had fired twice, he denied that suggestion.He in fact denied having told the police anything to that effect in his previous statement.It appears that a supplementary statement was recorded of PW-2 on 25th March 2011, more than two months after the incident and when he was confronted with that statement, he stated "I do not remember whether the police had recorded my statement on 25.03.2011 or not".This statement was marked A and the trial Court noted at this time of deposition as under:"After explaining and read over the said statement to the witness, witness states " I do not remember whether I stated so before the police or not.I have not made any statement to the police in March 2011.".The statement is mark A.It is wrong to suggest that I had made the said statement to the Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 18 of 28 police.It is wrong to suggest that accused persons had threatened that if anybody try to depose against them, they would meet the same fate.It is wrong to suggest that I stated before the police that accused persons had threatened that if anybody try to depose against them they would met the same fate.(Confronted with portion A to A of mark A wherein it is so recorded).Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 18 of 28According to PW-37, he recorded the statement of PW-2 only as regards the identification (Ex.PW- 37/C) on 17th January 2011 after the inquest was completed.A perusal of Ex.PW-2/A, which constituted the rukka, reveals that it was recorded on 16th January 2011 by SI Sunil Kumar (PW-30).A. 184/2013 Page 19 of 28In his deposition in the trial PW-2 stated that A-3 had fired a shot after putting his leg on the body of the deceased whereas this fact has not been mentioned in Ex.However police recorded my statement when I made the same)."A. 184/2013 Page 21 of 28The fact of the matter is that the deceased and A-3 were both together in jail in DD No.62B of 2007 under Sections 107/151 Cr PC.There is a history of criminal activities of the deceased.The following deposition by PW-2 has again been overlooked by the trial Court:"It is correct that after seeing Dalip in the pool of blood my sister had embraced Dalip @ Babloo.I also helped in shifting the deceased from the spot to the PCR Van.However, I did not sustain any blood mark on my clothes.I am not aware whether the clothes of my sister had any blood marks or not.Cot was fetched by me from the house of my landlord.Cot was lying in the street.There was no other person in the street except myself, my sister, Prem, his father and my mother when we shifted to Dalip in the PCR.It is wrong to suggest that my mother had also embraced Dalip after seeing him in the pool of Blood.My father also reached there.I, Prem and his father put Dalip on the cot and took him to the PCR Van.Blood was oozing out from the body of Dalip when he was fired.When he was put in the PCR Van, blood was oozing out from his body."P.C. that one lady whose name was revealed as Anju, she was wife of injured and one male member, whose name was revealed as Virender were also in the PCR Van and they were ready to leave for the hospital.I had not mentioned this fact even my endorsement Ex. PW-30/B.I had not stated in my statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that Virender and Anju who accompanied the deceased also met me in the hospital.P.C. that the seal BMR was belonged to SI Bal Mukund Rai and said seal was with me at that time.B.K. Singh, who prepared the site plan at my pointing out.A. 12/2013 & Crl.These are serious lapses which give rise to serious doubts as to the presence of PW-2 at the spot.With her blood stained clothes not being seized, the prosecution deprived itself of an important piece of evidence that would have established her presence in the PCR van in which the deceased was taken to the hospital.In any event, she was not a witness to the attack on the deceased.She is supposed to have reached the spot after the firing took place.The trial Court observed:"Thereafter, accused Chander Prakash fired a shot targeting the deceased, which hit in his abdomen.Unfortunately for the prosecution, the other two witnesses who would have supported the prosecution case, PW-6 and PW-9, have both turned hostile.The incident happened right in front of the house of PW-9 and therefore he was in the best position to speak about it.Yet he did not support the prosecution.He was an uninterested witness whereas PW-2 was an interested witness.For the aforementioned reasons, the Court sets aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court and acquits the Appellants for the offence with which they were charged.The order on sentence is also hereby set aside.Crl.A. 12/2013 & Crl.A. 184/2013 Page 27 of 28 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,933,792 | The facts which are not in dispute may first be stated.Smt. Parul Bhattacharya, P. W. 6, is the wife of C. W. 1, who was employed in the Sodepur colliery.They got into an inter-class compartment.Another lady, Jyotsna Das, P. W. 9, travelling by the same train to see her father who was ill at Barakar, got into the same compartment at Howrah.She was escorted by P. W. 1, a friend of her father.JUDGMENT Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1.The appellant was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Hoogly for an offence under Section 354, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment.On appeal the Sessions Judge, Hoogly, confirmed both the conviction and the sentence, and a revision petition preferred to the High Court was rejected.There were some other passengers besides; but they got down at Panduah, leaving P. Ws. 1, 5, 6 and 9 as the sole occupants of the compartment.After the train started, differences arose between the appellant on the one hand and the other passengers on the other; a scuffle ensued; P. W. 1 pulled the alarm chain, and the ' train stopped at Boinchi.The police came on the scene, and found that P. W. 6 who had got down on the platform was weeping and that inside the compartment the appellant was standing with his hands clutching the chains attached to an upper berth and violently kicking the passengers.The constables who went in were also kicked, but somehow managed to pull him out of the compartment.Meantime, the people who had collected on the platform began to belabour the appellant with shoes and umbrellas until the police took him into safe custody.The charge against the appellant was that he assaulted P. W. 6, Parul Bhattacharya, with intent to outrage her modesty.That she was assaulted by the appellant is established beyond all doubt.P. W. 6 deposed: "The accused kicked me.I got injuries on my arm, hand and back".P. W. 2 is the doctor who examined her shortly after the incident, and he stated that he found scratches above the wrist in the right forearm and contusion below the shoulder in the right arm.He only threw out a suggestion that P. W. 6 might have intervened on the side of P. Ws. 1 and 5 when they were engaged in a scuffle with the appellant and chance blows might have descended on her.This is a wholly gratuitous suggestion, and is opposed to the evidence on the side of the prosecution, and must accordingly be rejected.The finding of the Courts below that the appellant assaulted P. W. 6, must therefore be accepted.The next question is whether he did so with intent to outrage her modesty, or with the knowledge that it would be outraged.Having gone through the entire evidence, we are not satisfied that that has been established.The most serious allegation against the appellant on this part of the case is that he forcibly held the two ladies to his breast.The first information report given by P. W. 5 stated that he "in his naked condition clasped both of them on to his breast".The evidence in the case, however, does not bear this out.P. W. 1 stated that the two ladies became frightened at the attitude of the appellant and went down to the floor of the compartment for safety, and then the appellant caught hold of them and embraced them.P. W. 5 deposed that the appellant caught hold of both the ladies, and then they went down to the floor of the compartment.In his examination-in-chief, he said nothing about the appellant embracing the ladies.In cross-examination, however, he deposed that the appellant embraced both the girls from behind.P. W. 6 stated that she and P. W. 9 went down on the floor out of fear and shouted.She did not state in examination-in-chief that they were embraced.In cross-examination, however, she added that she had been embraced.P. W. 9 deposed that the appellant was able to catch hold of P. W. 6 but that she herself was not caught.On this evidence, we find it difficult to hold that the incident of embracing has been proved beyond doubt.P. Ws. 1, 5 and 6 also stated that the appellant first removed his coat and belt and put them on the upper berth and then removed his trousers and become practically naked.But it is admitted by P. Ws. 1 and 6 that he had his underwear, and it is possible that the removal of the trousers was with a view to lie on the berth.It is also stated that the appellant was staring at the ladies "with lustful eyes".But this impression appears to be more psychological than factual.The story of a person trying to outrage the modesty of two women in the presence of two gentlemen is so unnatural, that there must be clear and unimpeachable evidence before it can be accepted.The truth appears to be that the appellant who had been travelling from Calcutta in a crowded compartment changed over to the compartment where there were only four passengers with a view to get sleeping accommodation.Finding all the three lower berths occupied, he made an attempt to forcibly occupy the seat on which P. W. 6 was lying with her babe.There was opposition from her, and in overcoming it, the appellant assaulted her.Her cries brought down P. W. 1 from his upper berth and he and P. W. 5 took it up with the appellant and a scuffle ensued.P. W. 9 deposed that while she was asleep, she was roused by the noise of altercation.Then she joined P. W. 6, and both of them ran for safety to the floor of the compartment below the berth.The appellant finding himself attacked by both P. W. 1 and P. W. 5, must have made a stand clutching the two chains attached to the upper berth by his arms and kicking his assailants.That was the scene which was witnessed by the police officers when the alarm chain was pulled and the train stopped at Boinchi.As far as it is possible to reconstruct, that appears to have been the course of events.It appears to have been assumed that either there was an offence under Section 354 or none at all.For this state of affairs, however, the appellant was largely to blame.It is in this view that they dismissed the discrepancies generally as of slight moment.Before us, counsel for the appellant did not repeat this suggestion.On the other hand, he relied on the statement of the accused under Section 342 wherein he stated that when he got into the compartment he was abused by the passengers in a language which he did not understand and was assaulted.The appeal will accordingly be allowed to this extent. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,337,921 | (M.M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 29.08.2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssm Page 5 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1030 of 2019 ToPage 5 of 7Page 6 of 7mmi H.C.P. No. 1030 of 2019 29.08.2019 Page 7 of 7http://www.judis.nic.inPage 7 of 7Further I submit that a bail petition has been filed on behalf of the accused Thiru.Jothi and Thiru.M.P.No.2334/2018 and the bail was granted on 11.04.2018 and an anticipatory bail application was filed on behalf of the co-accused Thiru.M.P.No.2334/2018 and the bail was granted on 11.04.2018 and an anticipatory bail application was filed on behalf of the co-accused Thiru.Sundar before Hon'ble Vacation Court Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Cr.M.P.No.1671/2018 and it was granted on 24.05.2018 and therefore, there is a real possibility of the Page 4 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1030 of 2019 detenu coming out on bail in the ground case in Crime No.385/2019 and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.Page 4 of 76.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C2/D.O.No.31/2019 dated 22.05.2019 passed by the first respondent is set aside.The detenu, Annachi, son of Mani, aged about 39 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.2.The Secretary to Government, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 0093.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1030 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.and M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,382 | P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1 and the deceased.P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased.In the year 1999, they were all residing in the said place.P.W.2 owned a house in Door No.223, Block 'N', Anna Nagar, Madras.Prior to the marriage of P.W.1, they were all residing in the said house.In the year 1999, the said house was mortgaged by P.W.1, the deceased Jayakumar, P.W.2 and her husband Dhakshinamoorthy with South East Benefit Fund, Mandaiveli, Madras, as security for the loan of Rs.10 lakhs availed by them.The said sum of Rs.10 lakhs was taken by both P.W.1 and the deceased each Rs.5 lakhs.It was agreed that Jayakumar should enjoy the property, and after redemption of the mortgage, he should own the property.But, Jayakumar did not make the instalments towards the mortgage properly.Hence the property was brought in public auction in the year 2000, and an auction notice was issued.Whenever notices were issued either P.W.1, or Jayakumar paid Rs.25000/- on every instances and stopped the sale.Whenever P.W.1 informed about the mortgage to Jayakumar, he did not show interest; but, he was promising that he would however redeem the mortgage.When P.W.1 informed to P.W.2 about the situation, P.W.2 replied that Jayakumar was well acquainted to A-1 Senthilkumar, who was the nephew of Mayor M.K.Stalin and also the grandson of DMK President; that Jayakumar has lent lakhs of rupees to A-1; that A-2 has assured Senthilkumar to take necessary steps to wipe off the interest on the mortgage loan, and hence there might not be any difficulty for Jayakumar in closing the mortgage debt.Till the time of sale, the mortgage was not redeemed.The property was purchased by one Raja in public auction.When Jayakumar came to know about the same, he left the house and was staying in his friend's house at Perambur.In view of that reply, P.Ws.1 and 2 kept quiet for some time.On the strength of Ex.P1, the complaint, P.W.46, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to K4 Anna Nagar Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.1440 of 2001 for man missing.The printed FIR, Ex.P98, was despatched to the Court.That case was pending in C.C.No.1798 of 2000 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai.On one day, A-1 handed over Rs.1 lakh for the purchase of clothes.A-1 also misrepresented to P.Ws.6, 7, 12, 22 and 24 and others that he was going to marry the daughter of the former Mayor of Chennai Corporation and also pretended as if he had close acquaintance with the son of the Mayor.On the instructions of A-1, P.W.12 received Rs.80,000/- from the deceased Jayakumar at Anna Nagar, and the same was handed over to A-1 at Perambur Railway Station during which P.W.7 was also present.A-1 pretended as if he was a close relative of the Mayor.(f) P.W.7 wanted to get a transfer to Chennai for his wife who was working as a teacher at the native place.On the misrepresentation of A-1 to get such a transfer order, P.W.7 paid different amounts on number of occasions.But, A-1 did not do anything in that regard.(g) P.W.22 Selvarangan paid Rs.1 lakh to A-2 and A-14 i.e., Rs.10000/- by cash and Rs.90000/- through two demand drafts each for Rs.45000/- in the name of A-2 for getting an employment for him.The said amount was received by A-2, and the same was utilised during the relevant period by A-1 and A-2 for the commission of the offence.The jewels of P.W.24's wife were stolen, and a case was registered by the concerned police in that connection.A-1 asked him to pay Rs.20000/- for securing the jewels, but P.W.24 refused.In turn, A-1 asked him to talk like Udayanidhi, the son of the former Mayor of Chennai.Accordingly, whenever it was required, A-1 used to call P.W.24 to come and prepare note containing the required conversation.Then A-1 used to make the call and made P.W.24 to converse the same in the telephone.(h) On receipt of the auction sale notice, the deceased Jayakumar left the house with disturbed mind and also doubted the assurance given by A-1 that he would help him in the redemption of the mortgage.Hence he visited the house of the former Mayor and enquired about A-1 with his personal assistant and came to know that A-1 had no connection with the former Mayor and all his claims were false.Both asked A-1 either to get back the house under the mortgage or to return the moneys which he got. A-1 instructed A-2 to go to his mother-in-law's house.Accordingly, A-2 left the place.The deceased informed A-1 that he was not going to get back the mortgaged house, and hence he had no option than to prefer a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai.The behaviour of the deceased provoked A-1, and he took a decision to eliminate Jayakumar.Hence A-1 entered into a conspiracy with A-2 and A-3 in that regard.(i) On the directions of A-1 and A-2, A-3 arranged his associates to murder Jayakumar.Pursuant to the conspiracy, A-1 informed the deceased to come and meet him at Tiruvanmiyur to collect the money.On that day, the deceased was staying in P.W.12's house.Both the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 left the house and reached Tiruvanmiyur at 4.00 P.M. and they were waiting for A-1's call till 8.00 P.M. At about 8.00 P.M. Jayakumar contacted A-1's cell, and A-1 replied that he could go to Aavichi School at Vadapalani.Accordingly, both Jayakumar and P.W.12 reached Aavichi School, Vadapalani.On the instructions of A-1, A-3 and A-6 engaged a house at Virugambakkam and also engaged two Ambassador Cars bearing Registration Nos.TN04 D 8379 belonging to P.W.18 Selvam, and TN09 H 3535 belonging to P.W.25 Sebastian. A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-9, A-10 and A-12 used the Car bearing registration No.TN09 H 3535 and reached Virugambakkam house and were waiting for the arrival of A-3, while A-3 and A-11 to A-13 took the other ambassador car and reached Aavichi School at Vadapalani.From there, A-3 and other accused took Jayakumar to Virugambakkam house.P.W.12 also followed the vehicle.(j) While the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 were detained in the house at Virugambakkam from 23.8.2001 to 4.9.2001, from the possession of the deceased Jayakumar, the gold ring, M.O.7 and the cell phone, M.O.20, were stolen by A-4 Marimuthu and A-5 Meganathan respectively.(k) P.W.21 Soundararajan was the caretaker of Virugambakkam house.He insisted them to vacate the house.On request by A-3, A-8 Gobi arranged his grandmother's house at Athipakkam near Vandavasi.A-3 contacted P.W.19 Manohar Singh and engaged a TATA Sumo bearing registration No.TN02 E 8110 driven by P.W.16 Krishna Sagar.After receiving instructions from A-1 and A-2, A-3 left for Virugambakkam in the TATA Sumo.After reaching Virugambakkam house, A-3 and his associates namely A-4, A-5, A-7, A-8, A-9 and A-11, boarded the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 Mohan Babu in the TATA Sumo and have taken them to Athipakkam Village near Vandavasi.A-6 Senthilkumar took the motorcycle of P.W.12 and reached the said house.A-3 was waiting at Vandavasi for A-1 and others.Accordingly, A-1, A-2 and A-14 reached Vandavasi in the white ambassador car, M.O.15, and A-5, A-8 and A-11 also reached there in the TATA Sumo car, M.O.13, along with them.After reaching Athipakkam Village, A-8 introduced his relative and the tenant P.W.31 Selvaraj to A-3 and requested P.W.31 to help A-3 for comfortable stay and food.Between 9.9.2001 and 11.9.2001, A-1 and A-2 were staying in the house of P.W.7 Christopher.P.W.23 Vadivel, the Night Watchman and in-charge during the night hours of the said lodge, made entry in the register, Ex.P33, and entered the address of A-8 J.Gopi and obtained his signature.(m) On 12.9.2001, A-1, A-2 and A-14 visited the grandmother's house of A-8 at Athipakkam in the TATA Sumo driven by P.W.16 where the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 were detained.After reaching the said house, when P.W.12 was beaten, he fell down on the feet of A-1 to apologize him and requested A-1 to release him.In turn A-1 asked him to write a letter and read the same for recording purpose.Then, at the instance of A-1, A-3 forcibly made the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 Mohan Babu to write letters and the same were sent to their houses respectively.On 12.9.2001, A-1, A-2 along with the other accused A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-11 and A-14 forced Jayakumar to write a letter, and the same was recorded in the tape recorder.Similarly, P.W.12 had written Ex.P13 letter and the same was also recorded.In the said letters, A-1 made them to write that Mohan Babu and Jayakumar threatened A-1 for money and also there was a mention about the names of Udayanithi, Paruthi Illamvazhuthi and M.K.Balan.(n) During that time, P.W.31 Selvaraj helped A-3 and others for purchasing food items and liquor.In the course of abduction and during the detention by the accused, the deceased Jayakumar was not ready to get apology from A-1 though P.W.12 requested for apology.(o) Accordingly, on 12.9.2001, A-1, A-2 and A-14 vacated the rooms at Chakravarthy Lodge at about 6.00 P.M. and left for Kodaikanal in the Ambassador Car, while A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-11 along with P.W.12 and the deceased Jayakumar travelled in the TATA Sumo Car.(p) The accused stayed in the Hotel at Kodaikanal along with the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12, as stated by the witnesses.The TATA Sumo Car was driven by A-3 to the silent valley at Kodaikanal.After reaching the spot, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-11 took pattakathi, Aruval, Pithuvakathi and Madakkukathi from the vehicle and A-6 and A-7 took wooden logs.A-1 tied the eyes of Jayakumar telling that he is going to take him to his uncle for getting apology.After moving a few yards and after receiving signal from A-1, A-2 had beaten Jayakumar with uruttu kattai, and A-3 took the pattakathi and cut him twice from the backside of Jayakumar on the right backside portion of the head.At that time, A-1 pasted a plaster on the mouth of Jayakumar. A-6 and A-7 gave blow on the stomach of Jayakumar with wooden logs.When Jayakumar fell down, A-11, A-4 and A-5 also stabbed him with their knives.A-1 instructed A-3 to find out whether he is alive or not.Accordingly, A-3 checked and declared him dead.(r) On 28.3.2002, P.W.47, the Investigator obtained a copy of the confession of A-1 from the CB CID Office which was given by him while he was arrested in connection with MK Balan's murder case in E5 Foreshore Estate Police Station Crime No.986 of 2001, and altered the case into Sections 120(B), 364, 365 and 302 of IPC at 3.00 P.M. on that day.Then P.W.47 prepared an observation mahazar which is marked as Ex.On 9.4.2002, after the place was identified by A-3, P.W.5 had actually gone into the silent valley and took the three knives which are produced and marked as M.Os.8 to 10 and also the dead body.A-3 also identified the places where Jayakumar and P.W.12 were confined in Hotel Sangeeth.Then, P.W.47, the Investigating Officer, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased Jayakumar in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.(u) Then on the request of the Investigator P.W.47, the postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Jayakumar in the Government Hospital, Kodaikanal.The postmortem was conducted by P.W.40, the Medical Officer, attached to the Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai.P.W.40, after conducting autopsy, has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P59, and also final opinion under Ex.P60 that the deceased died of head injury 6 to 9 months prior to postmortem.He also gave opinion that there were three anti-mortem injuries, and they were cumulatively capable of causing death.(v) On the request of P.W.47, the Investigator, the skull of the deceased Jayakumar was sent to the Anthropology Department, Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Madras, for conducting superimposition test.P.W.41 compared the skull of Jayakumar with the photographs and opined that the photographs of Jayakumar tallied with the skull sent.Further, the DNA profile test was conducted by P.W.43 Tmt.Vijaya and Exs.P73 to P95 were marked through her.After taking the blood samples of P.W.1, P.W.2 and Dhakshinamoorthy, the father of the deceased, DNA profile were developed, and the same tallied with the DNA profile of the bone marrow taken from the skull which was seized from the body recovered from the silent valley.P.W.43 in her analysis has found that the DNA profile was tallying with each other.P10 and P11 are the GRC (Guest Registration Card) and the bill book receipt respectively.The Investigating Officer also examined and recorded the statements of P.W.14, Sakthivel, who was working as Receptionist of Hotel Sangeeth, Kodaikanal, and P.W.15 Raja, who was working as Room Boy at Hotel Sangeeth, Kodaikanal.P.W.14 gave the statement to the effect that on 13.9.2001 at 0800 hours, the accused persons arrived at the said hotel in TATA Sumo Car and also in white ambassador car, and A-3 Samikannu and A-6 Senthilkumar booked three rooms and made entry in the register of Hotel Sangeeth.The said register was recovered and marked as Ex.P.W.14 has also given statement that all the accused who stayed in Hotel Sangeeth vacated the room on 15.9.2001 at 0840 hours.(x) P.W.47 who altered the complaint as per the alteration report under Ex.P100, examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and also other witnesses and recorded their statements.P47 was recorded, and an observation mahazar, Ex.P29, and a rough sketch, Ex.P108, in respect of Virugambakkam house were prepared, and M.O.24, T.Shirt, was recovered under a cover of mahazar.That apart, Exs.P24 to Exs.P28, the letters despatched by A-6 to the residence of the deceased and P.W.12, were recovered. A-8 Gopi's confessional statement was recorded in the presence of witnesses, and the same is Ex.P43, pursuant to which, the TATA Sumo Car M.O.13 was recovered under Ex.P44, mahazar.That apart, an Ambassador Car, M.O.15, belonging to P.W.17, was also recovered under a cover of mahazar.P15 to P18, P45 and P46 the documents, were seized.P40, T.Shirt M.O.22, and a route map, M.O.23, were recovered.A-9 Balan was taken to police custody, during which he gave a confessional statement which was recorded.The admissible part is Ex.P111, pursuant to which the ambassador car, M.O.17, and the trip sheet, M.O.17, were recovered under a cover of mahazar.On the basis of the confession of A-11 Premkumar, marked as Ex.P50, M.O.26, knife, was recovered under a cover of mahazar.P.W.7, a grocery shop owner, who was desired to get a transfer for his wife working as a teacher at his native place to Madras, paid to A-1 moneys on different occasions.Equally, P.W.22 was cheated by A-1 assuring him of getting an employment.P.W.22 has categorically deposed that an amount of Rs.1 lakh was paid by way of two demand drafts in the name of A-2 each for Rs.45000/- and the remainder by cash.P.W.24 has deposed that though A-1 asked him to pay Rs.20000/- to get back the stolen jewels of his wife, he refused.But, from the evidence, it would be quite clear that on his request, P.W.24 used to talk in cell phone like Udayanithi, the son of the former Mayor of Madras Corporation, in order to make others believe that A-1 was very close to Udayanithi.It was under those circumstances, the deceased Jayakumar believed the misrepresentations of A-1 and has parted with the sum.26.P.Ws.1 to 3 have deposed that originally the house owned by their family in Door No.223, 'N' Block, Anna Nagar, was mortgaged to South East Benefit Fund, Mandaivali, for Rs.10 lakhs, and the said amount was taken by P.W.1 and Jayakumar each Rs.5 lakhs.It was agreed by them that Jayakumar was to be in possession of the property, and he should redeem the mortgage; but, he could not do so.In the meanwhile, he developed acquaintance with A-1 who was adumbrating that he was about to marry the daughter of former Mayor of Madras and was having close association with the son of the former Mayor, and hence he could see the entire interest wiped off.From the evidence of P.W.12, it could be seen that Jayakumar was closely moving with both A-1 and P.W.12 and on the instructions of A-1, he received Rs.80,000/- from Jayakumar and handed over the same to A-1 at Perambur Railway Station.The said fact spoken to by P.W.12 as to the receipt of money from the deceased Jayakumar and the handing over of the same to A-1 was corroborated by P.W.7 Christopher.P.W.3 Hemalatha, the wife of the deceased, has given evidence to the effect that she used to enquire about A-1 to her husband, and her husband informed her that A-1 was going to marry the daughter of the former Mayor.According to P.W.2, the mother of the deceased, whenever she enquired about the redemption of the mortgage to her son Jayakumar, he replied that she need not worry about it since A-1 would redeem the mortgage so easily.It is pertinent to point out that A-1 was staying in the house of the deceased from 9.4.2001 till the month of July.This part of the evidence would clearly indicate that the deceased Jayakumar was closely moving with A-1 and fell prey to his false misrepresentation, and he was also hoping that A-1 would help him in redeeming the mortgage.On the contrary, he was served with the public auction sale notice by the said Benefit Fund.Vexed over the situation, he made enquiry to the P.A. to the former Mayor and came to know that A-1 had no connection with the former Mayor.Got annoyed, Jayakumar informed to P.W.12 about the same.P6 mahazar.The Investigator has prepared an inquest report which is marked as Ex.On 13.4.2002, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and others have identified the dead body as that of the deceased Jayakumar.Apart from that, they have also identified M.Os.1 to 3, clothes, belonging to the deceased.32.Pursuant to the requisition made by the Investigator, the postmortem on the body of the deceased was also conducted in the Government Hospital, Kodaikanal.The postmortem was actually conducted by P.W.40, the Medical Officer, attached to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai.He has issued the postmortem certificate, Ex.P59, and has given his final opinion Ex.P60 stating that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury 6 to 9 months prior to postmortem.According to the Doctor, three anti mortem injuries were noticed, and they were individually and cumulatively capable of causing death.33.Pursuant to the request of P.W.47, the Investigator, the skull of the deceased was sent to the Anthropology Department, Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Chennai, for conducting superimposition test.34.Apart from all the above, the investigating agency had taken steps to conduct DNA profile test.The same was done by P.W.43 Smt.Vijaya, through whom Exs.P73 to P95 were marked.From her evidence, it could be seen that after taking blood samples of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Dhakshinamoorthy, the father of the deceased, DNA Profiles were developed, and the same tallied with the DNA profile of the bone morrow taken from the skull which