id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
19,368,529 | This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.18 of 2017 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) of IPC, as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.O.P.No.24043 of 2017The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.18 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) of IPC, 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.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2017, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.18 of 2017 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.04.06.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ebsihttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.24043 of 2017 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal District.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.CRL.O.P.No.24043 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.13920 of 2017 04.06.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6 | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,689,691 | Crl.A.173/97 & Crl.The appellants, Rajinder and Mool Chand, have preferred the appeals against the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Crl.A.173/97 & Crl.A.174/97 Page 1 of 8 Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.25/1993 arising out of FIR No.42/1992 holding the appellants guilty of committing murder of the deceased Mohan; the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life.Crl.A.173/97 & Crl.A.174/97 Page 1 of 8Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 19th and 20th January 1992 at about 12.30 AM near House No.24/473, Trilok Puri, one Kallu was quarrelling with PW-3 Kailashi, the appellants and their co-accused Chander Pal (whose case was referred to Juvenile Court) were taking side of Kallu and quarrelling with PW-3 Kailashi.The deceased Mohan intervened on behalf of PW-3 Kailashi.On this, the appellants and their co-accused Chander Pal started quarrelling with Mohan.It is alleged that the appellants caught hold of the deceased Mohan and exhorted Chander Pal to kill Mohan and their co-accused Chander Pal stabbed him on the left arm near the shoulder with a pair of scissor which was in his hand.After completion of necessary formalities of the investigation, the appellants along with their co-accused were sent for trial for having committed offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.Since the co-accused Chander Pal was a juvenile, his case was separated and referred to the Juvenile Court.The appellants were Crl.A.173/97 & Crl.A.174/97 Page 2 of 8 charged under Section 302/34 IPC.Both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Crl.A.173/97 & Crl.A.174/97 Page 2 of 8The learned Additional Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence produced by the prosecution and the statements made by the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. held both the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial judge has grossly erred in appreciation of evidence.On the other hand, learned prosecutor has submitted that the Trial Court has rightly believed the testimony of PW5 Kali Charan regarding the exhortation given by the appellants because it finds corroboration from his complaint statement Ex.PW5/A which was recorded by the Police.A.174/97 Page 3 of 8Crl.A.173/97 & Crl.A.174/97 Page 3 of 8Even PW3 Kailashi and PW4 Smt. Parmeshwari Devi mother of the deceased have not stated anything about the exhortation given by the appellants to co-accused Chander Pal.In this view of the matter, we consider it unsafe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of PW5 Kali Charan regarding the exhortation given by the appellants to their co-accused Chander Pal to kill the deceased.Further, it would be seen from the testimony of PW5 Kali Charan that he has stated that after the occurrence, he went to the police post on a bicycle and after the police had recorded his name and address, came back to the spot of occurrence.In the cross-examination, he has stated that his statement was recorded by the police at the Police Station as well as at the spot.From the aforesaid version of PW5 Kali Charan, it transpires that his complaint was not recorded by the Police at the very first opportunity despite the fact that he had gone to the police post.This circumstance casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation and a possibility cannot be ruled out that recording of the first information about the occurrence was deliberately deferred and the FIR is the result of deliberation and after thought.A.174/97 Page 4 of 8 testimony of PW5 Kali Charan regarding the exhortation given by the appellants.Crl.A.173