was seized from the body recovered from the silent valley.P.W.43 was very categorical in her opinion that in her analysis, she has found the DNA profile tallying with each other.36.The evidence of P.W.12 that when he was illegally detained along with the deceased Jayakumar in the house at Virugambakkam, he was attacked with wooden logs and pattakathi, and simple injuries were caused stood fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7 Christopher.37.The above part of the evidence would clearly indicate that pursuant to the conspiracy between A-1, A-2 and A-3, the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 were detained at Virugambakkam, and they caused simple injuries also.There arose a necessity to vacate the house at Virugambakkam.38.According to the prosecution, the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 after vacating the house on 4.9.2001, they were taken to Athipakkam Village near Vandavasi and detained in the grandmother's house of A-8 Gopi.According to the evidence of P.W.16, Krishna Sagar, he drove the TATA Sumo Car and on the request of the accused, he contacted P.W.17, Brammiah Naidu, the owner of Sairam Travels, Avadi, to send an ambassador car.These two vehicles were actually used for the purpose of abducting the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 and also the travel of the accused.The witness has further added that A-3 was waiting at Vandavasi for A-1 and others.Accordingly, A-1, A-2 and A-14 reached Vandavasi in the vehicle M.O.15, Ambassador Car, and A-5, A-8 and A-11 also reached in the TATA Sumo, M.O.13, driven by P.W.16, and as soon as they reached, A-3 took them to one Chakravarthy Lodge along with A-8 and booked two rooms in the said lodge.According to P.W.23, the Night Watchman and in-charge during the night hours of the said lodge, he has made entry in the register, Ex.P33, and entered the address of A-8 and obtained his signature.Pending investigation, the Investigator, P.W.49, has seized the register, Ex.P33, under Ex.P34, mahazar.P.W.31 has categorically deposed that he helped those accused and others for purchasing food items and liquor till they were seen off.Thus, this part of the evidence would clearly indicate that A-1, A-2 and A-14 were staying at the Chakravarthy Lodge and all other accused took the custody of the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 who were illegally detained in the house of the grandmother of A-8 during the relevant point of time.P.W.16 who drove the TATA Sumo Car, has categorically given evidence that on 13.9.2001 at about 8.30 A.M., he reached Kodaikanal; and that A-1, A-2, A-8 and A-14 stayed in Astoria Hotel.For both the rooms which were booked at Hotel Astoria, the necessary entries were made in the Guest Registration Card, Ex.P10, as "C.Senthilkumar, No.44, Thulasingam Street, Pudupet, Madras", and the registration number of the white Ambassador Car TN20 A 3447 was also entered by the Receptionist, P.W.8, Gurusamy.The hotel receipt was marked as Ex.These two documents would clearly indicate that on 13.9.2001, A-1 has stayed along with his associates at Hotel Astoria and the Ambassador Car TN20 A 3447 was also taken by him and parked in the hotel.P47, was recorded, and an observation mahazar, Ex.P29, and a rough sketch, Ex.P108, in respect of Virugambakkam house were prepared by the Investigator, and M.O.24, T.Shirt, was recovered under a cover of mahazar.That apart, Exs.P24 to Exs.P28, the letters despatched by A-6 to the residence of the deceased and P.W.12, were recovered.For Appellants : Mr.G.Ravikumar for A-2 in CA 715/2004 Mr.T.K.Sampath for A-4 to A-7 and A-14 in CA 759/2004 Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for A-3 in CA 759/2004 Mr.S.Manohar for A-11 in CA 759/2004 Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Public ProsecutorCOMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This judgment shall govern these two appeals namely C.A.Nos.715 and 759 of 2004, the former filed by A-2 and the latter by A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-11 and A-14, who along with A-1, A-8, A-10, A-12 and A-13 stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded the punishment as follows:ACCUSEDCHARGESFINDINGPUNISHMENTA-1 to A-3120-B IPCGuiltyLife sentence with a fine of Rs.50000/-A-3, A-6 and A-8344, 365, 363 IPCA-3 and A-6 guiltyA-8 not guilty2 years RI with a fine of Rs.5000/- i/d 6 months RI u/s 3445 years RI with a fine of Rs.10000/- i/d 2 years RI u/s 3655 years RI with a fine of Rs.7000/- i/d 1 year RI u/s 363A-1 to A-14364 IPCA-1 to A-7, A-11 and A-14 guiltyA-8, A-9,A-10, A-12 & A-13 not guilty10 years RI with a fine of Rs.10000/- i/d 2 years RIA-1 to A-14302 IPCA-1 to A-7, A-11 and A-14 guiltyA-8, A-9,A-10, A-12 and A-13 not guiltyLife sentence with a fine of Rs.50000/- eachA-4, A-5379 IPCGuilty2 years RI2.Necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals could be stated as follows:(a) P.W.1 is a resident of Santhi Colony, Anna Nagar, Madras.Then all the family members decided to sell the property and to pay the mortgage debt.But, Jayakumar was not amenable for that.He undertook that he would redeem the mortgage however as per the original understanding.(b) In August 2001, the public auction sale notice was again issued by the Benefit Fund.P.W.2 requested P.W.1 to ask Jayakumar to make necessary arrangements.Jayakumar informed P.W.3 that A-1 had phoned over to him that he was keeping the money ready, and thus he left his friend's house from Perambur.Thereafter, for a few days, the whereabouts of Jayakumar was not known.(c) P.Ws.1 and 2 verified from P.W.3 at Bangalore through phone whether Jayakumar was at Bangalore.She replied that Jayakumar phoned to her on the previous day, and hence P.Ws.1 and 2 need not worry.The said amount was given by the deceased for the redemption of the mortgage.P.W.6 Manickam paid Rs.10000/- to A-1 for securing an employment for him.At that time, A-6 and A-7 removed their shirts and tied the hands of the dead body of Jayakumar.Then, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-11 lifted the body and threw away into the depth of silent valley.After committing the murder, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-11 have changed their bloodstained shirts with newly purchased T Shirts.(q) Subsequently after hearing the version of P.W.12, P.W.1 lodged a further complaint before the same police station, and P.W.47, the Inspector of Police, altered the case into Sec.363 of IPC and took up investigation.Both the accused were interrogated and confessional statements were recorded. A-4 and A-5 were taken to police custody, and during interrogation, they gave confessional statements.On their confession A-7 was arrested.On the confession of A-7, M.O.20, cell phone, M.O.21 T.Shirt, and M.O.7 gold ring, were recovered under a cover of mahazar.A-6's confession Ex.A-9 and A-10 gave confessional statements voluntarily which were recorded.On the confession of A-6, Ex.Later he gave a judicial confession before P.W.44, the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, which was recorded under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. The same is marked as Ex.A-13 was taken to police custody, and at that time, he volunteered to give a confessional statement which was recorded.The confessional statement voluntarily given by A-14 was recorded, and the admissible part is marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, M.O.18, the tape recorder, and the adopter, M.O.19, were recovered under a cover of mahazar.Also M.O.27, the document register, was recovered.The identification parade proceedings are marked as Exs.P52, P53, P56 and P57 respectively.(z) P.W.47 handed over the CD file to CB CID.P.W.49, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB CID, Metropolitan City, took up the case for further investigation.M.Os.13 and 15, the vehicles which were used for kidnapping and murder of the deceased were seized and the relevant documents were also seized.Apart from that, the witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded.The witnesses identified the places used for confining the deceased and P.W.12 at Virugambakkam, Athipakkam (Vandavasi) and Kodaikanal.The Investigator seized the relevant documents and examined the witnesses concerned.He further seized the document relating to the pledging of the house, Ex.P3, of the deceased through P.W.1 on 10.7.2002 and examined concerned witnesses.3.The case was committed to Court of Session and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants and other accused, the prosecution examined 49 witnesses and relied on 116 exhibits and 58 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.6.Added further the learned Counsel that from the evidence of P.W.1, it could be seen that the deceased was leading a very miserable life; that he has borrowed lakhs of rupees from the third parties; that he could not make the payment also; that M.O.4 is the diary admittedly written by Jayakumar which would clearly speak about the miserable life and distressed situation in which he was; that under the circumstances, there was all possibility for himself committing suicide; that in the instant case, the prosecution relied on the identification proceedings as one of the circumstances; that the identification parade was conducted belatedly; that while all the accused persons are in judicial custody and they were also taken to the Court frequently and also the witnesses would state that they have already seen the photographs, the identification parade should not be given any evidentiary value; that in fact the evidence of the postmortem Doctor P.W.40 has supported the case of the defence; that as far as the judicial confession alleged to have been given by A-11 was concerned, it was a retracted confession; that he did not implicate A-2 with respect to all the overt acts; that it could be well stated that the confession by A-11 cannot be said to be a confession at all since he has not implicated himself; but, it was an incriminating one as far as the other accused are concerned; that so long it was exculpatory, it cannot be considered to be a confession given by that accused; that the ingredients of abduction were not proved by any evidence by the prosecution; that under the circumstances the prosecution has not proved its case, and hence the appellant/A-2 is entitled for acquittal.7.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant/A-3 in C.A.No.759/2004, the learned Counsel Mr.P14 "P.Samy" was that of Swamikannu as found in Sec.313 statement; that the said procedure is bad in law; that the driver, P.W.16, has categorically admitted that the photos were shown to him before the identification parade by P.W.35; that above all, in the evidence of P.Ws.15, 16 and 17 there were material discrepancies, and the same could not be attached with any evidentiary value; that there is no evidence for conspiracy; that no inference could be drawn that there existed any conspiracy; that if Ex.P96, the judicial confession of A-11 is rejected, then A-3 stood on the same footing of the acquitted accused, and hence he has got to be acquitted.12.Added further the learned Counsel that as far as the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the abduction was concerned, P.W.12 has candidly admitted that they went to a house at Virugambakkam of their accord which would clearly indicate that they were not abducted; that apart from that, it was the evidence of P.W.12 that from the house at Virugambakkam they were taken to different places in Madras in two ambassador cars; that even at that time it did not pass in the mind of P.W.12 that they were abducted; that when they were taken from Virugambakkam to Vandavasi by cars either P.W.12 or Jayakumar had travelled along with others, and they did not make any attempt to escape or try to inform the same to any one relative though Jayakumar had a cell phone in hand; that P.W.12 has candidly admitted that they travelled with them without any cruel treatment, and hence it cannot be stated that there was any abduction.13.It is further contended by the learned Counsel that P.W.12 has deposed that during the stay at Kodaikanal, they were going about for shopping; that if it was true, there was all possibility of escaping or at least to give information to the relatives at Madras; but, P.W.12 has not chosen to do so, since he was also staying with all comfortably, and thus, it cannot be stated as a detention or confinement; that the prosecution could not prove that the body that was recovered from the silent valley was that of Jayakumar; that it is true that the prosecution made its attempt to prove; but, neither by direct evidence nor by expert's evidence it could prove conclusively; that P.W.3 the wife of the deceased, has categorically stated that he has sold all the jewels worn by him, and hence the case of the prosecution that A-4 and A-5 stole the gold ring of Jayakumar when he was at Vandavasi was an invention and introduction in order to rope in those accused and also to strengthen the case by introducing it as a circumstance.14.Added further the learned Counsel that even it is admitted by P.W.12 that he was taken from Kodaikanal to Madras, and he was left with P.W.7 Joseph to whom he had shown the injuries caused by the accused; but, he has not whispered anything till 23.3.2002; and that it is pertinent to point out that though P.W.1 gave the first complaint for man missing and the second complaint for the abduction of his brother, the conduct of P.W.12 in not revealing anyone of the happenings for number of months would cast a doubt on his testimony.15.Added further the learned Counsel that the evidence of P.W.12 was thoroughly unreliable since there was discrepancy on material particulars from the statement given by him to the Inspector of Police, K4 Anna Nagar Police Station, the statement recorded by the Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. and also the evidence adduced before the trial Court; that he has also deposed that CB CID Police did not interrogate him in the instant case; but, he was examined only in M.K.Balan's case; that as far as the statement given by P.W.12 to the Inspector of Police, K4 Anna Nagar Police Station, was concerned, it could be seen that one Dhanasekar was on inimical terms with Jayakumar, and he was responsible for the death of Jayakumar; that the said Dhanasekar was originally added as an accused in the case; but, he was subsequently dropped by the CB CID for the reasons best known to the department, and hence it would be quite clear that the statement of P.W.12 to the Inspector of Police, K4 Anna Nagar Police Station, would clearly indicate that neither A-1 nor the other accused was responsible for the death of Jayakumar.24.The case of the prosecution as could be seen from the charges levelled against the accused/appellants and other accused who were ordered to be acquitted, was that pursuant to the conspiracy entered into among A-1, A-2 and A-3, the deceased Jayakumar was abducted along with P.W.12 Mohan Babu and illegally detained in a house at Virugambakkam from 23.8.2001 to 4.9.2001 and at Athipakkam (Vandavasi) from 4.9.2001 to 12.9.2001; that he was kept in illegal custody on 13.9.2001 and 14.9.2001 at Kodaikanal; and that on 14.9.2001, he was murdered and his body was thrown into the silent valley.27.P.W.32 has deposed that his friend deceased Jayakumar came to his house, informed him about the circumstances and also prepared a written complaint, Ex.P49, against A-1 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, and the same was kept by Jayakumar.P.W.12 has categorically deposed that the deceased along with the witness went to A-2's house, met A-1 and quarreled with him.From the evidence of P.W.12, it would be quite clear that when Jayakumar along with the witness demanded A-1 for redemption of mortgage either, or return of money or if not, it would be brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Police by way of complaint, being provoked by the behaviour of the deceased, A-1 decided to eliminate him which led to the hatching up of the conspiracy with A-2 and A-3 to eliminate the deceased.This part of the evidence adduced by the prosecution through P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 22 and 24 would clearly indicate that A-1 was indulging in criminal activities by cheating number of persons including the deceased Jayakumar.28.On 23.8.2001, the deceased Jayakumar was informed by A-1 to come and collect the money at Tiruvanmiyur.Accordingly, the deceased who was staying in P.W.12's house, proceeded to Tiruvanmiyur along with P.W.12, and they were waiting from 4.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. When Jayakumar contacted A-1 by phone at 8.00 P.M., A-1 asked him to go to Aavichi School at Vadapalani.Accordingly, the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 reached Aavichi School at Vadapalani, but A-1 was not found there.On the contrary, both were taken to a house at Virugambakkam.Pending the investigation, the Investigator has made an inspection of the said house situated in Door No.19/233, Natesan Nagar, III Main Road, Virugambakkam, and prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P.W.21 was examined as a witness to the above facts.While they were so detained, A-3 had seized the complaint written by the deceased addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Madras.Both Jayakumar and P.W.12 were compelled to write letters, and the same were sent to their houses respectively during the relevant period.On 12.9.2001, the accused forced Jayakumar to write a letter and the same was also recorded in the tape recorder.P.W.12 was also directed to write Ex.P13 letter, and the same was also recorded.The writing of those letters would clearly indicate as if both the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 Mohan Babu threatened A-1 for money and also the names of Udayanithi, Parithi Ilamvazhudhi and M.K.Balan were also referred therein.Apart from that, all those incriminating evidence were discovered and recovered by P.W.48 when he was investigating M.K.Balan's murder case and produced pending the trial.29.It cannot be disputed that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer to substantiate the conspiracy which was hatched up among A-1, A-2 and A-3. Needless to say that the conspirators would hatch up the conspiracy in secrecy leaving no proof, and hence in most of the cases it would be highly impossible to adduce direct evidence to prove the conspiracy.The Apex Court and the High Courts following the Apex Court, have rendered catena of decisions that the conspiracy could be proved by process of inference from the proved facts and circumstances.In a case reported in 1999 (3) SCC 609, the Apex Court has held that the conspiracy is a rim, which is bound by several spokes, and one spoke need not know what the other spokes does so long as the wheel rotates without any hindrance.Sec.10 of the Indian Evidence Act provides sufficient sanction to use the evidence of one conspirator as against another conspirator.In the instant case, the Court could easily infer the conspiracy hatched up among A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-6 from the facts and circumstances in respect of which sufficient proof was placed by the prosecution leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court.The prosecution placed sufficient proof as could be seen from the available materials that the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 had association with A-1, and the deceased has made payments to A-1 through P.W.12 namely Rs.80000/-, and A-1 gave assurance to redeem the property of the deceased which was mortgaged with the Benefit Fund.A-1 was staying in the house of the deceased for a few months.The deceased was making demand on A-1 for redemption of the mortgage or for the return of the money or he would give a police complaint, and accordingly, he has actually prepared a complaint for that purpose.When it came to the knowledge of A-1, he has done the act with A-2 and A-3, and A-6 actually joined with them.Accordingly, A-1 informed the deceased that he should come to Tiruvanmiyur to get back the money.Thereafter, he was asked to come to Aavichi School, Vadapalani wherefrom he was actually taken by the accused.Both the deceased and P.W.12 were kept in the house at Virugambakkam from 23.8.2001 to 4.9.2001 which was arranged by the accused and from there, they were abducted to the grandmother's house of A-8 at Athipakkam near Vandavasi from 4.9.2001 to 12.9.2001, and there from they were taken in the two cars bearing one ambassador and the other TATA Sumo, and the deceased was kept along with P.W.12 at the Hotel Sangeeth at Kodaikanal, while A-1 and some of the accused were staying at Hotel Astoria.Thereafter, the deceased was taken and was murdered, and the dead body was thrown into the silent valley.Regarding all these factual positions, the prosecution was able to place cogent evidence to prove all the above circumstances from which it could easily be inferred that without a conspiracy between A-1, A-2 and A-3, these two persons could not have been abducted from Madras to various places, and at the end, Jayakumar was killed.30.In the case on hand, though direct evidence regarding conspiracy is absent, all the proved facts and circumstances which were made available before the trial Court, would lead to the irresistible inference that A-1, A-2 and A-3 were the conspirators to such a conspiracy.Hence the comment made by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer and the circumstances placed would not suffice to accept the case of conspiracy has got to be rejected.His confessional statement was recorded by the Inspector of Police, K4 Anna Nagar Police Station, who took him to Kodaikanal.It was A-3 who identified the places namely Hotel Sangeeth, where the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 were confined by them and the place where the deceased was taken and murdered by A-1 to A-3 and A-11 with deadly weapons.On 9.4.2002, M.Os.8 to 10 were seized by the Investigator in the presence of independent witnesses.On 11.4.2002, the body of the deceased was lifted from the silent valley and brought out by P.W.5 and others.The admissible part of the confessional statement is marked as Ex.P4, and P.W.5 was cited as a witness to that fact.The observation mahazar in respect of the place of occurrence was marked as Ex.P5 and P.W.5 stood as a witness.It is pertinent to point out that M.Os.8 to 10, the weapons of crime, were actually taken from the silent valley and seized under Ex.According to P.W.7, when P.W.12 was kept in his house on the instruction of A-1, A-2 and A-4, P.W.12 narrated that the said injuries were caused by the accused when he was detained at Virugambakkam, and also he noticed those injuries.That apart, those gold ring and cell phone were identified by P.W.1 to 3 before the Court.P.W.3 also deposed to the fact.Through that, the prosecution was able to prove that A-4 and A-5 have committed the offence of theft.These two documents were seized by the Investigating Officer under mahazar Ex.The signature and the handwriting of A-1 which were found in Exs.P11 and P12 were subjected to comparison by P.W.42, the expert, who has given his categorical opinion that the signature and handwriting of A-1 found in Exs.P11 and P12 tallied at the time of comparison.According to P.W.14, the Receptionist, at the Hotel Astoria, Kodaikanal, A-3 and A-6 booked three rooms in the name of Samy as "P.Samy, No.2 NSC Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai 79".The signature of Sami in the said Register is marked as Ex.P14, through P.W.14, the Receptionist.40.Now, At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the contention of the appellants' side that there is no evidence to indicate that the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TN20 A 3447 was taken by them, and the prosecution has not placed any evidence, and trip sheets which were seized and placed were manipulated, and the examination of P.W.17, the owner of the said Ambassador Car, would not in any way help the prosecution has got to be rejected in view of the entry made by P.W.8 the Receptionist, in Ex.41.The learned Counsel for the appellants made a comment that the name of Samikannu was not Samy, and he was also not residing in the address entered in that Register, and hence the Investigating Officer should have verified whether such a person was living in the address given therein.This contention has got to be rejected for more reasons than one.P.W.14 working as a Receptionist in Hotel Sangeeth at Kodaikanal has clearly deposed to the fact that on 13.9.2001 at 0800 hours, the accused persons came in a TATA Sumo and also in a white Ambassador Car, and it was A-3 and A-8 who booked three rooms.P.W.14 has clearly identified that it was A-3 who signed the Register.Added further the witness that A-3 made an enquiry about a better hotel for the stay of the persons, who travelled in the white Ambassador Car and it was P.W.14 who informed him that they could stay in Hotel Astoria.Apart from that, the prosecution had the benefit of the evidence of P.W.15 who was working as a Room Boy in Hotel Sangeeth.He has categorically stated that A-3 and A-6 booked three rooms.Through P.W.14, it was proved that those rooms in which A-3 and others were staying were vacated on 15.9.2001 at 0840 hours.Thus, by the above narrated evidence, the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt has clearly proved that the deceased Jayakumar and P.W.12 were abducted from Aavichi School at Vadapalani, and then detained in a house at Virugambakkam between 23.8.2001 to 4.9.2001, and they were taken from Virugambakkam to Athipakkam Village near Vandavasi and kept in the house of A-8's grandmother till 12.9.2001 on which date they have taken the deceased and P.W.12 to Kodaikanal, and they have detained P.W.12 and the deceased at Hotel Sangeeth.As stated above, as far as the above factual position was concerned, the prosecution had, in the considered opinion of the Court, direct evidence which is cogent, believable and trustworthy.42.As far as the last part of the case of the prosecution as to the murder of the deceased Jayakumar, though not the prosecution had direct evidence to offer, it has placed and proved the necessary circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.The prosecution had placed sufficient evidence to indicate that the deceased Jayakumar was last found in the custody of the accused.According to P.W.16, while A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-11 along with the deceased and P.W.12 were staying in Hotel Sangeeth in three rooms, he was also staying with them, and on that evening A-3 took the key of the TATA Sumo and left the hotel along with A-1, A-2 and A-14 and they came back, and on the next day that was on 14.9.2001 at about 5.00 P.M., A-3 took the keys of the TATA Sumo Car and A-3 accompanied by A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-11 took Jayakumar.At that time, A-1 instructed A-8 and A-14 to take care of P.W.12 and P.W.16 also.All these accused who left with the deceased Jayakumar from the room, alone returned, but Jayakumar was not found.P.W.16 has further added that on 15.9.2001, A-3 instructed him to get ready to leave for Chennai from Kodaikanal at about 9.00 A.M. The witness also noticed A-3 to A-8 and A-11 boarding the TATA Sumo vehicle, but neither P.W.12 nor Jayakumar.Immediately, P.W.16 enquired A-3, and A-3 in turn informed that they are coming in the other vehicle.Again P.W.16 enquired about the deceased Jayakumar, and A-3 replied that Jayakumar was left in the factory of A-2's relative at Kodaikanal.P.W.16 did not see Jayakumar thereafter.According to P.W.12, when be boarded the Ambassador Car, he enquired about Jayakumar with A-1; but, A-1 replied that Jayakumar was sent to Chennai after meeting his uncle.On the same day at about 9.00 P.M., A-1 left P.W.12 in the house of P.W.7 and requested him to take care of him.When P.W.12 was staying in the house of P.W.7, he showed all the injuries caused on his body and explained how those injuries were caused to him.From the available evidence, it could be seen that the prosecution had proved that between 12.9.2001 and 15.9.2001, A-1, A-2 and A-14 were staying in Hotel Astoria, and during those days, the other accused were staying in Hotel Sangeeth along with P.Ws.12 and 16, and that on 14.9.2001, P.Ws.12 and 16 have noticed that Jayakumar was taken by A-1 and A-3 accompanied by other accused in the TATA Sumo and left Hotel Sangeeth, but when they returned, Jayakumar was not found.On the next day, whey they were about to start on 15.9.2001, P.W.16 asked A-3 and P.W.12 asked A-1 as to the whereabouts of Jayakumar.When they left from Hotel Sangeeth, they have taken the deceased, but the accused alone returned, and the deceased did not return.Then the burden of proof lies on the abductors, the appellants herein, and they alone could tell the Court as to what happened to the deceased after he was abducted.Both the accused were interrogated and confessional statements were recorded. A-4 and A-5 were taken to police custody, and they gave confessional statements.On their confession, A-7 was arrested on whose confession, M.O.20, cell phone, M.O.21 T.Shirt, and M.O.7 gold ring, were recovered under a cover of mahazar.On the confession of A-6, Ex.P40, T.Shirt M.O.22, and a route map, M.O.23, were recovered.On the basis of the confession of A-11 Premkumar, marked as Ex.P50, M.O.26, knife, was recovered under a cover of mahazar.45.On perusal of the available materials, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 16 has got a vital role to play.Admittedly, P.W.12 was a close associate of the deceased, who was actually abducted along with him from Aavichi School on 23.8.2001 in two Ambassador Cars driven by P.Ws.18 and 25 respectively.It was A-8 who arranged two rooms at Chakravarthy Lodge.P33 and P34 are the ledgers seized from the said Chakravarthy Lodge in which A-8 has signed the register as allottee of two rooms.P.W.31 has categorically deposed that it was he who was attending on the deceased by serving food, etc., and thus the fact that P.W.12 and the deceased were kept in illegal custody at Athipakkam during the relevant time, while A-1 and others were staying at Chakravarthy Lodge, Vandavasi, remained proved.46.P.W.12 has further deposed that on 4.9.2001, the deceased Jayakumar and himself were taken to Kodaikanal where they were staying till the date of occurrence.This evidence of P.W.12 that they were abducted from Athipakkam to Kodaikanal is spoken to by P.W.16 who drove the TATA Sumo Car in which both of them were taken.P.W.16 has categorically deposed that it was he who arranged for another Ambassador Car in which car A-1, A-2 and A-14 travelled.The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the non-examination of the owner of the TATA Sumo and the driver of the Ambassador Car would lead to the conclusion that those cars were not utilised for that purpose has got to be discountenanced since P.W.16 was a driver of a vehicle who was actually working in a Travel Agency and he had no axe to grind.Nothing is shown that he is either interested in the prosecution nor inimical to the accused.Despite the cross-examination in full, his evidence remained unshaken.He has also categorically deposed that the accused reached Kodaikanal on 13.9.2001 morning along with P.W.12 and the deceased Jayakumar.Out of them, A-1, A-2 and A-14 stayed at Hotel Astoria, and along with the deceased, P.W.12 and others stayed at Hotel Sangeeth.The evidence of P.W.12 was much assailed by the learned Counsel for the appellants that even as per his evidence, he was taken back to Madras and locked in the house of P.W.7, and both P.Ws.12 and 7 have spoken about the simple injuries sustained by P.W.12, and the manner in which they were also caused by the accused, but it is highly unnatural and surprising that he was keeping mum without divulging any fact to anybody till A-1 was arrested on 27.5.2002; that the silence of P.W.12 all along these period would be telling that he was actually lying before the Court, and his evidence should not be accepted.He was kept in custody along with Jayakumar at number of places namely Virugambakkam, Athipakkam and also Kodaikanal, and Jayakumar was also found missing.As could be seen, if anything came out of his mouth, it would endanger his life.Under such circumstances, he has not approached the police or others.In order to save his life, he has not opened his mouth either before the police or before others.The identification parade of all the 14 accused were conducted on different dates.The Metropolitan Magistrate who conducted the identification parades has strictly followed the procedural formalities and the witnesses have identified the said accused properly.P.W.8 has identified A-14 on 8.4.2003 and also A-1, A-2 and A-8 on 8.4.2003 and 26.11.2002 respectively.Since the case rested upon circumstantial evidence, number of witnesses were to be examined, and their statements were to be recorded.That apart, material objects and records were to be collected from all the places.The accused 14 in number, have also been arrested in the interval period.Out of the 14 accused, except A-3, A-4 and A-5, all others were arrested at different points of time, and the requisitions have been made for the conduct of the identification parade by the Investigating Officer, P.W.49, without delay.The identification parade was conducted by the Metropolitan Magistrate pursuant to the orders of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and thus the delay has occasioned in that process.50.The learned Counsel brought to the notice of the Court that the witnesses had occasion to see the newspapers in which the photos of the accused were flashed and also they had the news items.It is true that originally, Dhanasekar was included as an accused.But, at the same time, he was all along with the other accused for committing the crime of abduction for commission of murder of Jayakumar, and hence the lower Court found him guilty under Sec.364 IPC and awarded punishment of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine and default sentence, which has got to be sustained.The sentence already undergone by A-11 shall be given set off.The conviction of A-1 to A-3 under Sec.120(B) of IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.50000/- imposed by the trial Court are confirmed.The sentence already undergone by A-1 to A-7 and A-14 shall be given set off.The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.50000/- and default sentence imposed upon A-11 under Sec.302 of IPC are set aside, and he is acquitted of that charge.The fine amount paid by A-11 in that regard will be refunded to him.66.Before concluding the judgment, the Court has to record its utmost appreciation for the investigation made by the team of Officers of the CB CID, and in particular, P.W.49, the Investigating Officer, who has taken sincere and strenuous steps in gathering the necessary materials and pieces of evidence at different places of the State and unfold the entire mystery of the case thereby enabling the Court to arrive at a just and correct decision in the case.Necessary it is to record its gratitude for the real assistance rendered by Mr.T.K.Sampath, Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, Mr.G.Ravikumar and Mr.S.Manohar, appearing for the respective appellants and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.P.Kumaresan, in taking the Court to the voluminous evidence and also necessary materials.67.In the result, both these criminal appeals are dismissed.nsv/To:1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police CB CID, Metro Wing, Chennai 2 K4 Anna Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1440/20013.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,382,949 | 1 4.2013..aks In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.03.2013 in connection with Habra P.S. Case No.915/12 dated 17.11.2012 under Sections 363/365/34/302/201/109 of the Indian Penal Code In the matter of : Biswajit Bairagi & Ors..... petitioners Mr. Sumanta Chakraborty Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty ... for the petitioners Mr. Kallol Mondal ... for the State.The petitioners on being arrested in connection with this case was produced before the principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Salt Lake City as they were found to be juvenile in conflicting with law on the date of alleged incident.After their production before the Board, they prayed for bail.However, the concerned Board rejected such prayer. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,384,363 | A statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., like the other accused, was recorded as narrated in the Magistrate's judgment.No defence was entered.There is common evidence appearing against all the accused except the incident attributed to the revisionist attempting to push the wife into a canal while on way to Kanpur from the native village riding his bicycle and deserting her there on the approach of a tempo, which she boarded to ride back home to her parents.The Magistrate, on this common evidence, had convicted all the five accused and sentenced them in the manner indicated herein before but the Sessions Judge found on common evidence, no case proven by the prosecution against the four family members of the husband convicted alongside by the Magistrate and acquitted them.However, learned Sessions Judge has proceeded to distinguish and discerned evidence appearing against the husband to hold him guilty of offences under Section 498A and 323 IPC.The only controversy between the parties is as to whether who was responsible for the same. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,933,874 | Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under :-On 28.2.79 at about 6 p.m. the accused and the deceased introducing themselves as husband and wife under the false names of Swapan Mandal and Lily Mandal respectively came to Ambi Hotel at Diamond Harbour and booked room No. 4 of the hotel on payment of Rs. 20/- as room charge.They signed in the visitor's register and wrote the necessary particulars.They occupied room No. 4 and took two plates of food served by P.W. 2 Renubala, cook of the hotel, in the room on payment of usual charges.The lock and key of the room were made over to the accused.They shut the door of the room at about 9 p.m.Next morning at about 6 a.m. the accused-appellant slipped away from the hotel keeping the room under lock and key with the deceased inside the room on the pretext of taking tea outside.Being suspicious P.W. 1 Kanai Lal Haldar, Manager of the hotel and P.W. 3 Prasanta Pradhan, a bearer of the hotel went out in search of the accused.They did not find him in the tea stall.On search, they found him about to board a bus of route No. 76 at the bus stand which is very near the hotel.Being challenged by P.Ws. 2 and 3, the accused after initial refusal came with them to the hotel.On way to hotel P.W. 5 Ranjit Kr.Gain, a local shopkeeper to whom P.W. 1 narrated the incident, accompanied them to the hotel out of curosity.PW1 Kanai Lal Haider, Manager of the said hotel, has deposed that on 28.2.79 at about 6.00 P.M. the accused came to the hotel with the deceased and introduced her as his wife.He asked for accommodation in the hotel for 2/3 days.Room No. 4 on the first floor was allotted to them.The accused and the deceased duly subscribed their signatures in the visitors' Register of the hotel.After the food was served, the accused asked her to leave the room and she accordingly left the room.His evidence is that the accused came to the hotel on 28.2.79 between 6.00 and 6.30 p.m. along with a woman whom he introduced as his wife.He was present when had a talk with PW1 regarding accommodation in the hotel.Both of them put in their signatures in the Visitors' Register.PW1 asked him to take them to Room No. 4 on the first floor.Accordingly he took them to Room No. 4 and showed them all about accommodation including the bath-room.The blankets and beds were in order.Let us next consider what happened in the next morning.PW3 rose up in the early morning and opened the collapsible gate and the entrance gate when he saw the accused descending to the ground floor.On his query, the accused first said that he would go out to purchase cigarettes.When PW 3 told him that cigarettes would not be available as shops were still closed, the accused took another plea that he would go out for taking tea and went out PW3 informed PW1 while the accused was leaving the hotel.JUDGMENT Jyotirindra Nath Hore, J.For committing murder of Dolly Gomesh alias Lily Mondal, wife of Late Robert Gomesh of Kundarali P.S. Baruipore appellant Bhaskar Purkait alias Swapan Mandal was convicted by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, 11th Court, Alipore Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.The appellant seeks to assail the said order of conviction and sentence in this appeal.The accused reluctantly opened the lock of the room No. 4 with the key which was with him and all of them entered into the room and found the deceased lying on the bed with her entire body covered with a blanket upto forehead.At the instance of P.W. 1 the accused called the deceased several times but there was no response.The accused then made a false statement that she drank heavily last night and was fast asleep and asked for two cups of tea.P.W. 2 Renubala who in the meantime entered into the room pointed out that there was no sign of breathing.At the insistence of P.W. 1 the accused was compelled to remove the blanket from the face of the deceased and the witnesses saw profuse bleeding from her mouth and nose which drenched the bed-sheet, the pillow-cover and other parts of the bed.She was found dead.On the query of P.W. 1 the accused made an extra judicial confession that he had love affairs with the deceased but after his marriage the deceased used to visit the house of his father-in-law and his house which disturbed the marital peace between him and his married wife for which he killed the deceased.On receipt of information P.W. 8 Amitava Maiti and P.W. 12 Bimal Modak, owners of the hotel, came to the hotel.P.W. 1 and P.W. 12 went to the police station and P.W. 1 lodged First Information Report at 7.15 a.m. on the basis of which P.W. 13 S.I. Gourhari Das, the then Officer-In-Charge of Diamond Harbour P.S. started a case Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the accused and took up investigation, After completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the accused which in the usual course ended in the commital of the case to the Court of Session.In defence, the accused pleaded innocence.The defence case is, that the accused went to Diamond Harbour to purchase fish and when he was waiting for boarding a bus of route No. 76 the Manager and another young man took him to the hotel and he was falsely implicated out of mere suspicion.In order to bring home the charge to the accused, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses while the defence examined none.That the deceased died of violence is not disputed before us and has been proved by the prosecution beyond any shadow of doubt.P.W. 10 Dr. Prafulla Ch.Dutta who held autopsy on the body of the deceased found the following injuries :- Two bruises-one on each side at the level of hyoid bone-more or less oval in shape measuring 1" x " each.There were also abrasions slightly crescentic in shape on the upper part of both the bruises.On dissection under bone tissues corresponding to the tissues showed evidence of effusion of blood with clots on both sides and the hyoid bone also showed fracture on both sides almost at the same level.Fractured hyoid bone.in the opinion of the doctor, was due to throttling ante-mortem and homicidal in nature and also associated with T.B. lungs both sides.Throttling caused fracture for which there was bleeding.The accused paid to the witness Rs. 20/- as room charge for one day and he granted receipt for the same.As per order of the accused, he sent one plate of dal and one plate of meat to room No. 4 at about 8.30/9.00 P.M. and the accused paid the usual charges for the food.As usual the doors of the hotel were locked after 9.00 P.M. The collapsible gates on the staircase leading from the ground floor to the 1st and 2nd floor were also locked.It also contains handwriting of the witness.The evidence of the PW1 receives corroboration from the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert PW9 Sri Ajit Kumar Ghosh.PW9 who is Examiner of Questioned Documents attached to C.I.D. W.B. compared the disputed writings and signatures at page 159 of the Visitors' Register Book of Hotel Ambi marked by him as X and X/1 with the specimen writings and signatures of the acused taken in open court marked by him as S and S/1 and found agreements in as many as 8 items regarding pen movement, slant, manner of execution of some letters etc. as enumerated by him in his evidence and his considered opinion is that the said questioned writings and signatures are written by the writer of the specimen writings and signatures.The opinion of the hand-writing expert together with the direct evidence of PW1 leaves no doubt that the disputed writings and signatures in the Visitors' Register are those of the accused.As we shall see later, the accused opened the door of Room No. 4 next morning with a key which was with him.The lock and key seized under a seizure list (Ext. 9) are mat.Ext. XVIII).PW1 asked PW3 to have an inspection of the room where the accused stayed as a routine check.Accordingly PW3 went upstairs and found Room No. 4 under lock and key.He knocked at the door shouting 'Madam, Madam, several times but there was no response.PW3 immediately reported the matter to PW1 and both of them immediately went out in search of the accused.PW1 went to the tea-stall but did not find the accused.PW1 also went there.At first the accused refused to come back to the hotel with them.But when they challenged him as to why on the false plea of taking tea he was boarding a bus leaving the room under lock and key with the woman inside, the accused reluctantly accompanied them to the hotel.While they were passing by the side of the shop of PW3 Ranjit Kumar Gayen, on his query PW1 narrated the incident to him and Ranjit also accompanied them to the hotel.All of them went to Room No. 4 on the first floor.In the mean time PW2 also joined them.PW1 asked the accused to open the door of the room as the key was with him.The accused reluctantly opened the door with the key that was with him.All entered into the room and found the deceased lying on the bed wrapped with a blanket up to her forehead.At the instance of PW1 the accused called the deceased several times but there was no response.The accused then made a false statement that due to heavy drinking on the previous night she was fast asleep and asked PW1 to arrange for two cups of tea.PW2, however, noticed that there was no sign of breathing.PW1 then asked the accused to remove the blanket from the face.When this was done, the witnesses found her dead with profuse bleeding from mouth and nose which drenched the pillow, bed-sheet and other parts of the bed.After this startling disclosure, PW1 challenged the accused that he had committed the crime.The accused then made a confessional statement in presence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 that he had love-affairs with the deceased and that after his marriage the deceased used to pay visits to his house and to the house of his father-in-law which led to disruption of the matrimonial relation between him and his wife and disturbance of matrimonial peace for which he killed the deceased.Thereafter PW3 informed the hotel owners PW8 Amitabha Maity and PW12 Bimal Kumar Modak who came to the hotel.PW1 and PW12 went to the police station where PW1 lodged the First Information Report.The accused made a similar confessional statement before PW8 in presence of PW3 and others.The evidence clearly discloses that the extra-judicial confession was not obtained by threat or coercion.The statement of the accused in his examination Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was severely beaten by one Anadi is not supported by any material on record.The evidence does not show that any person named Anadi was present at all.The defence case is that the accused came in that early morning to Diamond Harbour to purchase fish and he was wrongly apprehended out of suspicion while he was about to board the bus is falsified by the overwhelming evidence of the witnesses and the fact of the accused's possession of the keys of Room No. 4 and his signatures in the visitors' book.The learned Advocate for the appellant has commented on non-examination of other boarders.The evidence discloses that as soon as the crime was detected, other boarders left the hotel presumably out of fear of being involved in the affair.The evidence also does not disclose that they were material witnesses for unfolding any material part of the prosecution story.The evidence, both oral and documentary, is absolutely trustworthy and above blemish and so non-examination of the other boarders is of no consequence.It would appear that the accused falsely introduced the deceased as his wife.The deceased was the wife of late Robert Gomesh of Ukil Para, Baruipore, P.S. Baruipore and her real name was Dolly Gomesh.It is clear from the evidence of her son PW11 Jiban Gomesh.The accused is known to PW11 and it appears from the evidence of PW11 that the real name of the accused is Bhaskar Purkait who is a resident of Tripura Nagar, P.S. Baruipore.The evidence of PW3 also shows that the accused disclosed his real name as Bhaskar Purkait and of the deceased as Dolly Gomesh.i) The accused and the deceased stayed in hotel Ambi on 28.2.79 in Room No. 4 on the first floor and the keys of the room were handed over to the accused ;ii) The accused booked the accommodation in the hotel falsely introducing the deceased as his wife and suppressed their identity by giving out pseudo names and signed in the Visitors' Register of the hotel in the pseudo names ;iii) The accused was alone with the deceased in Room No. 4 of the hotel on the fateful night between the 28.2.79 and 1.3.79 ;iv) Early next morning the accused slipped away from the hotel on the false plea of taking tea outside leaving the door of his room under lock and key with the deceased inside and was trying to escape by boarding a bus on Route No. 76 when he was apprehended by PWs 1 and 3 ;v) The key was found in possession of the accused and it was the accused who opened the door with the key after he was brought to the hotel;vi) The accused made a false statement that due to heavy drink on the previous night the deceased was fast asleep and ordered for two cups of tea in a bid to conceal death of the deceased and remove suspicion from the minds of the witnesses when the deceased did not respond to his calls ;vii) When the accused removed the blanket from the face of the deceased, the deceased was found dead with profuse bleeding from her mouth and nose soaking pillo, bed sheet etc;viii) The medical evidence shows that the death of the diseased was due to throttling, fracturing hyoid bone which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.The above circumstances which have been firmly established by the prosecution are clinching and form a complete chain of events leading to the irresistible conclusion that it was the accused and the accused only who caused the death of the deceased by throttling.The extra-judicial confession which is found by us to be free and voluntary lends further assurance to the said conclusion.It also supplies the motive for the crime.The contention is based upon the finding of PW10 that the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis of both lungs.At best the tuberculosis of both lungs might have hastened death.The circumstances leave no doubt whatsoever that the accused brought the deceased to the hotel with the intention of causing her death in order to get rid of her inasmuch as the illicit connection of the accused with the deceased threatened to disturb the matrimonial peace and break the marriage for the visits of the deceased to his house and to the house of his father-in-law.It was a pre-planned murder.The accused was, therefore, rightly convicted Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,933,894 | The accused be summoned and punished according to law.The employer is within its right to create a fund or take out an insurance policy with a view to lessen its burden for arranging funds at the time the gratuity is to be paid to its employees.On these findings, the complaint was dismissed.It is against this order that the complainant has filed the present petition.The liability to pay the gratuity arises only after retirement or death and it is the responsibility of the employer to find the money and pay the same. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,394,164 | Heard arguments.Perused material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Sessions Trial No.258/2011, arising out of crime No.276/2011 registered at Police Station Gotegaon of Narsinghpur district against him and others for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 190, 294, 323, 324, 327, 364 and 506-B of the IPC, pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur.As per the material available on record, the applicant was on bail in the sessions case.On 2.12.2016 the applicant did not appear in the sessions case.As a result, the trial court cancelled his bail-bonds and directed to secure his presence in the sessions case.On 8.6.2017, he was arrested.Thereafter, he filed an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The trial court dismissed the application.Hence, this bail application.It is ordered that applicant Vipin Upadhyay be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (thirty thousand) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance on all such dates as may be fixed by it in the course of trial of the case.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,397,074 | R.Saritha, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/de facto complainant.The second respondent entered appearance through Advocate Mrs.R.Sarita, who strongly opposed the grant of bail to the appellant, on the ground that he was the Panchayat President and he is very influential.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that there is one previous case against the appellant in Crime No.21 of 2020 for the offences under Section 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC on the complaint lodged by one Balasubramaniam.It is seen that the second respondent is an accused in Crime No.1867 of 2020 for the offences under Section 448, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC, which has been registered by the Police on the complaint given by one Gopalkrishnan S/o.(i) the appellant shall be released on bail on he executing bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood relative, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur;(ii) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Principal Sessionshttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/7 Crl.A.No.369 of 2020 Judge, Tiruppur, may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity;sni Crl.A.No.369 of 2020 23.09.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7During the course of investigation of that case, it is alleged that the appellant herein, abused and threatened the second respondent and asked her to withdraw the complaint.The bail application filed by the appellant in Crl.M.P.No.942 of 2020 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, has been dismissed on 04.09.2020, aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been filed.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 Crl.A.No.369 of 2020Heard Mr.P.Kalimuthu, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent/State and Mrs.Kumarasamy, the relative of the accused herein.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/7 Crl.A.No.369 of 2020On reading the F.I.R. in the present case viz., Crime No.1868 of 2020, it appears that there was some money transaction between the second respondent/de facto complainant and the appellant, on account of which, there were disputes between them.Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 04.09.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.942 of 2020 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions :-(iii) the appellant shall report before the respondent/police as and when required;(iv) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Principal Sessions Judge is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant released on bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; and(v) if the appellant thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.23.09.2020 snihttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 Crl.A.No.369 of 20201.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharapuram Police Station Limit, Tiruppur District.2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 Crl.A.No.369 of 2020 P.N.PRAKASH, J. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,401,529 | I have gone through the entire evidence adduced during the trial.I have gone through the impugned judgment.3 The appellant is alleged to have raped the younger sister of his wife.According to the victim, she never consented for such an act, but the appellant would forcibly have intercourse with her.The victim did not disclose the incidents to any of her family members as she was scared of the appellant and as the appellant had threatened to the victim that he would divorce her sister.After a few months, the appellant and the sister of the victim went to reside at Govandi.The mother of the victim went to a Darga at Gujarat.The victim's father once went to their village for some work.The victim refused, but the sister telephoned at the place where the victim was working, and the employer of the victim then asked her to go back.This is how the victim was forced to go back to her sister's house.The victim continued to stay with her sister, as she had already lost her job.With the acquaintance of one Rubina, who was doing a course of beauty parlour, the victim started going to beauty parlour.She came in contact with a social worker - Bhavna Kamble (PW3).The victim told Bhavna that she wanted to stay in hostel, whereafter, Bhavna took her to Children's Home.The victim narrated what had happened to her, to one Sunita Madam, who was a Probation Officer attached to the avk 4/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 ::: 2-APPEAL-1030-2013-J.doc Children's Home.Sunita Madam then called the police, enquiries were made, and a case of offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 506 (Part I) of the IPC was registered.The appellant came to be arrested.dated 14th August 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, convicting the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 376 and Section 506 (Part I) of the Indian Penal avk 1/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 ::: 2-APPEAL-1030-2013-J.doc Code (IPC).The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 506 (Part I) of the IPC.Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this court by filing the present appeal.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::2 I have heard Shri K.M.Mhatre, the learned counsel for the appellant.I have heard Shri A.R.Patil, the learned APP for the State.That, as the appellant had no place to stay, he started residing with his wife in the house of his in-laws.While staying avk 2/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 ::: 2-APPEAL-1030-2013-J.doc there, the appellant used to wake the victim up in the night, take her to gallery, and used to have sexual intercourse with her.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::The mother of the victim, had, in that situation, instructed the victim to go to her sister's house, i.e. the house of the appellant and the victim did accordingly.The brother of the victim had also accompanied her.While the victim was staying with the appellant, in the house of the appellant, the appellant again raped her on a number of occasions.The victim had some quarrel with her sister, and the sister of the victim had asked her to leave the house.Apparently, the victim was searching for a job and had found some work in a house at avk 3/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 ::: 2-APPEAL-1030-2013-J.doc Byculla.The victim then started residing in the house of her employer.However, once the victim's brother telephoned her and called her to her sister's house, i.e., the appellant's house.The victim, however, did not like to stay there and went back to her employer's house at Byculla.The sister of the victim, however, called the victim back by telling that Noor -::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::son of victim's sister - was not well.The victim went to her sister's house, and found that a false reason had been given by her sister to call her back.He was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced, as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::4 Totally six witnesses were examined during the trial.The first is the victim herself.The second witness is Dr.Baban Shinde, who had carried out medical examination of the victim.The report given by him was tendered in evidence (Exhibit 15).The third witness is, as aforesaid, Smt.Bhavna Kamble - social worker - who had come in contact with the victim.The fourth witness P.S.I. Kalpana Sawant is the one who had recorded the statement of the victim, which was treated as First Information Report (FIR) (Exhibit 10) and on the basis of which, a crime report being C.R.No.34 of 2012 was registered.The fifth witness is also a policeman - P.I. Nandkumar Shirke, who was attached to Sewree Police Station at the material time, and who had, after carrying out investigation into the matter, filed a charge-sheet avk 5/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 ::: 2-APPEAL-1030-2013-J.doc against the appellant.The sixth and the last witness is one Khan Mohd. Javed Moazzam Ali, in-charge Head Master in S.S.Reynolds Municipal Urdu Secondary School, where the victim, at the material time, was staying.This witness was examined to prove the date of birth of the victim.Through him, a 'bonafide certificate' issued by Madanpura Vocational Municipal Urdu School, where the victim was initially studying, was produced.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::According to this witness, the date of birth of the victim was 4 th March 1995, which he has stated on the basis of the certificate issued by the said Madanpura Vocational Municipal Urdu School, which was available in his school.5 I have carefully gone through the evidence of the victim.There is nothing improbable or unbelievable in her evidence.It does not seem to be suffering from any infirmities.I find that the victim's evidence can be safely relied upon.There is nothing in her cross-examination which would make the court doubt the truth of her version.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::of the examination of the victim, as submitted by him, leaves no manner of doubt that the hymen of the victim was torn, that the tears were old and healed, and that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse.Baban Shinde had also carried out Ossification test and had come to the conclusion that the age of the victim was about 15 to 16 years.7 The evidence of Smt.Bhavna shows that the victim would come to the classes conducted by her along with one Rubina, and that, she used to teach the victim also, but the victim would 'sit quiet.' What the witness wanted to convey and has conveyed to the court is that there was something in the behaviour of the victim which was not normal and probably indicative of depression.It is when Smt.Bhavna made enquiries with the victim, that the victim revealed her story to her.Bhavna has then stated about her having taken the victim to Dongri Shelter Home and the victim thereafter narrating about the acts of the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::the version of the victim cannot be relied upon, and that, it was highly unlikely that the appellant would be able to perform such acts against the will of the victim in a small room, which was occupied by several other persons.He also submitted that there was no satisfactory evidence of the age of the victim, and that, considering the margin of error in fixing the age by the Ossification test, it was not possible to hold that the victim, at the material time, was below 16 years of age.Interestingly, neither the father nor the mother of the victim, who could have stated about the date of birth of the victim, was examined during the trial.The age was sought to be established only on the basis of the Ossification test and the birth avk 8/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 ::: 2-APPEAL-1030-2013-J.doc certificate produced by Khan Mohd. Javed Moazzam Ali (PW6).I have carefully gone through the evidence of this witness.I find that the source, on the basis of which the relevant entry recording the date of birth of the victim was made, has not been disclosed in his evidence.His evidence also does not disclose the manner in which the record relating to the date of birth of students was being maintained in the school.In the absence of any information about the manner in which the relevant record was being maintained, and the source on the basis of which the relevant entry came to be made, it would be hazardous to place reliance on this evidence to hold that the victim was, at the material time, below 16 years of age.Similarly, Dr.Baban Shinde has conceded in the cross-::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::examination that while determining the age on the basis of Ossification test, a variation of two years would be possible.This conclusion, arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, does not seem to be suffering from any error.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::11 Though it is not possible to hold that the victim was certainly below 16 years of age at the material time, it is also not possible to come to a conclusion that the victim was, possibly, a consenting party to the acts of intercourse.12 All the contentions raised before this court were raised before the trial court also by the learned counsel for the appellant, and in my opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dealt with those contentions properly.The appreciation of evidence, as done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, does not seem to be suffering from any error.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::Sessions Judge, therefore, appears to be sound and correct.14 It may only be briefly observed that, that the room that was being occupied by the appellant and the victim was too small, and that, when there were other persons residing in that room, the appellant would not have been able to commit the act of sexual intercourse with the victim, does not appeal to me.Infact, it appears that the appellant was doing such acts regardless of the consequences and without being afraid of the consequences.Infact, the appellant appeared to be in such a position that nothing serious would happen to him, even if such acts would be disclosed to his wife and other members of his wife's family.The evidence indicates that even the wife of the appellant was aware of what the appellant was doing, but she could not do anything to prevent the same.This appears from the evidence of PW3 Bhavna.As the wife of the appellant has not been examined, even if the matter is left at that without arriving at any conclusion in avk 11/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 ::: 2-APPEAL-1030-2013-J.doc that regard, the fact remains that the version of the victim cannot be disbelieved on the basis of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in that regard, has observed that the victim was quite helpless in the situation and had no other alternative but to suffer the wrongs silently.It cannot be overlooked that the victim did not even have an inclination to report the matter to the police, and it is only after coming in contact with Bhavna, who took her to Children's Home, that the incidents came to light.Thus, the victim cannot be attributed with any motive, for falsely implicating the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::15 The medical evidence leaves no manner of doubt that the victim had, had repeated acts of sexual intercourse.According to the victim, she had had sexual intercourse with the appellant on a number of occasions, and that, she was not a consenting party to any of the said acts.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::trial, there seems to be no reason to doubt the version of the victim.In my opinion, the order of conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is proper and legal, warranting no interference.17 The learned counsel for the appellant, however, urged that the sentences imposed upon the appellant be reduced.18 After carefully considering the matter from all angles, after hearing the learned APP, and after considering the circumstances in which the alleged offences were committed and the reaction of the victim towards the offence, I think it proper to reduce the sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions avk 13/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 ::: 2-APPEAL-1030-2013-J.doc Judge in respect of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 :::19 It is accordingly ordered that the substantive sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with respect to the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC shall be reduced to a period of Rigorous Imprisonment for 8 years.20 Subject to the reduction in the substantive sentence, as aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2016 00:01:28 ::: | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,402,322 | rt 2558/2000) are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly ou having common object and in furtherance of common object C of that assembly, they used lathis in commission of offence, h for which, they have been convicted for the offence ig punishable under Sections 147, 506-B/149, 302/149 and H 307/149 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months, RI for 1 year along with fine of Rs.300/-, RI for life along with fine of Rs.1000/- and RI for 10 years along with fine of Rs.500/- ; appellant Narendra Singh (criminal appeal no. 2572/2000) is alleged to have committed murder of the deceased Arunandra by fire arm has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 506-B/149, 302 and 307/149 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year, RI for 1 year along with fine of Rs.300/-, RI for life along with fine of Rs.1000/- and RI for 10 years along with fine of Rs.500/- and appellant Ramsuhavan Singh (criminal sh appeal no.2601/2000) is alleged to have made attempt to commit murder of one Babulal by fire arm has been e ad convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 506-B/149, 302/149 and 307 of IPC and has been sentenced Pr to undergo RI for 1 year, RI for 1 year along with fine of Rs.300/-, RI for life along with fine of Rs.1000/- and RI for 10 a hy years along with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that M on 13.3.1996 between 9 P.M. to 10 P.M., deceased Arunandra Singh, injured Babulal (PW-5), complainant of Bhimsen (PW-1) and some other persons were sitting at the rt house of Ramniranjan Singh and chit-chatting about ou cultivation.Babulal, deceased Arunandra and Bhimsen got up to go to their home then Narendra Singh S/o.Indrabhan C (PW-7) and Bhole Singh (PW-9) also accompanied them to h ig some distance.When they reached near a garden known as Phutha Bagicha, complainant Bhimsen who was H having a torch, noticed the presence of some people and in the torch light, he saw the appellants and acquitted accused persons Ramsukh Singh, Pushpendra Singh, Rampal Singh, Ramnarayan Singh and Ashok Singh.Accused Narendra and Ramsuhavan were armed with guns and rest of the accused persons were having lathis and acquitted accused persons were unarmed.On asking by accused Rambhagwan, deceased Arunandra replied that it was he.Soon thereafter, accused Narendra fired on Arunandra and caused gunshot injury, due to which, he fell down and then a second fire sh alleged to have been made by accused Ramsuhavan hit Babulal (PW-5) and Babulal also sustained gun shot injury e ad but he ran towards the house of Ramniranjan.Bhimsen (PW-1) also ran away and thereafter, appellants / accused Pr persons along with others also ran away by abusing.On hearing noise of firing, Ramniranjan Singh (PW-2) and other a hy people gathered at the place of incident.Babulal (PW-5) informed Ramniranjan Singh that accused Ramkripal Singh ad and his companions fired on Arunandra and caused his death M and he also sustained gun shot injury.Thereafter, Ramniranjan Singh (PW-2) of informed the Police Station Semariya, district Rewa, on rt which, Police reached at the spot where on the information of ou Bhimsen (PW-1), Dehati merg intimation Ex.P/6 and Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1 were recorded and thereafter, on the basis of C Dehati Merg Intimation, in the police station Semaria, FIR h ig Ex.P/8 and merg intimation Ex.P/9 were registered at Crime No.33/96 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of IPC H against the appellants / accused persons.Injured Babulal (PW-5) was sent to the hospital for treatment.Thereafter, inquest report Ex.P/2 was prepared and on 14.3.1996 two empty cartridges of 12 bore gun were found lying on the spot which were seized and in this regard, seizure memo Ex.P./11 was prepared and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination to the Additional Health Centre, Semaria where Dr. Prakash Singh Parihar (PW-8), Assistant Surgeon, conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Arunandra and injured Babulal was also examined sh by Dr. A.K. Khare (PW-13).Thereafter, during the investigation, all the e ad accused persons including the appellants except Ramsuhavan were arrested and from the possession of Pr appellant / accused Narendra S/o.Ganesh Singh one 12 bore gun was seized and in this regard, seizure memo Ex.P/7 was a hy prepared.From the possession of the appellants / accused Ramkripal Singh, Gajadhar Singh, Virendra Singh, Brajendra ad Singh and Rambhagwan Singh, lathis were seized.Appellant M / accused Ramsuhavan was absconded.A gun seized from the possession of the appellant / accused Narendra S/o.H (J.K.MAHESHWARI) (J.P.GUPTA) JUDGE JUDGE Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2017.11.28 12:37:21 +05'30' H ig h JP/-C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sha (Delivered on 24th day of November, 2017) hy ad Per J.P. Gupta, J :This judgment shall govern the disposal of all M the aforesaid three criminal appeals arising out of a common of judgment dated 29.9.2000 passed by the trial court in S. T. No.123/1996, whereby the appellants (criminal appeal no.of Ganesh Singh and the empty cartridges recovered from the rt spot were sent for report of ballistic expert to the FSL vide ou letter Ex.P/27 dated 13.9.1996 and the FSL report is Ex.P/28, according to which, the empty cartridges were fired by the C gun which was seized from the possession of the appellant / h ig accused Narendra.After completion of the investigation, the H police filed a charge sheet against the appellants / accused before the Court having jurisdiction from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge for trial.Appellant / accused Ramsuhavan surrendered before the court on 17.12.1996 and he was also tried simultaneously along with other accused persons.The learned trial Court framed charge for the offence under Sections, 147, 148, 506-B/149, 307 in alternative 307/149 and 302 in alternative 302/149 of the IPC against the appellants / accused persons.However, the sh appellants / accused including the acquitted accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded for trial.On behalf of the e ad appellants / accused Narendra and Ramsuhavan, plea of alibi was taken and in their defense, they adduced witnesses before the trial court.Pr Learned trial court after trial of the case a hy acquitted accused Ramsukh Singh, Pushpendra Singh, Rampal Singh, Ramnarayan Singh and Ashok Singh on the ad ground that they were unarmed at the time of incident.M Therefore, their presence at the time of incident sharing common object of the unlawful assembly has not been found of proved beyond reasonable doubt.Although, the appellants / rt accused persons have been convicted and sentenced as ou mentioned earlier placing reliance on the evidence of Bhimsen (PW-1), Babulal Singh (PW-5), Narendra Singh S/o.C Indrabhan Singh (PW-7), Bhole Singh (PW-9) and recovery of h ig the empty cartridges from the spot and recovery of the gun from appellants -accused Narendra Singh S/o.Ganesh singh H and ballistic expert report Ex.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have filed this appeal challenging the findings of the learned trial court on the ground that all the witnesses are partisaned as it is admitted fact that they had strained relationship on account of criminal litigation and political rivalry with regard to election of Sarpanch.Their statements are full of material contradictions and omissions.The incident had taken place in the dark night.The evidence with sh regard to having torch by Bhimsen (PW-1) at the time of incident is not reliable as the alleged torch has not been e ad seized.The FIR is also antedated.At the time of incident, appellant accused Narendra was busy doing his job as Pr medical practitioner and appellant accused Ramsuhavan was ill and admitted in the hospital at Raipur.So far as other a hy accused persons are concerned, they have been also implicated in the incident on account of rivalry because if ad they had been present at the time of incident they would M have also assaulted somebody by their weapons.Their overt act has not been proved.Hence, it cannot be said that they of were the member of an unlawful assembly.The evidence rt with regard to recovery of gun from the possession of ou appellant / accused Narendra S/o.Ganesh Singh is also not reliable.The gun was not recovered from the possession of C accused / appellant Narendra.It was recovered from an h ig agriculture field which was an open place and the seized gun is a licensee gun of Chhangeshwar Singh (DW-10) who has H stated that the gun was taken by the Investigating Officer Khurshid Khan (PW-11) on 13.3.1996 with cartridge under the pretext of investigation and the same was not returned to him.In the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the appellants.Hence, in the view of the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer is made to allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.9. Learned PL appearing for the respondent / State has argued in support of the impugned judgment and sh stated that the finding of conviction and sentence of the learned trial court is in accordance with law.Hence, the e ad appeal be dismissed.Having considered the rival contentions of Pr both the parties and on perusal of the record it is found that in this case there is no controversy that the a hy deceased Arunandra had died on 13.3.1996 in the intervening night of 13/14.3.1996 in village Kushwar near a ad garden situated on the way the house of Ramniranjan Singh M and Babulal on account of gunshot injury caused by accused Narendra S/o.Ganesh Singh and at the same time, Babulal of (PW-5) also received gunshot injury.These facts are also rt proved by the prosecution by the evidence of autopsy ou surgeon Dr. Prakash Singh Parihar (PW-6) who has proved his PM report Ex.P/10 and Dr. A.K. Khare (PW-13) who has C proved MLC report Ex.P/30 of injured Babulal.Dr. Munshi h ig Khan (PW-8) has proved the documents relating to the treatment of Babulal vide Bed Head ticket Ex.H Therefore, there is no hesitation to hold that the deceased Arunandra Singh was killed by gunshot injury and at the same time, injured Babulal (PW-5) was also attempted to commit his murder by gunshot injury.In this case appellant / accused Narendra is the main accused against whom injured witness Babulal (PW-5), Bhimsen (PW-1), Narendra Singh S/o.Indrabhan Singh (PW-7) and Bhole Singh (PW-9) have categorically stated that in the light of torch which was having by Bhimsen (PW-1), they saw appellant / accused Narendra S/o.sh Ganesh Singh armed with gun and on asking by accused Rambhagwan, deceased Arunandra replied that it was he e ad then appellant / accused Narendra fired by gun on Arunandra Singh and on receiving gunshot injury, he fell Pr down.Thereafter, a second fire was made which hit Babulal (PW-5) who ran away in injured condition.Khurshid Khan, a hy Investigating officer (PW-11) has stated that during the investigation on 14.3.1996 from the place of incident two ad empty cartridges of 12 bore gun were found and the same M was seized as per seizure memo Ex.This statement has been supported by Bhole Singh (PW-9) and Narendra Singh of S/o.Indrabhan Singh (PW-7) as Punch witness.Further, rt Khurshid Khan, Investigating officer (PW-11) has also stated ou that on 9.6.1996 appellant / accused Narendra was followed by him with a view to arrest but he ran away leaving 12 bore C gun in the field.The gun was seized as per seizure memo h ig Ex.P/7 in the presence of Bhole Singh (PW-9) and Dalpratap Singh (PW-3).Punch witness Dalpratap Singh (PW-3) has H also stated that in front of him the gun was seized from the field of accused Narendra which he left running away to avoid his arrest.According to the statement of Khurshid Khan (PW-11), two empty cartridges were seized from the spot and the seized gun was sent for FSL and FSL report is Ex.As per the FSL report Ex.P/28, the empty cartridges were fired by the seized gun.This fact establishes that at the spot both fires were made by the seized gun which was left by appellant / accused Narendra S/o.Ganesh Singh and against sh whom all the eye witnesses have said that he fired on Arunandra Singh and the FSL report establishes that the e ad both fires were made by one gun.Hence, it is also established that second fire on Babulal (PW-5) was also madePr by appellant / accused Narendra Singh S/o.Ganesh Singh.In the statements of the aforesaid eye a hy witnesses there is no material contradictions and omissions.Their statements are reliable and their testimony cannot be ad thrown out only on the ground that when the first time M Ramniranjan Singh (PW-2) asked Babulal (PW-5) about the incident, he did not disclose the name of appellant / accused of Narendra.At that time he was in injured condition and told rt Ramniranjan Singh that Ramkripal Singh and his companions ou killed Arunandra by firearm and the police reached on the spot without any delay and recorded Dehati merg intimation C Ex.P/6 and Dehati Nalishi Ex.So far as non-compliance h ig of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, testimony of eye witnesses cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that H compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. has not been proved.On behalf of appellant / accused Narendra, in defence Rambakhat Singh (DW-1) and Maniranjan Singh (DW-7) were produced to prove the fact that at the time of incident he was busy doing his job as medical practitioner and both the witnesses have stated that on the date of incident they were taking treatment from him.But on record there is no evidence regarding competence of the working as medical practitioner of appellant Narendra S/o.Ganesh Singh or having any license or permission with regard to operating sh dispensary and nursing services.Hence, the statements of the aforesaid defence witnesses cannot be relied upon.Prima e ad facie it appears to be created evidence after thought.On behalf of appellant Narendra Singh S/o.Pr Ganesh Singh, Chhangeshwar Singh (DW-10) and his daughter-in-law Dayawati (DW-11) and Ramprakash Singh a hy (DW-12) have been produced in defence with a view to prove the fact that the seized gun was taken from Chhangeshwar ad Singh (DW-10) in the intervening night of 13/14th of March M 1996 by the Investigating officer Khurshid Khan (PW-11) of under the pretext of investigation with live cartridge without giving any receipt and the Investigating officer had abused rt him and thereafter, he took Chhangeshwar Singh forcibly to ou the police station and later on, after getting Rs.20,000/- from C her daughter-in-law Dayawati (DW-11), he was released and h the amount was managed by Dayawati (DW-11) from the ig Bank with the help of Ramprakash (DW-12).These witnesses H have narrated the aforesaid facts in their statements and also produced Bank Pass-book Ex.Chhangeshwar Singh (DW-10) has also stated that he also filed an application Ex.D/15 but the certified copy of the application Ex.D/15 has not been proved in accordance with law.It is a private document which was required to be proved by calling original document before the court below.In these ad circumstances, the aforesaid evidence cannot be said to be M reliable one as admitted by Khurshid Khan (PW-11) Investigating officer that the seized gun was the licensee gun of of Chhangeshwar Singh (DW-10) and appellant / accused rt Narendra is close relative (nephew) and for giving his ou licensee gun to his nephew (appellant Narendra) unauthorizedly, Chhangeshwar Singh (DW-10) was C prosecuted for committing offence under Section 30 of the h ig Arms Act. Khurshid Khan (PW-11) Investigating officer has also stated that Chhangeshwar Singh (DW-10) made a H complaint against him and also filed different affidavit.The concerned Magistrate rejected that complaint and the allegations leveled by the witnesses against him with regard to seizure of the gun from Chhangeshwar (DW-10) and falsely showing seizure of the gun from appellant / accused Narendra S/o.Ganesh Singh.In view of the aforesaid discussion it is found that the recovery of the gun and its uses for commission of the aforesaid incident / offence corroborates the evidence of sh the eye witnesses who have categorically stated that appellant / accused Narendra S/o.Ganesh Singh fired on the e ad deceased Arunandra Singh and at the same time, Babulal was also injured by the second gun fire made by Narendra.Pr So far as other accused / appellants persons are concerned, none of the eye witnesses has said that at the a hy time of incident, accused Ramsuhavan was also armed with gun.No one be left alive.But this fact has not been mentioned even in C their police statements.Bhimsen (PW-1) has also not h ig mentioned this fact in the Dehati Nalishi Ex.Therefore, the alleged overt act attributed to accused Ramkripal is not H believable.Learned trial court has acquitted other accused persons Ramsukh Singh, Pushpendra Singh, Rampal Singh, Ramnarayan Singh and Ashok Singh because they were unarmed at the time of incident and appellant / accused persons Ramkripal Singh, Gajadhar Singh, Virendra Singh, Brajendra Singh and Rambhagwan Singh have been convicted as they were armed with lathis at the time of incident.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the aforesaid accused persons only on the sh aforesaid basis cannot be said to be justifiable in absence of their overt act.All the aforesaid accused persons / appellants e ad and acquitted accused persons at the time of incident were present on the spot and as per the evidence, they were Pr coming from opposite direction and they had no previous knowledge about passing of the deceased and eye witnesses a hy nearby the place of incident.If they had shared any common ad object to commit murder or assault to any one at the time of M incident with appellant / accused Narendra S/o.Ganesh Singh then definitely they would have assaulted or chased of the deceased and the eye witnesses but they had not done rt anything.The the Honble Apex court in the cases of ou Kuldip Yadav and others Vs.Apart from conviction under H Section 302, all the accused were also convicted under Section 149 IPC.In the earlier part of our order, we have analysed the evidence led in rt by the prosecution and also pointed ou out several infirmities therein.In our C view, no overt act had been h attributed to any other accused ig persons except Brahamdeo Yadav H (A-1) towards the murder of Suresh Yadav.Had the other accused persons intended or shared the common object to kill Suresh Yadav, they must have used the weapons allegedly carried by them to facilitate the alleged common object of committing murder .In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, merely the presence of the accused persons having arms at that time of incidence are not sufficient to hold that they sh were the member of unlawful assembly sharing common object with accused Narendra S/o.Ganesh Singh for e ad committing murder of Arunandra or making attempt to commit murder of Babulal.Pr Defence witnesses produced on behalf of appellant / accused Ramsuhavan with regard to his illness a hy and to be admitted in the hospital at Raipur at the time of incident is concerned, learned trial court has analyzed this ad fact in paragraph 18 of its judgment and after giving cogent M reasons found the same to be unbelievable.After scrutiny of the record, in view of this court, learned trial court has not of committed any error coming to the aforesaid conclusion.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the ou findings of the learned trial court with regard to conviction of the appellants / accused in criminal appeal no.2558/2000 C and appellant / accused Ramsuhavan Singh in criminal h ig appeal no.2601/2000 regarding committing murder of the deceased Arunandra and making attempt to commit murder H of Babulal (PW-5) are not sustainable.Hence, criminal appeal no.2558/2000 filed by the appellants Ramkripal Singh, Gajadhar Singh, Virendra Singh, Brajendra Singh and Rambhagwan Singh and criminal appeal no. 2601/2000 filed by the appellant Ramsuhavan Singh deserve to be and are allowed.They are acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 506-B/149, 302/149, 307 and 307/149 of IPC.They are on bail.Their bail bonds stand discharged.So far as appellant / accused Narendra S/o.Ganesh Singh is concerned, it is found that the prosecution sh has succeeded to prove the fact that he committed murder of the deceased Arunandra Singh and also made attempt to e ad commit murder of Babulal (PW-5).Hence, the appellant Narendra S/o.Ganesh Singh is convicted for the offence Pr punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC in place of 148, 506-B/149, 302 and 307/149 of the IPC and sentenced to a hy undergo RI for life along with fine of Rs.1000/- and RI for 10 years along with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of ad fine, he shall further suffer RI for 6 months, respectively.M Both the sentences shall run concurrently.Consequently, criminal appeal no.2572/2000 of filed by appellant Narendra S/o.Ganesh Singh is disposed of rt with the aforesaid modification.A copy of this order be sent to the trial court h ig and the jail authorities concerned for information and necessary action. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,934,058 | By the impugned judgment, while allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant, alleging harassment on account of his arrest on the strength of a non-bailable warrant, which had been cancelled, the High Court has directed the delinquent police officer to pay by way of costs to the appellant an amount of `2,000/- from his own account.Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for adjudication of the present case, may be stated thus:On 15th August, 2002, the complainant approached the Colaba Police Station and insisted on the arrest of the appellant in pursuance of the said non-bailable warrant.Thereupon, respondent No. 2, who at that point of time was posted as an Inspector of Police at the Colaba Police Station, directed a constable to accompany the complainant, and 2 execute the warrant.When the appellant was sought to be arrested, he informed the constable that the said warrant had already been cancelled.However, as he could not produce any documentary evidence relating to cancellation of warrant, the appellant was arrested before a public gathering which had assembled at the Radio Club, in connection with the Independence day celebrations.D.K. JAIN, J.:Leave granted.This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th November 2007, rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in CRL.Some time in the year 2000, one, Mr. Prem Harchandrai filed a complaint, being C.C. No. 163/P/2000, against the appellant, a practicing Advocate, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC"), in relation to some incident alleged to have taken place in the `Radio Club' at Mumbai, considered to be a club for the elite.The warrant was forwarded to the Colaba Police Station for execution.However, on 12th August, 2002, on appellant's putting in an appearance before the Court, the warrant was cancelled.He was produced before the duty Magistrate at about 2 P.M., the same day.The Magistrate directed the release of the appellant.It appears that the appellant obtained the necessary confirmation about cancellation of the warrant on the next day i.e. 16th August 2002 and produced the same before respondent No. 2 on the same day.The Magistrate could have issued either a notice or a bailable warrant depending upon the 3 facts revealed from the records.Once the warrant was cancelled on 12th August, 2002, it was necessary for the Court to immediately communicate the same to the concerned Police authority so that no inconvenience could have been caused to the person against whom the warrant was initially issued. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,406,206 | (VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE Digitally signed b by BIJU Date:2019.09.25 17:37:30 +05'30'This is first application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in jail since 12.06.2019 in connection with Crime No.314/2019 registered at police station, Timarni District Harda for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 336 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.The case of the prosecution in short is that victim was grazing sheep in the agricultural field of the applicant to which the applicant objected to it.Then the quarrel arose between them and the applicant beat the victim on that count.There was no intention of the applicant to commit murder of the victim.The quarrel arose on the ground of quarrel of grazing the sheep in the agricultural field of the applicant.After considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case and also the statements recorded during trial, charge sheet has been filed after completion of investigation and the applicant is not needed in the investigation, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Jairam, stands allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal 2 MCRC-34482-2019 Procedure.This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,407,314 | 2. G. P. Pathak was posted as Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department.The applicant and co-accused Pankaj Pathak are his sons On 21.1.1995 respondent, Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, filed a charge sheet against G. P. Pathak under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (in short, "the Act").According to the respondent, during the check period from 1.1.1973 to 12.11.1995 G. P. Pathak accumulated wealth disproportionate to his known source of income.Ajit Singh, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 10.7.2012 passed in Special (Criminal) Case No.15/2005 by the Special Judge (Lokayukt), Jabalpur, whereby he has dismissed the applicant's application for discharge.The respondent thereafter on 8.7.2009 filed a supplementary charge sheet against the applicant and Pankaj Pathak for offences under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act and section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.The respondent has alleged that applicant and 2 Pankaj Pathak not only abetted G. P. Pathak to commit the offences but also submitted in different accounts fake vouchers and receipts of agricultural produce by using them as real.The trial court framed charges under sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act against G. P. Pathak and charges under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act and section 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and Pankaj Pathak.The trial court thereafter vide order dated 18.6.2012 has closed the prosecution case against him.It is at this stage the applicant and Pankaj Pathak filed an application for their discharge on the ground that since the main accused has died they, being the alleged abettor, cannot be prosecuted and convicted.The application was opposed by the respondent.The trial court disagreed with the applicant and by the impugned order dated 10.7.2012 dismissed his application for discharge. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,934,098 | He came to the Customs baggage shed at Danushkadipier on 5-2-1958 for embarkation.He made a declaration in Ex. P-1 that he had only Rs. 10 in Indian currency notes.P.W. 1, the Inspector, Central Excise, Dhanushkodi examined the baggage and found that he had no dutiable articles.But P.W. 2, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had information that the accused was carrying currency notes, followed him and question him.The accused was then wearing a cap and chapels.P.W. 2 cut open one of the chapels and found two packets rolled in white paper inserted in the chapel.He found 35 notes of RS.100 denomination in one packet and 30 notes of similar denomination in the other packet.Similarly he cut open the other chappal (M.O.2), and he found therein also two packets containing in all 65 notes of Rs. 100 denomination.There were thus 130 notes of Rs. 100 denomination found hidden in the two chappals.The cap of the accused was then cut open and P.W. 2 found in the cap (M. O.3) 130 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination concealed around the cap between the card board padding and the outer fur of the cap.All these were seized and a mahazar Ex. P. 2 was prepared for the same.The Mahzar was attested by P. Ws.It is doubtful whether this statement is admissible in view of the fact that it was an admission made to a police officer.The Deputy Superintendent also seized the railway receipt, Ex. P. 4, The accused did not show the officer concerned any reserve bank licence to carry currency notes to the above extent. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,102,630 | P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased.On 29.03.2005, the marriage between the appellant/first accused and deceased (Rukmani) was solemnized.A2 is the mother of A1 and mother-in-law of the deceased.The deceased along with A1 and A2 was residing at M.G.R. Colony as joint family.After marriage, A1 and A2 ill-treated the deceased that she must bring money from her parents.On 27.02.2005, the deceased was harassed by A1 asking her to bring Rs.10,000/- from her parents.Thereafter, on 29.03.2005 at 10.00am, A1 and A2 joint together and harassed the deceased as to what seervarisai she had brought and beaten the deceased with lock and firewood.Thereafter, they reached A1 house and found that her daughter's body was laid down on the floor.However, without hearing P.W.1 and P.W.2's request the body was taken to the burial ground andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 cremated.However, the said body was removed from the cremation ground, in respect of which P.W.1 lodged the complaint Ex.3.P.W.8 Sub Inspector of Police received the report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.125 of 2005 under Section 498A, 302 and 201 IPC.P9 is the printed FIR.The said report was forwarded to P.W.11-RDO and further handed over the investigation to P.W.13-Deputy Superintendent of Police.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up the case for further investigation, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.Thereafter, they were beating her and demanding dowry.After three months from the date of marriage, he went to the daughter's matrimonial home and found A1 attacked the deceased in his presence.Thereafter, he took his daughter to his house.After two or three days, A1 came to house and pacified the deceased and took her to his house.Thereafter, P.W.1 arranged the marriage of his son.A1 and his daughter came to that marriage, at that time, A1 quarreledhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 with the deceased that he would live with her only if she brings money from her father and A1 left the deceased in P.W.1's house and went to his house.After two or three days, again he came to P.W.1's house and pacified to send back the deceased to matrimonial home.Thereafter, the deceased along with plastic container and silver vessel, went to drinking water pipe to fetch water, at that time, A1 beaten the deceased with fire- wood and A2 beaten her with lock and caused injuries.Thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were informed that her daughter was dead.Without hearing the request of P.W.1 and P.W.2, A1 to A6 took the body of the deceased to cremation ground and cremated the deceased.Then P.W.1 and P.W.6 went to the cremation ground and pulled out the body from the fire.Thereafter, they went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint.15.P.W.8, Sub Inspector of Police, while he was working as Sub Inspector of Police at Tharamangalam Police Station, after receipt of Ex.P1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No.125/2005 under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC.The said FIR is marked as Ex.P2.http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Thereafter, he dispatched the copies of the FIR to the R.D.O., Mettur and D.S.P., Omalur Sub Division, for further investigation.The said FIR was handed over to P.W.10-Ramasamy Head Constable, in order to handover the same to the Judicial Magistrate, on 30.03.2005 at 2.30 am, the said FIR was handed over to jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate, Omalur.16.P.W.11-RDO, while she was working as RDO at Mettur, on 29.03.2005, she received the copy of the FIR of the deceased.On the same day, at 1.00 am, she went to the cremation ground of Tharamangalam and saw the body of the deceased half burnt and she conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased.Then she examined one Loganathan, Bakkiyam, Venkatachalam, Arthanari, Rathinam, Munusamy and Suseela before the Panchayatar.The inquest report and her report are marked as Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 respectively.She has stated in Ex.P.11 that the evidence clearly indicates that there is no dowry harassment.17.P.W.9 Subramani, the then Head-Constable, on 29.03.2005, after inquest, received the dead body and handed over to the Salem Government Hospital for postmortem.After postmortem, he handed over the body of the deceased to her relatives.http://www.judis.nic.in 10The fine amount, if any, paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them.The bail bonds executed by them, shall stand terminated/discharged.This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants/A1 and A2, as against the conviction and sentence dated 30.03.2010http://www.judis.nic.in 2 made in S.C.No.140/2009 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.Thereafter, RDO/P.W.11 conducted inquest over the dead body and issued inquest report Ex.After examining the medical officer and other witnesses the offence was altered into one under Sections 498A, 304b and 201 IPC.Thereafter, he laid a final report as against the accused for the offences under Sections 498A, 304b and 201 r/w 511 IPC.5.During the pendency of the trial, A6-Kuppusamy was reported to be dead.6.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges for the offences under Sections 498A and 304b IPC against the accused and the accused denied the same.In order to prove the charges, on the side of prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.13 were marked, Exhibits P.1 to P.15 were marked and MO1 to MO5 were marked.7.When the trial Court questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in respect of incriminating evidence available against them, they denied the complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.However, they neither chose to examine any witness nor marked any documents.8.The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found A1 and A2 guilty of the offences under Sections 498A and 304b IPC.Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergohttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498A IPC., they were imposed sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 304b IPC.The sentence imposed on the accused were ordered to run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, A1 and A2 have preferred this appeal.Heard, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that there is no material whatsoever available on record to prove the charges under Section 498A and 304b IPC.Admittedly, the deceased committed suicide at her husband's house.P.W.1 in her Ex.P1 complaint says that A1 and A2 assaulted the deceased thereby, the deceased sustained injuries.As no injuries were found on herhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 body and only the burn injuries were found on the deceased, the body of the deceased was removed from cremation.Initially P.W.1 and P.W.2 agreed to cremate the deceased daughter.Subsequently they changed their mind to lodge the complaint Ex.P.1 and implicated the accused persons in the above said offence is unsustainable.However, after investigation, the case was altered into under Sections 304b, 498A and 201 IPC.11.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that there was no evidence to prove the harassment for demand of dowry by the appellants.Even RDO report which was marked as Ex.P.11, clearly says that there was no dowry harassment.Hence, ingredients required under Section 498A and 304b IPC were not established before the trial Court.Hence, he prays for acquittal of the accused.18.P.W.7 Dr.S.S.Meera, working as Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine Department of Salem Government Hospital, on 30.03.2005, received a requisition from the RDO for conducting postmortem on the body of the deceased.On the same day at 1.00 pm, she along with Dr.Kesavalinagam conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries on the body:-“An oblique ligature mark 2-5 cms width, 19cms in total length over the upper part of front and sides of neck above the level of thyroid cartilage was found.On the right side of neck the upper border of the ligature mark was found to be 5 cms below the right mastoid process and on the left mastoid process.”19.The postmortem certificate, chemical examination report and another examination report are marked as Exs.P.6, P.7 and P.8 respectively.On perusal of her report Ex.P7, it is seen the deceased died due to hanging and on perusal of Ex.20.P.W.12 is the investigating officer, who took up the case for investigation.On 06.04.2005, he sent requisition to examinehttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 the witnesses Munusamy, Mallika and Kalaiselvi under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The 164 Cr.P.C., statement were not received from the Judicial Magistrate, Omalur.On 11.04.2005, he took A1 and A2 in the police custody and again sent them from remand.Thereafter, the case bundle was handed over to P.W.13, on 29.03.2005, he was working as DSP, Salem District, Crime Branch.On the same day at about 11.00 am, he took up the case for further investigation and proceeded to cremation ground of Tharamangalam and prepared an observation mahazar and examined all witnesses and filed a final report under Sections 498A, 304b and 201 r/w 511 IPC.22.P.W.3 and P.W.4 turned hostile and their evidence is not useful for the case.Admittedly, prior to her suicide, the deceased was residing inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 matrimonial home along with A1 and A2 is residing separately in some other place.P.W.1 and P.W.2 never whispered anything about the alleged quarrel or abuse made by the accused, soon before the death of the deceased.23.It is relevant to note that P.W.1 and P.W.2, in their evidence clearly deposed that their daughter was subjected to cruelty.Particularly, A1 and A2 attacked with wooden stick and lock thereby, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on her forehead and face.24.When that being the position, the investigating officer rightly filed an alteration report before the trial Court.“20.Another relevant aspect to be noted is that it was Appellant 1, husband of the deceased who took the deceased to the hospital and it was he who informed the police as well as parents of the deceased.It is also brought to our notice that he did not make any attempt to run away from the place of occurrence.”28.In any event, the charges framed against the accused have not been established and a mere quarrel between the deceased,http://www.judis.nic.in 18 A1 and A2 for some issue much prior to the suicide cannot be brought under the ambit of cruelty to convict the person and the prosecution miserably failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before the death.Thus, I am of the view that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, the judgment of the trial Court needs interference and the same is liable to be set aside.29.In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed.21.01.2019 Index: Yes/No AThttp://www.judis.nic.in 191.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.2.The Government Advocate (Crl.side) High Court of Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 20 M.DHANDAPANI,J.AT Crl.A.No.230 of 2010 | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,115,344 | 05.03.2020 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order rpl To1.The Inspector of Police, E-9, Thalambur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.No.4197 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.2399 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, rpl Crl.O.P.No.4197 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.2399 of 2020 05.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.304 of 2019 registered by the respondent police for offences under Section 379 of IPC r/w 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as against the petitioner.Without any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.304 of 2019 for the offences under Section 379 of IPC r/w 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.If it appears on ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 Crl.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the respondents are directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.304 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 Crl.O.P.No.4197 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.2399 of 20202.The Revenue Inspector, Mambakkam, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,115,710 | (Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J) The wife of the detenu is the petitioner herein and challenging the legality of the impugned order of detention dated 19.11.2018 passed by thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 2nd respondent, in and by which, the detenu has been branded as ''Sand Offender'' under the provisions of section 3[1] of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), came forward to file the present habeas corpus petition.2 As per the Grounds of Detention dated 19.11.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent herein, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:-i)Adverse cases:Sl Name of the Police station and Section of law No. Crime No. 1 Ranipet PS Cr.No.315/2017 379, 430 IPC 2 Rathinagiri PS Cr.No.236/2017 379, 430 IPC r/w. Section 21[1] of Mines and Minerals [Development and Regulation] Act, 1957 3 Walajapet PS Cr.No.748/2017 379, 430 IPC 4 Ranipet PS Cr.No.215/2018 379, 430 IPC 3 It is further averred in the Grounds of Detention that on 30.10.2018 at about 09.00 a.m., the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Walajapet Police Station along with police party were mounting surveillance in Palar river bed in front of Arichandiran Koil at Vannivedu Pump House andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 they noticed a Tipper Lorry bearing Regn.TN-28-F-6171 plying towards the river driven in a rash and negligent manner and though signal was given to halt the lorry, the driver, viz., Rajini [detenu herein], abused the police party and drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and also made an attempt to run over the police personnel.The Walajapet Police Station has registered a case in crime No.652/2018 for the commission of the offences u/s.379, 430, 353, 307 IPC r/w section 21[4] of Mines and Minerals [Development and Regulation] Act, 1957 [ground case] and the Inspector of Police at about 12.00 noon on 30.10.2018, arrested the detenu and the detenu voluntarily came forward to give a confession statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses and in pursuant to the admissible portion of the same, incriminating articles were recovered.1 Ranipet PS Cr.No.315/2017 379, 430 IPC4 Ranipet PS Cr.No.215/2018 379, 430 IPCThe Detaining Authority on a perusal and consideration of the materials has derived the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of environment and illegal quarrying of the river sand would also affect the ground water level and as such, branded him as a ''Sand Offender'' and detained him under the provisions of the Tamil Naduhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Act 14 of 1982, by clamping the impugned order of detention and challenging the legality of the same, the present petition is filed.4 The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the worksheet and would submit that for revoking the order of detention, a post detention representation dated 15.12.2018 was submitted and the same was received on 19.12.2018 ; remarks were called on the same day, i.e., on 19.12.2018 and however, the remarks were received on 31.12.2018 and in between those days, there was a delay of 12 days and even excluding 4 days public holidays, still there was a delay of 8 days in receiving the remarks and in the absence of any explanation as to the belated receipt of the remarks, the valuable rights guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated and therefore, prays for quashment of the impugned order of detention.5 Per contra, Mr.7 As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on receipt of the representation on 19.12.2018, remarks were called for on the same day ; but the same was received only on 31.12.2018 and in between, there was a delay of 12 days and even by deducting 4 Government Holidays, there was a delay of 8 days and in the absence of any plausible or tenable explanation, such a delay is fatal for the reason that the valuable rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, has been violated and hence, on this sole ground, the detention order, impugned herein, is liable to be set aside.8 In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 19.11.2018 is hereby set aside.The detenu who is now confined in the Central Prison, Vellore, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence [or] custody [or] detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Vellore District, Vellore.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,931,184 | Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedAGA appearing for the State-respondents. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,118,451 | The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. | ['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,120,632 | Shri Pushpendra Dubey , Advocate for the applicant.Shri Umesh Pandey, GA for the State.Heard finally.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 09.01.14 and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application.On due consideration of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation against the applicant, and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is allowed, and it is directed that applicant Raju @ Rajendra Thakur shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(Subhash Kakade) Judge. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,931,285 | This order passed under sub-section (2) of S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was evidently on the report of the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned who, after arresting the petitioners herein and obtaining them into custody, was duty bound to produce them before a Magistrate as required under Art. 22(2) of the Constitution of India and under S. 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if it appeared to him that the investigation could not be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by S. 57, Cr.P.C. (Art. 22(2) of the Constitution) and there were grounds for believing that the accusation or information was well-founded and that a further detention of the accused was necessary.Mr. T. V. Subramaniyan, the Magistrate, however, entertained at this stage a contention raised by the counsel for the accused that they were implicated on political grounds and that the Court should peruse the first information report as to whether the ingredients of the alleged offences were made out and they should be heard accordingly.Hence remanded for 14 days till 1-10-1992."Two of the petitioners herein, viz., D. S. Ramadoss and Panruti S. Ramachandran applied in M.P. No. 1057/92 and the otherwise, viz., Thiagarajan alias Thiyagu and Kadal Dhanasekaran applied in M.P. 1058/92 for bail, Mr. T. V. Subrabaniyan ordered as follows :"Order dated 18-9-1992 (M.P. 1057/92) Heard PP.Common reply received.The accused are released on bail on their own bond for Rs. 1000/- each.""Order dated 18-9-1992 (M.P. 1058/92) Heard PP.Reply received.The accused are released on bail on their own bond on executing a bond for Rs. 1000/- each."Accordingly the petitioners executed bonds and were released on bail.The case which has been initially registered in the Central Crime Branch of the police was transferred it appears, to Crime Branch C.I.D., Madras and a Deputy Superintendent of Police, representing the respondent-State of Tamil Nadu moved on 21-9-1992 a petition for cancellation of bail under S. 437(5), Cr.P.C. The main ground on which the cancellation was sought is stated in the petition as follows :The order that he passed in the afternoon releasing the petitioners on bail, according to the petition, was absolutely without jurisdiction.On 21-9-1992 Mr. T. V. Subramaniyan was not-in-charge of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and one Mr. A. K. Kandasamy Pandian, who is presently in the post of II Metropolitan Magistrate was in-charge Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.The cancellation petition being M.P. No. 708 of 1992 was disposed of by him on the sworn statement of the petitioner therein, by order dated 21-9-1992, which reads as follows :Sworn statement taken.Issue NBW against all the four accused in the petition returnable in a week".The petitioners moved for bail in Crl.O.P. Nos. 12365 to 12368 of 1992 which was listed before learned single Judge of this Court and that have since have been disposed of by order dated 24-9-1992), as well as the instant petition praying inter alia for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.Since petitioners have already been ordered to be released on bail by Janarthanam, J. in Crl. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,129,156 | "Brief facts as per the case of the prosecution are, that on 18.05.2017, complainant Mohd. A went to the police station and lodged a complaint of his daughter/victim S aged about 17 years 03 months being missing.He alleged that on 16.05.2017 at about 05.00 p.m., his daughter had left home without informing anyone and thereafter, she did not return.He suspected that some unknown person had enticed his daughter and had taken her away.On these allegations, the present FIR u/s 363 IPC was registered.During investigation, on 19.05.2017, one Salman Ansari had informed SI Bishambhar that he was a friend of victim and victim had called him at Dilshad Garden Metro Station.Thereafter, SI Bishambhar alongwith WCt.Ritu went at Dilshad Garden Metro station from where victim was recovered.Victim was counseled and she alleged that when accused Rehan had abandoned her, she made a call to Salman for her help.Victim was medically examined.Victim alleged that Rehan had done wrong acts with her.Thereafter, sections 376 IPC and 4 POCSO Act were added.Thereafter, statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) Crl.M.A. 1210/2020 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.M.A.1209/2020 Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay of 58 days in filing the present petition is allowed.Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.Present criminal leave petition has been filed on behalf of the State challenging the judgement dated 1st August, 2019 passed by Judge, Special CRL.L.P. 68/2020 Page 1 of 6 Court (POCSO Act), Additional Sessions Judge-01, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi arising out of FIR No. 226/2017 registered with Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi acquitting the respondent-accused under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act").Thereafter, on 23.05.2017, at the instance of victim and her mother, accused was arrested from gate no. 7, GTB Hospital.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.On 23.09.2017, charge u/s 363/366 IPC, u/s 376 IPC and u/s 4 POCSO Act was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."L.P. 68/2020 Page 2 of 6The findings of the Trial Court are reproduced hereinbelow:-In view of my above discussions, I find that first of all, the victim has not been found to be a credible witness due to the fact that she claims to have been raped by the accused in Shalimar Hotel whereas as per the prosecution's own case, she had been found to be staying alone in one Sharda Hotel, which the victim had categorically denied.Secondly, the prosecution had had opportunities to find the independent witnesses to verify the claim of the victim with regard to the fact that she was with the accused but the prosecution did not do so.Thirdly, the prosecution did not collect any telephone records of either of the victim or of the accused to establish any connection between the victim and the accused during this period.Fourthly, the victim was not recovered from the accused or at the instance of the accused but was recovered with the help of one Salman.At the same time, the role of the IO in this recovery seems to be under a cloud of suspicion.I accordingly find that due to these serious doubts, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.Accused is thus entitled to benefit of doubt.The accused is accordingly acquitted of all the charges framed against him.His bail bond stands cancelled.File be consigned to record room."Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State contends that the prosecutrix had by and large supported the case of the prosecution and had specifically named the respondent-accused in her statements.She states that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate that even though the prosecutrix had mistakenly named the wrong hotel, yet in view of the MLC of the prosecutrix which mentions that the hymen was freshly torn, it could be inferred that the prosecutrix was not alone in the hotel.She lastly submits that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be relied upon to convict the respondent-accused.L.P. 68/2020 Page 3 of 6Having heard the learned APP for the State and having perused the paperbook, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecutrix is the most material witness in the present case.Firstly, the place of incident i.e. Hotel Shalimar as told by the prosecutrix was not found to be in existence.Secondly, the prosecutrix had categorically denied staying at Sharda Hotel - contrary to the prosecutions case and evidence on record.Thirdly, the manner in which the prosecutrix states to have been recovered is contrary to the prosecutions case.No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the story of the prosecutrix.Neither Salman (who helped the police to recover the prosecutrix), nor Mehrunisha (with whom the prosecutrix had allegedly stayed the intervening night of 17 th -18th May, 2017) or the sister of respondent-accused (with whom the prosecutrix had allegedly stayed the intervening night of 18 th -19th May, 2017) had been examined to establish that respondent-accused was present with the prosecutrix.It is also an admitted fact that when the prosecutrix had left her house of her own volition she was in possession of a mobile phone; yet she did not contact her parents.Even the mother of the prosecutrix had deposed that she had not contacted her daughter/prosecutrix, despite being aware that the prosecutrix had a phone.The relevant portion of the testimony of the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) is reproduced hereinbelow:-L.P. 68/2020 Page 4 of 6"......The victim had a mobile phone.I do not remember the number of that mobile phone.We did not make any call on the mobile of the victim to know her whereabouts.We had made a call to Salman and he said that he did not know about the victim."The relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced hereinbelow:-"....Whenever a man and woman or a girl and a boy together come to take a room on rent, we obtain the identity of both those persons and the guest register reflects that there were more than one person in that room.I was not present in the hotel on that day, but as per our practice from entry 685 I can say that on that day the guest i.e. the victim was not accompanied by anyone.I was also not present at that time when the guest had checked out."Consequently, despite the medical evidence confirming that the hymen of the prosecutrix had been freshly torn, there is no evidence to link the respondent-accused with the incident.L.P. 68/2020 Page 5 of 6Consequently, the present leave petition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed.MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J JANUARY 21, 2020 KA CRL. | ['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. |
193,133,567 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.It is not alleged against the applicant that he assaulted on the head of the deceased.The witnesses could not say that who assaulted on the head of the deceased.However, co-accused Jaikant has accepted in his M.Cr.C.No.13678/2014 memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that he assaulted on the head of the deceased.The applicant was not aware that the co-accused would assault the deceased in such a grave manner.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with co-accused and therefore, no offence under Sections 302 or 307 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Section 34 of IPC.At the most, offence under Section 323 of IPC may constitute, which is bailable.The applicant is in custody since 23.5.2014, without any substantial reason.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned G.A. for the State opposes the application.C.No.13678/2014 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM Jabalpur, to appear before the committal Court and trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,134,796 | Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is civil dispute in between the parties.The applicant no. 1 has lodged a first information report on 19.5.2016 against the opp.party no. 2 and her family members under section, 420, 467, 468, 471, 198, 423, 474 I.P.C. In counterblast, the opp.Krishna Kant Gupta and others, under section 447, 323, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Sadar Bazar District Agra.Order Date :- 22.8.2017 Gss | ['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,136,092 | On 20th January, 1996, on receipt of DD No.15A, PW5 ASI Shekhar Lal along with Constable Umed Singh went to house No. WZ-175, Harijan Colony, Tilak Nagar where he found window of a room broken and the door of the room was locked from inside and saw a lady hanging in the room.After sending a boy through the way of window he got the door of the room opened and found the dead body of Saroj.The dead body was brought on the floor after cutting the chunni with which it was hanging.Information was sent to SDM Mr. Dahia to initiate inquest proceedings.One suicide note was found lying on a table in the room which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A in the presence of PW3 Inderjeet and PW2 Dalip.The dead body was sent to mortuary at Sabzi Mandi.When the belongings of the room were searched, at that time father of the deceased Ved Prakash produced one letter allegedly written by the deceased to her parents which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. SDM conducted the inquest proceedings in respect of the Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 2 of 45 dead body.After the post mortem, the dead body was given to the father of the deceased.On 22nd January, 1996, PW14 Sh.9. Sh.Ravi Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, relied upon two undated distinct hand written notes recovered from the room of the deceased Saroj @ Rekha and one hand written letter, which was tied to the left forearm of the deceased and was found by Dr. Ashok Kumar for submitting that these letters are a record book of what treatment was meted out to her at her matrimonial home.If all these letters are read over, it only creates doubt regarding recovery of suicide note found on the table.He further referred to the testimony of Ved Prakash, Bimla and Kanwar Pal for submitting that their testimony remains consistent regarding harassment and treatment given to the deceased for insufficient dowry.Kanwar Pal has further deposed regarding demand of Rs.10,000/- which was soon before her death.The Crl.The Legislature became alert to the urging necessity of eradicating this social evil by appropriate enactment.A. No. 611/99 Page 16 of 45 PW10 Ved Prakash, mother, maternal uncle and father respectively of the deceased.A. No. 611/99 Page 16 of 45PW7 Smt. Bimla, mother of the deceased has deposed that after marriage her daughter Saroj started living at her matrimonial home at Tilak Nagar.Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage according to her status and capacity despite that all the accused persons used to taunt her for insufficient dowry which fact was stated to her by her daughter after two months of the marriage when she came to her house.Her daughter informed her that she was being taunted for bringing less dowry and no articles for the in-laws.She was also beaten up by all the accused persons for bringing insufficient dowry.These facts were disclosed by her on the occasion of Bhaiya Dooj and Raksha Bandhan when she came to her house.On 18th January, 1996, Chameli Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased came to her house in order to greet her as she was going to be the grandmother.She reciprocated the same.However, on 20th January, 1996, Bittoo, s/o Mohinder came to her and informed that condition of her daughter was not good.As such, she rushed to house of her daughter along with her husband and found a crowd and police officials and found Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 17 of 45 her daughter hanging with a ceiling fan in a room.In cross- examination, she admitted that she did not state to the police that she was informed by her daughter that she was taunted and beaten up due to insufficient dowry.A. No. 611/99 Page 17 of 45PW8 Kanwar Pal is the maternal uncle of the deceased and has deposed that he had visited the matrimonial home of his niece Saroj two three times after her marriage.On 13th January, 1996 he had gone to the house of deceased Saroj on the occasion of Sakranti.At that time, Saroj told him that her in-laws were demanding Rs.10,000/- on account of construction of shop which was demolished earlier and that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law used to give beatings to her.He informed this fact to father of the deceased on 15th January, 1996 at his residence.In cross-examination, he stated that after 1 -2 months of the marriage, he had gone to meet Saroj.At that time, she told that in the neighbourhood, in the marriage of someone, colour TV and scooter was given in dowry.Sister-in-law of the deceased also told him "Kallo ne kaha ki meri bhabhi bahut achhi hain magar pados mein kisi ki shadi mein colour TV aur scooter milla hai." He, however, admitted that this fact was not stated by him to the police Crl.As regards demand of Rs.10,000/-, he could not say who demanded this amount.PW10 Ved Prakash is the father of the deceased.He has also deposed that enough dowry was given by him at the time of marriage as per his capacity.At the time of marriage or soon thereafter, there was no complaint from any of the accused person in regard to dowry.However, after about 2 months of marriage, when he visited his daughter at her matrimonial home, at that time, she told him that her in-laws have started teasing her for insufficient dowry after marriage in their neighbourhood had taken place in which the bride side had given enough dowry such as colour TV, scooter etc. On the occasion of Raksha Bandhan when his daughter visited him, at that time, she also narrated that she was being frequently beaten up by the accused persons.After 4-5 days he talked to accused Shri Chand in order to know their grudge but he did not disclose any such thing.On the eve of Sakranti, his brother-in law (Kanwar Pal) had gone to his daughters house to present customary gift.On 15th January, 1996, Kanwar Pal came and told him that when he visited his daughter, she was weeping bitterly and stated that her in-laws were demanding Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 19 of 45 Rs.10,000/- for constructing a shop for Mahavir and for that reason, she was being regularly beaten up by all the accused.On 18th January, 1996, accused Chameli, mother-in-law of his daughter came to his house and congratulated them for becoming prospective grand parents of a baby, however, on 20th January, 1996 at about 8:30 pm, a boy, namely, Bittoo came and informed that condition of his daughter was not well.As such, he along with his wife went to Tilak Nagar.On reaching the matrimonial home, they found that there was a crowd and police officials were also present.As soon as he got down from the scooter, he was taken in a nearby room by accused Shri Chand and Mahavir and was threatened that in case any wrong statement is made before the police then he would be beaten up and would also be involved in a false case and that he would also be hanged as his daughter had been done to death.Thereafter, he was taken to the room of his daughter where he saw his daughter hanging with a ceiling fan.Next day, number of persons visited the house of accused persons in order to see the room in which his daughter was murdered.When they entered the room a small child picked up a paper lying underneath a bed and gave it to his wife who passed it to him.When Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 20 of 45 he got that letter read from his son Mukesh then, it was revealed that his daughter has alleged ill-treatment by her in-laws.He became suspicious and gave photocopy of the paper Ex. PW5/A to the Police.Even regarding these facts, there is material improvement in the testimony of the witness, inasmuch as, mother of the deceased admitted in her cross-examination that she did not state to the police that her daughter informed her regarding insufficient dowry or taunts and beatings given by the accused persons when she came to her house on the occasion of Bhaiya Dooj and Raksha Bandhan.As far as Ved Prakash is concerned, he has specifically deposed that either at the time of marriage or soon thereafter, there was no complaint from any of the accused persons with regard to dowry.He has also deposed that after the marriage in the neighbourhood where colour TV and scooter was given in dowry, his daughter used to be teased by her in- laws."Papaji aap hi bataiye ki meri galti kya hai.Mai peechhe baith kar kapde dho rahi thi.Mammi ne darwaaza khatkhataya tha.Yadi dahej mei achha laati to shayad yeh sab na hota."(iv) The suicide note completely exonerates the husband and father-in-law and does not inculpate mother-in-law and sister-in-law.(v) The letters Ex.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order on sentence dated 16th October, 1999 and 23rd October, 1999 respectively passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case Nos.161/97 arising out of FIR No.52/96, PS Tilak Nagar whereby the appellants were convicted u/s 304B IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default of payment, to further to undergo Simple Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 1 of 45 Imprisonment for 5 years each.K.K. Dahia recorded the statement of Ved Prakash (Ex.PW10/B) and directed SHO PS Tilak Nagar to register the case under the appropriate provision of law and investigate the case according to law.Accordingly, FIR under Section 498A/304B IPC was registered.During the course of investigation, all the accused were arrested.After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against them.A. No. 611/99 Page 2 of 45After hearing arguments on charge, vide order dated 5th August, 1997, charge under Section 304 B IPC was framed against all the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution, in all, examined 16 witnesses.All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons wherein factum of marriage of the deceased Saroj with accused Mahavir on 7th May, 1995 was admitted.It was also admitted that the remaining accused Shri Chand, Chameli and Sarla are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the deceased.It was also admitted that after marriage, deceased started Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 3 of 45 living with the accused persons at her matrimonial home WZ 175, Harijan Colony, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.It was also admitted that on 20th January, 1996, Saroj committed suicide and on receipt of DD No. 15A, ASI Shekhar Lal along with Constable Umed Singh reached H. No. WZ-175, Harijan Colony, Tilak Nagar, Delhi where they found a lady hanging in the room.The dead body was brought on the floor.A suicide note was found on the table which was seized by the police.It was alleged that she was living happily in the house and was well looked after.She was never beaten.In support of their defence, they examined DW1 Sh.Anand and DW2 Sh.Raghuvir Singh, both of whom are neighbours of the accused and have deposed that the accused persons used to look after and keep the deceased in proper manner and no dowry was ever demanded in their presence.A. No. 611/99 Page 3 of 45After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that all the essential ingredients of Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 4 of 45 Section 304B IPC were duly proved by the prosecution.Prosecution had succeeded in proving that the deceased was subjected to taunts regarding bringing of insufficient dowry and cruel treatment was accorded to her by physical beatings or mental torture.That being so, a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act has to be drawn that the accused persons committed dowry death.As such, all the accused were held guilty under Section 304B IPC and were sentenced as mentioned above.A. No. 611/99 Page 4 of 45Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid finding of the learned Trial Court, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.Therefore, vide order dated 1st November, 2013, the appeal qua him stood abated.It was submitted by Sh.K.B.Andley, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Sh.M.L. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant that only charge under Section 304B IPC was framed against the appellants and there was no separate charge under Section 498A IPC.So far as appellant Sarla is concerned, she is the sister-in-law of the deceased and was married at least five years prior to the marriage of the Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 5 of 45 deceased with Mahavir Prasad and was residing at Palam Colony, Raj Nagar, Delhi which was about 15 k.m.away from her parental home.Only occasionally she used to visit her parental home.As such, there was no possibility of her presence on the day of incident when suicide was committed by the deceased.Deceased herself had left a suicide note wherein she had completely exonerated her husband and father- in-law.The suicide note has not been considered at all by the learned Trial Court.Immediately after the incident, no complaint was lodged by the parents of the deceased.It was only on 22nd January, 1996 father of the deceased gave a statement to the SDM which also does not reflect that there was any harassment meted out to the deceased on account of dowry.The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of father, mother and maternal uncle of the deceased who are giving different versions regarding the treatment meted out to the deceased.The allegations are quite vague and are in fact inconsistent with each other.Reference was also made to the letters handed over by father of the deceased to the police which also does not reflect any harassment to the deceased regarding demand of dowry.Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that "soon before death" there was Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 6 of 45 any demand of dowry in order to bring the case within the four corners of 304B IPC.After a lapse of more than one month, statement of PW8 Kanwar Pal, maternal uncle of the deceased was recorded.It also does not inspire any confidence.As such, it was submitted that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the appellants and they are entitled to be acquitted.A. No. 611/99 Page 5 of 45A. No. 611/99 Page 6 of 45A. No. 611/99 Page 7 of 45 appellants have not been able to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. No evidence has come from the side of the appellants that they were not present at their house when the incident took place.Post mortem report of the deceased was also referred to for submitting that the Doctor found the bladder and the rectum empty, corroborating the suggestion that the deceased was often made to sleep hungry as she has stated in the letter.Delay of one day in registration of the FIR is no ground to doubt the prosecution case as it has come in the deposition of the parents of the deceased that soon they reached the matrimonial room of their daughter, accused Mahavir and Shri Chand took father of the deceased in a corner and asked him not to make any statement to the police.Even mother was stopped by the accused Chameli Devi from entering the crowd to find out about the incident.A. No. 611/99 Page 15 of 45It is also undisputed case of the parties that the marriage of the deceased had taken place with the accused Mahavir on 7th May, 1995 and the unfortunate incident has taken place on 20th January, 1996, i.e., within eight months and 13 days of the marriage.As such, the first two ingredients mentioned above are satisfied.We now have to see whether the third ingredient is also satisfied by looking at the evidence on record.Out of 16 witnesses examined by the prosecution, material witnesses in this regard are PW7 Smt. Bimla, PW8 Kanwar Pal and Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 18 of 45Thereafter, he lodged a complaint Ex.PW10/A with the Police.In cross-examination, he could not say if he had stated to the SDM who recorded his statement that he was informed by Kanwar Pal on 15 th January, 1996 that demand of Rs.10,000/- is being made for construction of a shop for Mahavir.A. No. 611/99 Page 19 of 45A. No. 611/99 Page 20 of 45On being informed about the incident, on 22nd January, 1996, PW14 Sh. K.K.Dahia, the then SDM, Punjabi Bagh recorded the statement of Ved Prakash, Ex.PW10/B and directed registration of the case.A perusal of the statement Ex.PW10/B which became the bed rock of investigation reveals that it was alleged that after two months of the marriage, his daughter informed him that the accused persons taunted her that her father had not given anything in the marriage, although in the neighbourhood, a marriage had taken place where the girls side had given a colour TV and scooter.No direct demand was made from his daughter, by her in-laws but they used to taunt.Her mother-in-law also used to beat his daughter.A. No. 611/99 Page 21 of 45A. No. 611/99 Page 21 of 45A perusal of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution goes to show that the allegations are quite vague, unspecific and uncertain.The witnesses themselves have deposed that no demand was made directly by any of the accused persons either from the deceased or from them.The allegations are confined to the fact that a marriage has taken place in the neighbourhood in which the bride had brought colour TV and scooter and the deceased used to be taunted on that account.A. No. 611/99 Page 22 of 45 was made from the deceased or her parents for bringing any dowry article.He has, however, gone on stating that his brother-in-law Kanwar Pal had gone to the house of his daughter on the occasion of Sakranti to give customary gifts, at that time, his daughter informed him that her in-laws were demanding Rs.10,000/- for constructing a shop for Mahavir.However, this part of the testimony was a clear improvement as he was confronted with his statement Ex.No explanation whatsoever has been given by the Investigating Officer as to why the statement of this witness was not recorded earlier.Under the circumstances, his statement has to be viewed with caution.Moreover, if he had disclosed about the harassment to the deceased for demand of Rs.10,000/- for construction of a shop for Mahavir to her father Ved Prakash on 15th January, 1996 itself, there is no reason as to why this crucial fact was not disclosed by PW 10 Ved Prakash Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 25 of 45A. No. 611/99 Page 26 of 45On the other hand, PW3 Inderjeet, PW4 Rajinder Singh and PW9 Smt. Sapna, used to live in the neighbourhood of the deceased and all these witnesses have deposed that they have never seen the accused persons causing any harassment or torture to the deceased for demand of dowry nor any dowry was ever demanded in their presence.The accused persons had also examined DW1 Anand and DW2 Raghuvir Singh, neighbours, both of whom have also deposed that the deceased was kept well by the accused persons and was never harassed on account of dowry.Coming to the documentary evidence, it is the admitted case of the parties that a suicide note Ex. PW2/B was found lying on a table which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. A perusal of this suicide note goes to show that the deceased has completely exonerated her husband and father-in-law and has taken the responsibility of committing suicide on her own.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State, however, relied upon three undated distinct hand written notes, two of them were recovered from the room where the deceased Saroj @ Rekha died by hanging Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 27 of 45 and the third was tied to the left forearm of the deceased.The two handwritten notes found from the room out of which one was lying on the table marked as Ex.PW2/B and recovered in the presence of Dalip (PW2) and Inderjeet (PW3), neighbours of the accused persons.In another similar hand written letter Ex.PW5/C which was found under the bed of the deceased wherein she stated about the physical abuse meted out to her and laments that it was because of her poor background and the fact that she could not bring enough dowry, that she was treated that way.Then the third hand written letter was the 3 page letter written by the deceased, marked as Ex.PW1/A, addressed to her father which was tied to left forearm of the deceased and found by Doctor Ashok Kumar PW1 and in this letter the deceased had stated that by the time this letter would be read, she might be dead.It was submitted that these letters narrate the ordeals to which deceased was subjected to even for regular living necessities such as a sweater where she was taunted to bring her clothes from her parents, she was not fed properly and often slept without food at night.If all these letters are read, it creates doubt over the recovery of suicide note found on the table.It was further submitted that the other two Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 28 of 45 similar undated hand written letters of the deceased highlight the plight of the deceased and showed the circumstances in which she was staying at her matrimonial place and particular attention was brought to third line from the top where she writes about her mother- in-law "jab se aayi hai, yahi kapde dali hai, apne ghar se kuch nahi layi" and at the top five lines where she writes about her husband that he does not even talk about her food and eats himself without even asking her and she remained hungry for several nights and finally the deceased writes about the slaps given to her which she attributes mainly because of her poor background and also because she could not get sufficient dowry.It was submitted that all these show the harassment and constant mental cruelty in the form of taunts and instances of physical cruelty in the form of slaps.A. No. 611/99 Page 27 of 45A. No. 611/99 Page 28 of 45Had there been any demand of dowry or demand of Rs.10,000/- for reconstruction of shop of Mahavir, deceased would have certainly commented upon the same in the aforesaid exhibits.This creates a serious doubt about the version of PW7, PW8 and PW10 regarding harassment of deceased by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry.The charge sheet was submitted under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC, however, no separate charge for an offence under Section 498-A Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 32 of 45 IPC was framed.A. No. 611/99 Page 41 of 45A. No. 611/99 Page 41 of 45PW5/B, it appears that some utterances used to be made by mother-in-law of the deceased which was not to her liking and she used to remain disturbed because of that.However, no evidence has come on record to suggest that such utterances were made wilfully and intentionally in order to instigate the deceased in taking extreme steps of ending her life.Rather it has come on record that after Saroj conceived, family members were very happy.In fact on 18th January, 1993, Chameli Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased visited her parents house to congratulate them as they were going to become grand parents of a child.Similar view was taken in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637; Anil W.Singh v.A. No. 611/99 Page 43 of 45In the instant case, prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.That being so, they are entitled to benefit of doubt.Under the circumstances, appeal is allowed.Impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 16 th October, 1999 and 23rd October, 1999 respectively are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offence alleged against them.Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.A. No. 611/99 Page 44 of 45Trial Court record be sent back forthwith along with copy of the judgment.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE (KAILASH GAMBHIR) JUDGE MAY 16, 2014 rs Crl.A. No. 611/99 Page 45 of 45A. No. 611/99 Page 45 of 45 | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,931,367 | The four are Wilayat Khan, Usman Khan, Abdul Hai Khan and Quddus Khan.The fifth man, Jannat Khan, had a gun in his hand, but he has not been tried as he is stated to have absconded.JUDGMENT Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.The three appellants and another Abdul Hai Khan were tried by the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur for the murder of one Sikandar Khan, and they were acquitted.The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the High Court.The acquittal was set aside and they were convicted under Sections 147 and 302/149, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and transportation for life respectively, the sentences being made to run concurrently.The appellants have come up before this Court on special leave.Abdul Hai Khan, the other accused died in jail earlier.The case for the prosecution shortly stated is this, Sikandar Khan, his son, Amanat Ullah Khan (P. W. 1), and syce Muneshwar Chamar (P. W. 7) left their village, Mania, at about 10:45 A. M. on 21.12.1947 to go to Dildarnagar to catch a train for Ghazipur, where they had to be present in connection with certain criminal proceedings arising out of the murder of one Munir Khan.They were joined on the way by Sitar Khan and Altaf Khan of the same village, who were going to Usia on their own business.Sikandar Khan was riding a horse.At about 12 noon when the party reached a place in the foot-path marked "I" in the site plan, five persons suddenly emerged out of the thorny hedge called dubiki and four of them, two armed with spears and two with lathis, fell on Sikandar Khan and attacked him.Sikandar Khan sustained injuries chiefly above the neck.There were five fissured fractured lines across the top of the head and he died on the spot.The son, Amanat Ullah Khan, rode on horseback to Bhadaura Railway Station about 3/4 or one mile to the east, and dispatched a telegram to the Police Sub-Inspector of Gahmar.The document gives the hour of report as 3 P. M. (1 P. M. was corrected into 3).Investigation followed and the four accused named above were charged under Sections 147, 149 and 302, Penal Code.In a carefully prepared judgment, the Sessions Judge held that it was improbable that the alleged eye witnesses really saw the occurrence, and taking the view that the case against the accused had not been established beyond reasonable doubt, he acquitted them, agreeing with two out of the three assessors.The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal.The learned Judges of the High Court discussed the evidence in great detail.In their view, the four eye witnesses were speaking to facts which they saw and there was no reason for disbelieving them.So, they set aside the acquittal, held the accused guilty of rioting with deadly weapons and the murder of Sikandar Khan, and imposed on them the sentences already referred to.Abdul Hai Khan, the third accused, has not for some reason preferred any appeal.Even in appeals against acquittals, the powers of the High Court are as wide as in appeals from conviction.But there are two points to be borne in mind in this connection.One is that in an appeal from an acquittal, the presumption of innocence of the accused continues right up to the end; the second is that great weight should be attached to the view taken by the Sessions Judge before whom the trial was held and who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses.In doing so, they brushed aside several circumstances which weighed with the Sessions Judge as improbabilities in the prosecution story, with the result that they became convinced of its truth, even though they themselves were of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses had to be subjected to close scrutiny, having regard to the admitted existence of party feelings and enmity between the accused and the eye witnesses.The village of Mania was torn by two rival factions, one under the leadership of Sikandar Khan and the other under the leadership of Munir Khan.Munir Khan had been murdered in June 1947 and P. W. 1, Amanat Ullah Khan, was one of the persons prosecuted for that murder.After Sikandar Khan's death, P. W. 1 has become the leader of the party.Sitare Khan and Altaf Khan belong to his party.The accused belong to the opposite party and are related to each other.The first three are sons of sisters; the absconding accused, Jannat Khan, is the nephew of the first accused.There were previous criminal proceedings in which three of the present appellants figured as accused for causing injuries to Sikandar Khan.The open hostility between the two parties is as much a ground of motive for the murder as it is for the fabrication of a false case against the enemies.It is in this set up or with this background that we have to approach this case.A few facts stand out prominently as circumstances that may be said to tilt the scale in favour of the accused.In the first place, the telegram that P. W. 1 gave to the signaler at Bhadaura Railway Station almost immediately after the murder does not mention the names of the assailants even if we are prepared to overlook the use of the word 'mulzin' in singular.If we accept the evidence of the Assistant Station Master, Sheobans Singh (D. W. 3) that it was one Ram Singh who accompanied Amanat Ullah and who said that Sikandar Khan had been murdered and that Amanat Ullah told him that Ram Singh had actually seen the dead body, it is obvious that Amanat Ullah was not an eye-witness.The High Court rejected his testimony for reasons which do not appear to be conclusive, but even so, the fact remains that Amanat Ullah did not tell D. W. 3 who were the men that murdered his father.The second fact of importance is that if two men armed with spears and two with lathis attacked Sikandar Khan simultaneously, felled him down from the horse and beat him even after he lay prostrate on the ground, it is difficult to believe that the spears would have been used so sparingly or lightly as to cause only mild scratches or very minor incised wounds, neither deep, nor long, nor wide.Thirdly, the four men, P. Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 7, would not have been allowed to remain two or three paces from Sikandar Khan and witness the incident from beginning to end.Jannat Khan, with a gun, would have chased them away and the evidence is that he pointed the gun at them and asked them not to come near and told them that "if we proceeded further, he would shoot us".It may be that afraid of the gun and of a probable attack against themselves, the four men did nothing to prevent the occurrence.But it is somewhat difficult to believe that Jannat would have allowed them to stay there and have a full view of the murder.Again, as pointed out by the Sessions Judge, it is difficult to accept the story that Sitare Khan and Altaf Khan left the scene of occurrence as soon as some people came from Mania, and were not available for being examined by the police officer who came to the place at about 5 p. m. Men from the village might have come, but there was absolutely no reason why these two persons made themselves scarce.We allow the appeal and restore the order of the Sessions Judge, which means that the appellants will stand acquitted of the charges against them.They will be set at liberty. | ['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,150,822 | 06.11.13 Item No. 46 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 46And In the matter of: Utpal Mondal Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sudip Guha For the Petitioner Mrs. Purnima Ghosh For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Krishnagar Womens Police Station Case No. 159 of 2013 dated 07.08.2013 under Sections 354/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Arindam Sinha, J) | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,152,561 | This gesture of petitioner is appreciable.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard through video conferencing.Petitioner has filed this first application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 294, 323, 354, 506, 34 of IPC registered as Crime No.197/2020, by Police Station Padav, District Gwalior (M.P.).Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this application u/S. 438 of Cr.P.C. in the following terms.It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the petitioner :-3 MCRC-15833-2020The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;The petitioner undertakes to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) within one week of his release on bail in the PM-CARES Fund for helping the disaster management process in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic and produce receipt before the registry of this Court of having done so within 30 days, failing which this Court may recall the order of bail.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(Sheel Nagu) Judge Aman Aman Tiwari 2020.06.06 11:59:04 +05'30' | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,883,472 | The Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence, imposed in judgment, dated, 29.06.2006, passed in S.C.No.274 of 2005, on the file of the Sessions Judge of Mahila Court, Salem.The accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.274 of 2005, are the appellants herein.They have come forward with these Appeals, against the judgment dated 29.06.2006, passed in S.C.No.274 of 2005, on the file of the First Additional District Court Salem/Sessions Judge Full Additional Charge/ Mahila Court, Salem.The first accused in Crl.A.No.622 of 2006, was convicted for offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.500/- , in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and also convicted for offence under Section 306 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.The second accused in Crl.The brief account of the prosecution case may be summarized as follows:-i) P.W.1, is the brother of the deceased Banumathi and P.Ws.2 and 3, are their parents.ii) P.W.1 lodged a complaint-Ex.P.1, stating that his sister, by name Banumathi, was married to the first accused, about six years back and they have got two children.At the time of his sister's marriage, her parents have given 6 = sovereigns of gold jewels and a sum of Rs.60,000/-, in cash and also household articles, as shreedhana, worth about Rs.30,000/-.The deceased Banumathi, used to say for about three months, she was subjected to harassment by her husband and she also frequently visited her mother's house, after picking up quarrel with the first accused and thereafter, they used to settle the dispute between spouses and send the deceased Banumathi and her children to the house of the first accused.The deceased Banumathi, also told that, her husband/first accused, was having illicit intimacy with one Kamalam/second accused.On 24.03.2004, at about 9.00 a.m, the father of the first accused has informed P.W.1's family, over phone that Banumathi and her children died.On hearing the said news, they went to the house of the first accused and found that the said Banumathi and her children dead and there is no doubt in the occurrence.It is also stated that one Mahesh and his co-brother, who are the Financiers, well known in collecting usurious interest were also cause for the death.iii)P.W.9-Sub Inspector of Police, received a complaint on 24.09.2004, at 9.30 a.m., and registered a case under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., and lodged FIR-Ex.P.12, and sent the same to the Court and its copies to P.W.10, the Revenue Divisional Officer ( for short 'R.D.O.') and to other Superior Officers.He examined the witnesses and the statements recorded by him from P.Ws.1 to 3, were marked as Exs.He sent the dead bodies to the Salem Government Medical Hospital for autopsy.The Doctor-P.W5, attached to the said Hospital, conducted autopsy over the dead bodies and issued Exs.He sent viscera for the Toxicological examination and in the toxicology report-Ex.P.7, it is stated that, neither alcohol, nor, any poisonous substance were detected in any of the internal organs of the deceased.v) P.W.11-Deputy Superintendent of Police, after receiving the FIR, went to the scene of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.8 and arranged a Lens Man to take photographs in the scene of occurrence.He recovered yellow colour nylon coir in the house of the deceased, which was used by her for the purpose of committing suicide by hanging, in the presence of witnesses.In the course of investigation, on 25.3.2004, he went to Magudanchavadi Bus Stand and arrested both the accused, recorded their confession statements in the presence of Village Administrative Officer, by name Mr.A.Nos.622 of 2006 The Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence, imposed in judgment, dated, 29.06.2006, passed in S.C.No.274 of 2005, on the file of the First Additional District Court Salem/Sessions Judge Full Additional Charge/ Mahila Court, Salem.A.Nos.667 of 2006:-A.No.667 of 2006, was convicted for offence under Section 306 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.The sentences were also suspended and the appellants were released on bail, pending disposal of the appeal, on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Sankari, and the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, respectively.Chandrasekaran and one Mr.Seghozhan.He also altered Section 174 Cr.P.C. into Sections 306 and 304-B of I.P.C. and sent the said alteration report-Ex.P.22, to the Judicial Magistrate, Sankari.He examined the Doctor and others and on completion of investigation, he laid a charge sheet under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B of I.P.C.After prosecution evidence were over, both the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating materials, available against them in the prosecution evidence.The accused denied complicity to the offence.They neither examined any witness nor, marked any documents.The first accused filed a written statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he has stated that there was no valid marriage took place between him and the deceased, that, since the first child born to them happened to be a female child, the friends of the deceased Banumathi, felt that she had to have a male child for her sake and hence, they prayed their family deity, that if she gave birth to a male child, they would offer coins, equal to the weight of the male child and that vow was proposed to be fulfilled, during the month of Panguni.Regarding the said prayer, there seems to be some difference of opinion between the deceased Banumathi and her parents and hence, she suffered mental agony.The Financiers, who used to charge usurious interest, tendered certain amounts to the parents of deceased Banumathi, through A1 and that, they did not discharge the said loan amount.Since the Financiers, did not receive the money back, they used to come to the house very often and abused the deceased Banumathi, hurling mean and obscene language, which might also be a reason, for the occurrence of the death.He therefore, stated that he has no illegal association with any woman.Thus, the first accused has stated in the written statement that the deceased Banumathi, could have committed suicide, because of the difference of opinion she had with her parents and also the humiliation, purported to have been caused by the Financiers and the alleged illegal intimacy is not the reason for the said occurrence.Even in the FIR, there was no allegation against the first accused with regard to dowry harassment.It is also stated that the conduct of Financiers might also be a reason for her death.Hence, the case has been falsely foisted against him.After analyzing the materials available on record, the Trial Court has convicted the accused and passed sentence, as stated above.The point for consideration in these appeals is that, "Whether the charges framed against the appellants, have been established by the prosecution, beyond all reasonable doubt? "Point :-N.Manoharan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused No.1, in Crl.A.No.622 of 2006, would contend that there is no clinching evidence to prove that the first appellant was having illegal intimacy with one Kamalam, viz., the second accused, that, only hearsay evidence are available on record, that P.W.9, who received the complaint from P.W.1, has stated that only at 5.30 p.m. on 24.3.2004, he registered the case and if so, how the police came to the house of the deceased at 9.30 p.m. and proceeded with the investigation and took both the accused to police custody by 10.30 a.m itself.The evidence of P.W.9, also shows that there was another complaint received from P.W.1, that the Financiers were also reason for the occurrence of death and why they have been let scot free.Even though, P.W.6, has deposed in favour of the accused, he was not treated as hostile witness by the prosecution, that the investigation in this regard by the Police is not in accordance with the settled procedure, since the Investigator did not alter the case into one under Sections 306 and 304 (B) of I.P.C., on the strength of the opinion, rendered by R.D.O., and when the R.D.O. came out with his opinion as regards the occurrence, the Investigator should have altered the case into the aforementioned Sections, which is not sustainable.That apart, as per Section 117 of I.P.C., instigation and the aiding could not be ascertained on the part of the accused and hence, there is no abetment on his part, and that, prosecution witnesses have deposed on surmises and conjectures, that, the charges under Section 498-A, and 306 of I.P.C,. have not been established beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant/accused No.1, he further added.K.Nagarajan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/second accused in Crl.A.N.667 of 2006, would contend that it is in the evidence that the second accused is 55 years old and the first accused is 25 years old and hence, illegal intimacy, could not be comprehended between them, that, there is no direct evidence to implicate the second accused with the crime and the evidence on record would clearly show that the Financiers, used to come to the house of the deceased and abuse the deceased with disgraceful language, very often and as she could not tolerate the humiliation, she committed suicide, along with her children and there is no element of intention, much less, mala fide intention on the part of the second accused to instigate the deceased to commit suicide and that, she did not have any illegal intimacy with the first accused.Mr.C.Balasubramanian, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent would submit that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, P.W.s. 1 to 3, would indicate the culpability of the accused that, even though, they are close relatives of the deceased, their evidence could be pressed into service, that the Investigating Officer has assigned proper explanation in the cross-examination to the effect that since no witness has stated against the proposed A3 and A4, the Financiers, they were not included as accused, that the Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and there is neither perversity, nor, any illegality could be found in the judgment rendered by the Court below and that, the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.In the report of the R.D.O, he appears to have stated from the statements of witnesses, that, it comes to light that the reason for the suicide is due to the illicit intimacy of the deceased's husband with other lady and that there is no dowry harassment.15. P.W.1, the brother of the deceased has narrated the events, which took place earlier to the occurrence.The gist and kernel of his evidence is that, they have given 6 = sovereigns of gold and a sum of Rs.60,000/-, as cash, at the time of marriage, that, the second accused was kept as concubine by the first accused and was also asked the deceased to cater to the needs of the second accused, that, 10 days prior to the incident, deceased Banumathi, came to her mother's house and told her that her husband demanded dowry for the purpose of giving it to the second accused, that, for time being, the dispute was settled and that, dowry harassment and the above said illicit intimacy between both the accused were the reasons for the occurrence.In the cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that they had a prayer before the Family Deity, that in case of the deceased Banumathi, giving birth to a male child, they would offer coins, tantamount to the weight of the male child.It transpires from his evidence that the second accused was taken directly to the house of the first accused and she was also staying then and there.He has also stated that he personally knew the fact that both the first and second accused and his sister were living together, under one roof.Of course, he has not stated the above said matters in the complaint lodged by him, initially, but, when he was examined by R.D.O, on 24.03.2004, at the time of inquest, he has clearly stated that the deceased had already informed her parents that, since the first accused is having illicit intimacy with the second accused, there were frequent quarrels between the spouses.The oral evidence of P.Ws1 and 2, are in the same lines.They have also stated about the illegal intimacy between the first and the second accused before the R.D.O.One Nallammal, the mother of the first accused, who was examined by R.D.O., has stated that she came to know that her son was having illicit intimacy with another lady and she also reprimanded him and on hearing information, she came to the scene of crime.The said Nallammal also stated before the Investigating Officer that for about 2 years, her son, viz., the first accused was having illicit intimacy with the second accused and she hauled him up.But, as she has not stated anything about the illegal intimacy between the accused, she was treated as hostile witness and examined in cross by the prosecution.Thus, on perusal of the statements from the witnesses, R.D.O., has came to the above said conclusion.The Investigating Officer has also came to a conclusion on scrutiny of the statements given by the witnesses that illicit intimacy between the accused was the reason for Banumathi's death.He also denies that the daughter came to the house and picked up a quarrel with them for not making the payment.He also says that they borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the Financiers, through the first accused and they repaid it and because, other persons, who got loan from the first accused did not pay the amount to the Financiers, they came to the house of the deceased and abused her. P.W.3, also says that the amount, which was borrowed from the Financiers was already repaid to them.P.W.6, would say that because the borrowed sum of Rs.20,000/- was not paid back by the first accused, the Financiers have came to the house of the deceased and blamed the first accused and his family members with filthy language and due to this, and also due to inability to fulfil the vow to be offered to the Family deity , Banumathi committed suicide.Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for the first accused is that the investigation was not conducted in a proper manner, since the alteration report was not sent by the Investigator on the basis of the RDO's opinion.In the like cases, it is desirable for the police to proceed further with an opinion rendered by R.D.O. But, in the present case on hand, before the Trial Court, the charge under Section 304(B) I.P.C. is not proved.The final opinion of the R.D.O., is to the effect that the deceased died due to illicit intimacy between the first accused and the second accused.The first accused shall undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Section 306 of IPC and the second accused shall undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence u/s.306 of IPC.The sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment on first accused under Section 491-A I.P.C., is confirmed.Both sentences on him shall run concurrently.The period already undergone by the accused shall be set off.Accordingly, the Superintendent of the Prison concerned, is directed to secure the presence of the accused in jail in order to undergo the remaining period of sentence.The First Additional District Court, Salem /Sessions Judge Full Additional Charge / Mahila Court, Salem.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Sankagiri, Magundanchavadi Police Station,Salem District.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,891,251 | Heard on admission.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with a solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 13.07.2018 and on such other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, sentence of the imprisonment awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended till further orders and they shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C.V. Sirpurkar) Judge sh Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 2018.01.08 13:08:13 +05'30' | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,938,921 | The house of deceased Tulashiram in Village Rashivadeadjoins the temple of Shri Ambabai and in front of thetemple, there is open place.The deceased along with hiswife Parvatibai, two children and parents was living in thehouse.Cousin brothers of the deceased and their mother wereliving in the adjoining house.Vyanku Sutar belonging to the brother-hood of deceasedwas also living in the same village.The deceased had illic-it relation with Vyanku's wife Akkatai.Parvatibai claimedto have caught them in the sex-act in sugarcane fields.Theaccused Shivaji and Vyanku were friends.On January 30,1972 at about 7 or 7.30 P.M. Tulashiramreturned to the house after performing his role described as"Sasankathi" in the festival of "Mahi Poornima".In thehouse Parvatibai, her mother-in-law Tanubai, her husband'ssister Malutai,402and her husband's cousin brother's wife Shalubai, werepresent.The male members, namely, deceased's father Pandu-rang Sutar, his brother Soundappa and servant named Shamahad gone to another village called Kote.Tulashiram askedhis mother Tanubai to prepare tea and thereafter he went outand sat on the foot-steps of the temple at a distance ofabout 15 to 20 feet from the house.What followed can best be reproduced in words of Parvat-ibai as P.W. 3 at the trial:"After the tea was ready, I started going out of the house to call for my husband, when I went to the front door of my house, I saw the accused Shivaji hitting my husband with a stick on his head and running away.I saw him running in the direction of the by lane.I saw my husband failing down from the steps and lying on the ground near the "Deepmal".I saw him rubbing his feet on the ground in agony and blood was coming from the injury on his head.I went near my husband and started calling him.He could not speak.Hence, I raise a hue and cry and my mother-in-law and sister-in-law Malubai and Shalibai and Vishnu Patil came there.I did not see anybody else nearby then as I was busy attending to my husband.My husband had become unconscious due to the head injuries and froth had come out of his mouth.Myself, Vishnu Patil and sister-in-law bodily lifted my husband and took him to the house ..... Somebody went and brought a local doctor named Jayant Patil.The doctor came there, examined and treated my husband and advised him to be removed to his dispen- sary.My husband was accordingly taken there, but I did not go, as my small children were crying and I was prevented from going there.My children had frightened.In the morning next day, I came to know that my husband was removed to C.P.R. Hospital at Kolhapur.Hence in the morning, myself my mother-in-law and others went to Kolhapur by Yelavade-Kolhapur Bus reaching there at about 8.30 A.M. When we reached the C.P.R. Hospital my brother-in-law came there crying saying that my husband had overnight succumbed to his injuries.Hence myself and my mother-in-law started crying and shouting.Hence some villagers brought a taxi, we were 403 asked to sit in the taxi and we were taken to Rashivade even without showing the dead-body to us.We reached Rashivade at about 11 A.M. After reaching home, we were crying in agony and our house became full with females and I did not notice who others had come there."Vishnu Patil deposed that he was returning from hissugarcane crushing site and while passing by the temple hefound deceased Tulashiram lying injured in front of thesteps of the temple and his wife was crying nearby.At adistance of about 5 or 6 feet from there, he saw Nana Patiland asked him what was the matter.Nana Patil replied thathe did not know anything.Vishnu Patil asked Nana Patil tocall the doctor.Jaywant Patil a private practitionerreached the house of the deceased and on his advice thedeceased was removed to the dispensary.When for two hours,Tulashiram did not regain consciousness, Dr.Patil at about11/12 P.M. took him to the hospital at Kolhapur in his owncar.Patil at the trial stated that Tanubai said to himand also gave in writing (Ex. 26) to the effect that she hadno complaint against anybody.Parvatibai has deposed that she saw on the evening ofJanuary 30, 1972, Shivaji Patil hitting her husband with astick.Admittedly her mother-in-law, her two sisters-in-lawand Shivaji Patil came present on the spot immediatelythereafter.Parvatibai did not disclose the name of theassailant to them or to anybody else.Rather Dr. Patil whocame to the house little later was told by Tanubai that thefamily did not suspect anybody.Vishnu Patil stated at thetrial that nobody informed him about the accused or anyother person who gave injuries to the deceased.The Police Patil in his report dated 31.1.1972 statedthat at 10.30 A.M. on that day he went to the house ofdeceased.1976 of theBombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 1973.Raghunath Singh (Amicus Curiae) for the Appellant.A.S. Bhasme and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. The appellant, Shivaji Patil was ac-quitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur of thecharge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for committingmurder of one Tulashiram Sutar, but on appeal the High Courtby its judgment dated February 6, 1976 set aside the orderof acquittal and convicted him under section 302 of theIndian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment forlife.The prosecution produced P.W. 3 Parvatibai, P.W. 9Krishan Wadkar, P.W. 10 Shankar Patil, P.W. 11 KrishnaSadashiv Patil and P.W. 12 Nanu Patil, all eye witnesses.Except P.W. 3 Parvatibai all other eye witnesses were de-clared hostile.The prosecution case, thus, hinges on thesole testimony of Parvatibai.The father of the deceased, an uncle and a distantrelation were present in the house.The Police Patil askedthem about the incident.They replied that they had noknowledge about the incident as they were not present in thehouse at the time of occurrence.The Police Patil furthersays that while he was present in the house a taxi came fromKolhapur and the404mother and wife of Tulashiram deceased got down from thetaxi.The Police Patil questioned the ladies as to howTulashiram was injured.The ladies were not prepared to talkand no information regarding the alleged occurrence wasgiven to him.He made further enquiries from other peoplebut nobody gave him any information regarding the assail-ants.On the basis of the Police Patil's report a case wasregistered at police station Rachanagari wherein it wasmentioned that the cause of death of Tulashiram was notknown.Head constable B.S. Patharvat sent a complaint on 1st ofFebruary, 1972 wherein he stated that he came to know aboutthe incident on the morning of 31st of January, 1972 and hewent to the house of Tulashiram at about 10/11 A.M. andasked the in-mates about the occurrence but nobody gave himany information.He again went to the house of Tulashiramdeceased on 1st of February, 1972 and recorded the statementof Parvatibai.She stated that when she came to the frontdoor she saw Shivaji Patil running with a stick from nearabout her husband.She said that the relations between herhusband and Vyanku were not good and Shivaji Patil and NanaPatil were friends of Vyanku Sutar.She further stated thatVyanku Sutar, Shivaji Patil and Nana Patil made company andassaulted her husband.On the basis of the statement ofParvatibai the head constable sent the complaint for regis-tering the case against Vyanku Sutar, Shivaji Patil and NanaPatil under sections 302/34, IPC, though ultimately chargewas filed by police only against Shivaji Patil.1972? The High Court feltsatisfied by saying that she was in a dazed mood.We do notagree with the High Court.Parvatibai's conduct was highlyunnatural.A wife, who has seen an assailant giving fatalblows with a stick to her husband, would name the assailantto all present and to the police at an earliest opportunity.There is nothing in the evidence to justify this highlyunnatural and improbable conduct of Parvatibai.The prosecution has, thus, not been able to prove itscase against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. | ['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. |
193,895,490 | Writ Appeal No.367/2015 has been filed by Sandeep Pandey, aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.6820/2014 (s), whereby learned Writ Court relying on the decision dated 18.06.2014 of this Court in the case of Dinesh Singh Parihar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [Writ Petition No.896/2014(s)] partly allowed the writ petition and directed that the case of appellant - Sandeep Pandey shall be considered in terms of Dinesh Singh Parihar's case (supra) and if found eligible, he shall also be granted the same benefit.Writ Appeal No.539/2015 has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the order dated 15.05.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.6819/2015 in the case of Manoharlal Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh & others, whereby similar direction was made by the learned Writ Court to consider his case in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of Dinesh Singh Parihar (supra) and if found eligible, he shall also be granted the similar benefit.The State is partly aggrieved by the order of re-consideration passed by the learned Writ Court, and therefore, Writ Appeal No.539/2015 has been filed.As per Office report, the writ appeal is barred by 83 days.IA No.7648/2015 has been filed for condonation of delay.Brief facts of the case are that appellant Sandeep Pandey was duly selected for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the recruitment year 2013 (Second).After selection, he was posted at Dewas District.As per record, his Roll Number was 100467 and he was duly selected under UR Category.Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 427, 506 and 327 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against him.On 25.06.2002, he was acquitted.These facts were duly brought to the knowledge of the authorities by giving affidavit on 12.05.2014, which is at page 73; paragraph 2 of the affidavit reads, as under: -";g fd] eSa ,d 'kkafrfiz; ukxfjd gwW rFkk esjs fo:} iwoZ esa iqfyl Fkkuk ,jksMe] bankSj e-iz- esa ,d vijkf/kd izdj.k iathc} gqvk Fkk tks Hkkjrh; n.M fo/kku dh /kkjk 323] 325] 427 34] 294] 506 ds rgr iathc} gqvk Fkk] ftlesa U;k;ky; }kjk eq>s fnukad 25-06-2002 dks nks"keqDr fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk ftldk QkStnkjh izdj.k dzekad 1393@98 gSA vc bl izdj.k ds vykok esjs f[kykQ vU; dksbZ izdj.k u rks fdlh Fkkusa esa vkSj uk gh U;k;ky; esa iathc} ugh gS vkSj uk gh fdlh U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh izekf.kr izfrfyih layXu izLrqr gSA"Learned Authority, after appreciating the aforesaid facts, duly selected him under UR Category and appointed him in the Police Department on the post of Constable (GD) in the recruitment year 2013 (Second).During employment, his character was verified from District Indore.On the basis of the verification, they came to know that the above mentioned two cases were registered against him in which he was acquitted by the learned trial Court.Petitioner is also aggrieved by order dt. 13/7/12 by which the Inspector General of Police has rejected the claim of the petitioner.Resultantly, the impugned order dated 11.11.13 is hereby quashed.The respondents are directed to take appropriate steps for issuance of appropriate orders for appointment of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order keeping in view his placement in the merit list.The petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages, however he shall be entitled for seniority and all other consequential benefits.""7.1 It will be clear from the aforesaid instructions issued by the Governor that the object of the verification of the character and antecedents of government servants before their first appointment is to ensure that the character of a government servant for a direct recruitment is such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed and it would be a duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point.The order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated 15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the proforma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him.As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the criminal case.Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment.For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order of the Division Bench and allow the writ petition of the appellant and quash the order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, 13 Ghaziabad.There shall be no order as to costs."He has also given all the details in paragraph No.2 of his affidavit and thus, it cannot be said that he has suppressed any fact to his employer. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,896,994 | On the request of MKAIL, NAFED through Mr Homi Rajvansh sold the entire cargo of raw sugar under two LCs to MIL - which is also a sister concern of MKAIL - under the three separate HSS Agreements entered into by NAFED with MIL.MIL, subsequently, sold the raw sugar in the open market.It is alleged that Mr Homi Rajvansh, acting on behalf of NAFED, permitted the sale of raw sugar through the three HSS Agreements without charging the cost of the commodity and, thereby, caused wrongful loss to NAFED and wrongful gain to themselves.2.4 On 10.02.2005, MIL through its director - Mr M.K. Agarwal issued cheques for an amount aggregating to `1.5 crores in favour of its two holding companies namely, M/s Duoroyale Enterprises Ltd. and M/s Sri Radhey Trading Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, both the said companies issued two cheques each amounting to `75 lacs in favour of M/s Mahanivesh Oils W.P.(C) 1925/2014 Page 3 of 44 & Foods Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner company, where Smt. Alka Rajvansh - wife of Mr Homi Rajvansh was a Director.W.P.(C) 1925/2014 Page 3 of 442.5 On 16.02.2005 and 17.02.2005, M/s Mahanivesh Oils and Foods Pvt. Ltd., issued two cheques of `1,32,00,00/- and `10,81,000/- respectively in favour of M/s Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of the ground floor and basement of the property situated at E-14/3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (hereafter 'the said property').2.6 It is alleged that Smt. Alka Rajvansh used the funds received from M/s Duoroyale Enterprises Ltd. and M/s Sri Radhey Trading Pvt Ltd. for purchasing the above-mentioned property pursuant to a sale deed dated 18.03.2005 executed by Shri B.K. Uppal in favour of the petitioner company.By the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Directorate of Enforcement has provisionally attached the said property under Section 5(1) of the Act considering it as the 'proceeds of crime'.VIBHU BAKHRU, JThe petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the provisional attachment order dated 24.01.2014 (hereafter 'impugned order') passed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement under section 5 (1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereafter the 'Act') whereby the entire basement and ground floor of the property situated at E-14/3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi belonging to Smt. Alka Rajvansh has been attached considering it as proceeds of crime.The brief facts that are relevant for examining the controversy in the W.P.(C) 1925/2014 Page 1 of 44 present petition are as under:-W.P.(C) 1925/2014 Page 1 of 442.1 On 08.05.2009, an FIR was lodged by the CBI on a written complaint made by Shri S.K. Maggu, Deputy Manager of National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (hereafter 'NAFED') wherein it was alleged that Mr Homi Rajvansh - the Additional Managing Director of NAFED, had hatched a conspiracy, in connivance with the directors of M/s M.K. Agri International Ltd. (hereafter 'MKAIL'), for making wrongful gains by executing Memoranda of Understandings (MOUs) with MKAIL on behalf of NAFED for import of raw sugar and selling the same by entering into three High Seas Sale (HSS) Agreements with M/s M.K. International Ltd. (hereafter 'MIL'), a sister concern of MKAIL, without charging/recovering any cost for the commodity.2.2 On 16.10.2003, NAFED through Mr Homi Rajvansh entered into an MOU with M/s Earthtech Enterprises Ltd. (EEL) which is a sister concern of MKAIL and run by one of the accused Manish Kant Agarwal for import of petroleum products.On 12.02.2004, an addendum to the above MOU was signed between NAFED and EEL and certain other items were added for purchase.On the request of EEL, vide two letters dated 27.09.2004, W.P.(C) 1925/2014 Page 2 of 44 NAFED allowed two import orders each containing 38,000/- MT of raw sugar to be imported from M/s Noble Resources SA, Switzerland.The request of EEL for opening two separate Letters Of Credit (LCs) covering the said import orders was also acceded to by NAFED.W.P.(C) 1925/2014 Page 2 of 442.3 On 30.11.2004, NAFED through Mr Homi Rajvansh entered into a MOU with MKAIL for import of various products.MKAIL is the sister concern of EEL.The writ petition alongwith pending application stand disposed of.The parties are left to bear their own costs. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,900,324 | (ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.) | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,900,713 | A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 2 of 25 the contentious parts, certain area which is indisputable may be taken note of.Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 2 of 25Baiju son of Bhola (the victim) was an ordinary resident of House No.10071, Gali No.1, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, Vijender (PW-11), also a resident of Pahar Ganj area (though in another locality known as Krishna Gali near New Delhi Railway Station) was an acquaintance of Baiju (the victim).Sometime before 10:30 p.m. on 05.06.1996, both had met each other in a local bus going towards Lal Bagh (within the jurisdiction of PS Model Town), a locality separated by several kilometers, per PW-11 the victim having confided in him that he was going to recover some money from appellant Vijay Pal (A1).Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 3 of 2519), then posted in the Police Control Room (PCR), proved PCR form (Ex.PW-19/A) which reflects that a telephonic information had been received at 22:41 hours on 05.06.1996 about a quarrel (jhagra) in the area of Lal Bagh, B-400, Ambedkar Park.It is not clarified as to whom the property B-400, Ambedkar Park belongs.It is also not proved nor clarified as to who was the source of this input received by PCR.The PCR form contains some further input received from a PCR van (which had been activated in the process) stating that one of the assailants had been apprehended, the others (10 to 15 persons who were associates of Vijay Pal) having fled away after giving beatings to certain individual.The PCR van incharge also reported at 22:42 hours that the injured was being shifted to Hindu Rao Hospital (hospital).This input, we may note, was given by Head Constable Rajender Singh (PW-14), Incharge of the PCR van (with call sign Commander 8).His deposition shows that when the PCR van arrived at the scene of occurrence two persons in injured state were found there, one of them being appellant Vijay Pal (A1) and the other, whose identity was then not known, he being Baiju (the victim).The PCR input was passed on to the local police station at 11:02 p.m. on wireless network whereupon it was logged vide DD No.25 (Ex.PW- 18/A) by Head Constable Munny Singh PW-18), the then duty officer in the police station .The matter arising out of this DD entry was entrusted for an inquiry to SI Om Prakash (PW-12), the first Investigating Officer (IO).Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 4 of 25PW-12 accompanied, amongst others, by Constable Om Singh (PW-8) reached the place of occurrence and upon learning that two persons had been taken to the hospital proceeded there and found A1 having been examined as per medico legal certificate (MLC) (Ex.PW-1/DA), besides the victim (identity then unknown) as per the MLC (Ex.The subsequent investigation brought out that the deceased was Baiju son of Bhola, a resident of Pahar Ganj area.As per the MLC (Ex.PW-1/A) of Baiju (the victim), proved by its author Dr. Rakesh Gupta (PW-1), the medical examination in the casualty had showed he to have suffered one lacerated wound about 3 cm long on the occipital region and one incised wound about 4 cm long on the posterior aspect/back of the neck, the said injuries having been suffered by blunt and sharp objects.According to PW-1, Baiju (the victim) was reeking of alcohol.He was referred to surgery department for opinion and further management.He died during medical treatment in the hospital - per the death report (Ex.It is clear that he remained unfit for giving any statement to the IO right from the time of arrival in the hospital till death.PW- 7/A) and the evidence of PW-11 was gathered during investigation through his statements (Ex.PW-11/A and B) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the FIR, PW-7 had projected that he knew each of the four appellants as residents of Lal Bagh from before.The manner in which he narrated the sequence in court gives the impression that he, however, was not acquainted with the 3-4 persons (which would include the deceased Baiju) who had come to the place asking for Vijay Pal (A1).In contrast, PW-11, as already noted, knew the deceased Baiju, and also the purpose of his visit to the locality where he suffered injuries as also the four appellants on account of his earlier visits to the area (since his sister resides there).As per the prosecution case, based on the versions of PW-7 and PW- 11, statedly given during investigation, Baiju wanted to realize the amount of rupees one lac from appellant Vijay Pal (A1) and had gone to the place in question accompanied by PW-11 and some other persons.The prosecution case was that Baiju asked for information regarding the whereabouts of Crl.A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 9 of 25 Vijay Pal and when it was learnt that Vijay Pal (A1) was present, the talk of return of money stolen from Pahar Ganj led, first to a verbal exchange, and thereafter, an assault on the person of Vijay Pal (A1) in which the others, including the three other appellants had joined.The first informant reported (as per the FIR) that the four appellants had dragged the victim on the ground and Vijay Pal (A1) had picked up and used a stone to inflict injury on his head, in which assault he was joined by appellant Rajinder @ Lalu (A2) and appellant Ranjit (A3) who had also used stone pieces and that when Baiju was about to get free from their control, appellant Naresh (A4) had caused an injury on his neck with knife consequent to which Baiju had fallen down.R.K. GAUBA, J:The four appellants before us were prosecuted on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on 28.08.1996 by the Station House Officer (SHO) of police station Model Town (police station ) on conclusion of investigation into the first information report (FIR) No.255/1996 that had been registered on Crl.Upon the case being committed by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, they stood trial on the basis of evidence submitted with the said police report, on the charge for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the gravamen of which was that on 05.06.1996, at about 10:30 p.m., on a public road near Ambedkar Park, Lal Bagh within the jurisdiction of said police station, in furtherance of their common intention, they had committed the murder of Baiju son of Bhola (PW-4), aged about 23 years.On the consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, essentially through the mouthpiece of twenty one witnesses, that would include Noor Mohammad (PW-7) and Vijender (PW-Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 1 of 2511), both presented as witnesses to the occurrence, the court of sessions, by judgment dated 29.07.2000, held all the four appellants guilty, as charged, and by order dated 31.07.2000 awarded sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default further simple imprisonment for two years' each, also directing that the amount of fine, if realized, would be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased person.Feeling aggrieved with the judgment returning finding of guilty, and the order on sentence, these appeals have been filed assailing the view of the trial Court, contending primarily that the prosecution evidence, in general, and that of the aforementioned two eye witnesses, in particular, was not worthy of reliance and, further, that the appellants have been falsely implicated.Before coming in grips with the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants, it would be proper to have a brief overview of the facts and evidence leading to the impugned judgment.But, even before we come to Crl.Since that has been the premise of the prosecution case presented before the Court, as reflected in the FIR (Ex.PW-6/A), registered by Head Constable Rattan Lal (PW-6), the Duty Officer in the police station at 02:50 hours on 06.06.1996, on the basis of statement Ex.PW-7/A of Noor Mohammad (PW-7), made before Sub-Inspector Om Prakash (PW-12), and forming part of his rukka (Ex.PW- 12/A), it may be noted here itself that the money which the victim intended to realize from appellant Vijay Pal (A1) was an amount of rupees one lac which he (A1) allegedly had fled away with, after committing theft in the area of Pahar Ganj.It may further be observed here itself that during the investigation there was no probe into the allegation of theft of such amount of money by A1 from Pahar Ganj.Thus, no evidence worth the name supporting the said theory has come on board at any stage of the process.There is unimpeachable evidence presented to substantiate the prosecution case that Baiju (the victim) sustained serious injuries sometime Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 3 of 25 around 10:30 p.m. on 05.06.1996 at the above mentioned place in the area of Lal Bagh within the jurisdiction of police station Model Town and further that he died as a consequence of such injuries.Head Constable Geeta (PW-After the death, his dead body was sent for post-mortem examination on the basis of the application (Ex.PW-20/A), it having been conducted by Dr. Shri C.B. Dabas (PW-5) in the mortuary of the hospital.The autopsy report (Ex.PW-5/A), proved by Dr. C.B. Dabas (PW-5), reflects that the deceased had suffered as many as twenty one external injuries.They include (i) lacerated wound 2.5 x 1.5 cm over the left occipital Crl.A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 5 of 25 region, (ii) lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1.0 cm over left parietal occipital region, and (iii) one incised wound 4.5 cm x 0.3 cm over back of neck, 2.5 cm below hairline over middle part.The other injuries included abrasions over forehead, right cheek, right mandible, inner aspect of right elbow, front part of right forearm and near right thumb, right thumb, right palm, outer upper part of right thigh, middle part of right thigh, lower front of right thigh, outer part of right ankle, on the back of left hand over middle finger, outer middle part of left forearm, left side back of chest in scapular region, back of right chest in scapular region, back of chest on right side about 3 cm outer to middle line.The other injuries included an incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm over right palm and stab wounds over right side gluteal region and right buttock besides lacerated wound over upper part of the left thigh and in front of left knee.Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 5 of 25It is, however, the internal examination of the dead body of Baiju which revealed the cause of death.The autopsy report and the testimony of PW-5 show that he had found effusion of blood present under scalp in the parieto and right occipital region.Though the scalp bone was intact, there was massive subdural haemorrhage over left cerebral hemisphere and right parietal lobe.Haemorrhages were present over both parietal lobes.In the opinion of the autopsy doctor, the incised wound on the back of the neck had been caused by a sharp edged object (it also being the weapon of offence used for the other incised/stabbing injuries), the first two injuries mentioned earlier (the lacerated wounds on the left occipital region and left parietal occipital region) as indeed others, having been caused by blunt object/force, the death having occurred "due to cerebral damage (head injury)."Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 6 of 25The autopsy doctor had preserved viscera but since the FSL result (Ex.PW-20/E) gave negative result for common poisons, there being no other theory propounded by either side, conclusions about the cause of death have to be reached on the basis of facts noted in the autopsy report and in the light of medical opinion.We must pause here for one observation.In the FIR, the first informant (PW-7) had mentioned the use of knife for injury to be inflicted on the neck of the victim, this, of course, besides bricks and stones being used in the assault one directed against the scalp.Upon perusal of the trial court record, it appears to us that the investigating agency, the prosecution and the trial court proceeded on the assumption that the injury caused on the neck with knife was the prime injury having a bearing on the cause of death.The death occurred due to cerebral damage, relatable to the first two injuries mentioned above (lacerated wounds on the left occipital and left parietal occipital region).This connects with the evidence, which we shall note in due course, relating to assault on the head with a stone.Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 7 of 25We would reserve for later part of the judgment comment on the question as to whether there was intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death within the meaning of first and second clause of Section 299 IPC (culpable homicide).Since there is no dispute with regard to the date, time and place of the incident in these proceedings before us, particularly when Kishan (DW-2) examined by the defence before the trial court also spoke about the incident connecting it to the same date, time and place while narrating the sequence wherein Vijay Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 8 of 25 Pal (A1) had also suffered injuries.We recall here that PCR van led by Head Constable Rajender Singh (PW-14) had transported to the hospital not only Baiju (the victim) but also the appellant Vijay Pal (A1), picking them up in injured state from the same place at the same time.Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 8 of 25The prosecution charge was founded on the evidence of Noor Mohammad (PW-7) and Vijender (PW-11).While PW-7 is the first informant who, per the first Investigating Officer (PW-12), had offered his own evidence by coming forward from amongst the people that had gathered at the scene of incident, PW-11 had come up during the course of investigation.In this process, per the FIR, Vijay Pal (A1) had also suffered injuries and, while his three other associates (A2, A3 and A4) had fled away, the police upon arrival had shifted Baiju (the victim) and Vijay Pal (A1) to the hospital.Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 9 of 25Noor Mohammad (PW-7), in his court deposition, narrating the incident affirming the prosecution case about the injury caused on the neck of the victim with knife, turned hostile about identity or role of any person other than appellant Naresh (A4).He spoke about the 3-4 boys (which clearly would include the victim) having come to the place (shop of Yadgaar tailor), where he (PW-7) was present on some personal errand, and having enquired about Vijay Pal (A1), followed by an altercation and the assault with knife.He showed ignorance about the identity of others or about the part played by each of them in the assault explaining his inability to do so on account of presence of a large crowd.The cross examination by the public prosecutor, including on the basis of he being confronted with his statement Crl.A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 10 of 25 (Ex.PW-7/A), leading to FIR would not budge him from the said position.He, however, admitted his signatures on the said statement (Ex.PW-7/A) forming the basis of the FIR, also affirming the prosecution case that he had assisted the Investigating Officer in effecting the arrest of the appellant Naresh (A4) and further that he is an attesting witness to the seizure memos (Ex.PW-8/A, Ex.PW-10/C and Ex.PW-8/B), all prepared at the spot and the interrogation of the appellants leading to preparation of documents described as disclosure statements (Ex.PW-7/B and Ex.PW-7/C) respecting appellant Naresh (A4) and appellant Vijay Pal (A1) respectively.Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 10 of 25Vijender (PW-11) while testifying at trial also made some departure from his version appearing in the police report.Instead of stating that he had accompanied the victim to the place of incident, he described his visit to the area as one meant for calling on his sister, though affirming that he had met the victim during the bus journey and had learnt from him that he (the victim) was going to the area to recover some amount of money from appellant Vijay Pal (A1).Nonetheless, he testified that when he was returning and had come in front of Vijay Cinema in Lal Bagh he had seen four persons beating Baiju on the road.He identified the four appellants as the said assailants and the other one hitting him with a knife.He identified Vijay Pal (A1) as the one who was holding a knife and giving injury with the said weapon to Baiju and appellant Naresh (A4) as the person who had hit Baiju with stones, the other two, Rajinder @ Lalu (A2) and Ranjit (A3), having assisted by holding on to the victim.19. PW-11 was also declared hostile and subjected to cross examination by the public prosecutor and, confronted with his statements under Section Crl.A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 11 of 25 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-11/A and Ex.PW-11/B).He refused to affirm the prosecution case that all the four appellants collectively had made Baiju fall on the ground, appellant Vijay Pal (A1) hitting him with stone on the head and appellant Naresh (A4) giving the knife blow on the neck, at a stage when Baiju had become uncontrollable.Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 11 of 25The learned trial court, by the impugned judgment, found the above testimonies of PW-7 and PW-11 to be sufficient to return finding of guilty accepting the charge of the prosecution that the four appellants had collectively assaulted Baiju and, in furtherance of common intention, committing his murder.The trial judge rejected the defence argument that the evidence of PW-7 and PW-11 could not be relied upon due to discrepancies and contradictions vis--vis their original statements observing that even the testimony of a hostile witness can be acted upon if the same is corroborated in material particulars by the other evidence on record noting, in this context, the statement of PW-11 during cross examination by the defence that he had been threatened by appellant Vijay Pal (A1) that his entire family would be finished.In the FIR, it had been indicated that the amount involved was rupees one lakh which appellant Vijay Pal (A-1) had allegedly stolen from Pahar Ganj area.As observed earlier, this angle was not even probed by the investigating agency.Investigation in this regard would possibly have thrown better light on the issue.Baiju having died, with no other witness connected to such claim of money as was alluded to having been brought forth, we cannot proceed on the assumption that Baiju had some legitimate claim against appellant Vijay Pal (A-1).The fact, however, remains that the evidence clearly shows that Baiju had not come alone.FIR (Ex.PW-6/A) and the testimony of PW-7 in the court clearly show that he was accompanied by two or three other associates.That Baiju and his associates had some serious business to be taken up with appellant Vijay Pal (A-1) is clear from the version of PW-7 showing that on arrival at the shop of Yadgar Tailor (where the witness was present) Baiju and his companions had asked for appellant Vijay Pal (A-1).PW-7 would not confirm in the court the subject which Baiju and his associates had raised with appellant Vijay Pal (A-1).He would only speak about the assault which took place immediately thereafter.As mentioned earlier, the evidence of PW-14 and PW-1 read together also reveals that appellant Vijay Pal had been taken to the hospital in injured Crl.A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 16 of 25 state from the scene of crime.The MLC (Ex.PW-1/DA) of appellant Vijay Pal (A-1) indicates that he had suffered three lacerated wounds one on the right side of forehead (2cm x 0.5 cm), second on the left side of forehead (1cm x 0.5cm) and the third on the occipital region (1cm x 0.5 cm), these in addition to an abrasion on the dorsum of the left hand phalanges.These injuries, when compared to those suffered by Baiju (the victim), are clearly very minor.These injuries only confirm the ocular testimony about appellant Vijay Pal (A-1) having engaged himself in a brawl.These injuries definitely are not such as would be indicative of, even remotely, any intention on the part of their author (assuming they were voluntarily inflicted by the person with whom he was fighting) to cause any serious harm or grave bodily injury.These injuries of appellant Vijay Pal (A-1) were not such as could have conceivably given rise to any right to private defence, muchless one extending to the right to cause death.Pertinent to note here that the right of private defence was not even suggested as a defence theory at the trial.Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 16 of 25While it may be true that the prosecution has not brought out, with clarity, the reason for the quarrel, it cannot be said that Baiju or his associates had come to the scene with intention to cause physical harm to appellant Vijay Pal (A-1).At the same time, it cannot be said on the basis of evidence adduced that the appellants had collected on the scene with a prior concert or sharing of common intention to pick up fight with Baiju or cause physical harm to him.After all, it was Baiju who had come to the locality with his associates rather than the appellants approaching Baiju at their convenience.Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 17 of 25From the above noted facts and circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the physical fight was a sudden eruption between the two sides, one definitely involving the four appellants and the other Baiju (the victim).He may have come with two-three other associates but no evidence on record shows any participation in the fight by the companions of Baiju.What was the trigger for the sudden fight is left by the evidence to imagination.It thus emerges that the four appellants had collectively pounced on Baiju forcing him on the ground.In the melee that followed, Vijay Pal (A-1) used a piece of stone to hit on the head of Baiju.In the course of the assault, Baiju suffered a number of injuries which include three which were serious in nature, they being first three injuries noted in the autopsy report discussed in detail above.The questions which now need to be addressed are as to whether the above said injuries fall in the requisite category, or indicative of the requisite state of mind on the part of their respective author, for bringing home the charge of culpable homicide, (whether amounting or not amounting to murder), and as to whether sharing of common intention by all the four appellants in causing such injuries can be gathered in this case.Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 18 of 25There can be no two opinions as to the fact that the cut injury on the back of the neck with a knife was life threatening.Rather, Baiju with his associates had come to the place demanding payment of some amount of money.He led evidence by examining Kishan (DW-2) to prove that Baiju was accompanied by 8 / 10 boys who had started beating him, making him fall down unconscious alongside one of the assailants (apparently referring to Baiju).The evidence of the prosecution witnesses (PW-7 and PW-11), read with the FIR, shows that Baiju was accompanied by at least 2 or 3 associates.The MLC (Ex. PW1/DA) of appellant Vijay Pal (A-1) reveals he was also wounded in the process.It needs further to be added here that the MLC (Ex. PW1/DA) of the deceased shows he was in inebriated state apparently having consumed alcohol before confronting Vijay Pal (A-1).Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 23 of 25The evidence shows that at the time of assault on the person of Baiju (the victim) leading to injuries that included those which caused his death, the appellant Vijay Pal (A-1) was actively aided and assisted by other three appellants.While Rajinder @ Lalu (A-2) and Ranjit (A-3) were helping in belaboring Baiju, also using stone pieces to cause various injuries, Naresh (A-4) had whipped out a knife to inflict an injury on his neck.These facts by themselves are sufficient to infer sharing of common intention on their part with appellant Vijay Pal (A-1) and, thus, they are also liable to be held guilty for the same offence for which the appellant Vijay Pal (A-1) has been held to be accountable.For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a case has been made out for the conviction for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC recorded by the learned trial court to be converted into conviction of the four appellants for offence under Section 304 (first part) read with Section 34 IPC.We hold accordingly.The appellants and the deceased were in the prime of their youth at that point of time.After their conviction by judgment dated 29.07.2000, during the pendency of these appeals, Vijay Pal Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 24 of 25 (A-1) and Ranjit (A-3) remained in custody till 26.02.2001 before their sentences were suspended and they were released on bail pending consideration of appeals.Similarly, the other two appellants remained in custody till 23.08.2001 when their sentences were also suspended and they were released on bail pending hearing on the appeals.In our considered opinion, at this distance of time in relation to the commission of the offence, the period of detention already undergone by these appellants would suffice as punishment for the offence for which they have been held guilty by us.We, thus, modify the order on sentence accordingly.Crl. A. No.516/2000 & 518/2000 Page 24 of 25The bail bonds are discharged.The appeals stand partly allowed in above terms.(R.K. GAUBA) JUDGE (GITA MITTAL) JUDGE AUGUST 24, 2016 Vk/nk/yg Crl. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,900,855 | [Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in C3/D.O/04/2017 dated 24.02.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Sivaraman, aged 35 years, S/o.Chinnadurai, No.6/18, West Street, Chinnakappankulam, Vridhchalam Taluk, Cuddalore District and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Neyveli Town Police Station, as Sponsoring Authority, has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:i) Neyveli Township Police Station, Crime No.129/2014, registered under Sections 392 IPC, altered to Sections 451, 392 r/w.397 of Indian Penal Code;ii) Neyveli Township Police Station, Crime No.97/2016, registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code;iii) Neyveli Township Police Station, Crime No.159/2016, registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code;iv) Neyveli Township Police Station, Crime No.296/2016, registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code; andv) Neyveli Township Police Station, Crime No.330/2016, registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code;Further it is averred in the affidavit that on 06.02.2017, at about 16.00 hours, one Umamaheswaran, S/o.Arumugam, residing at No.173A, Type-I Quarters, Block 5, Neyveli-3, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint in Neyveli Town Police Station, wherein it is alleged to the effect that the detenu, under the guise of a police constable, has deterred the vehicle of the defacto complainant and demanded all documents.The defacto complainant has produced all the documents.But, subsequently, the detenu has demanded a sum of Rs.5000/-.Since the defacto complainant has failed to part with the money, he snatched a gold chain weighing 8 gms from him.Under such circumstances, a case has been registered in Crime No.30 of 2017 under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.4.The Detaining Authority, after perusing the averments made in the affidavit and other connected materials, has derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as Goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu, as petitioner.On the side of the respondents, counter has not been filed.Under such circumstance, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of on merits on the basis of available materials on record.Likewise, in respect of second representation, in between column Nos.7 to 9, 4 clear working days are available and in between column Nos.12 and 13, 27 clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay and the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.In fine, this petition is allowed.The Detention Order dated 24.02.2017 passed in C3/D.O/04/2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Sivaraman, aged 35 years, S/o.Chinnadurai is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case. | ['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. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.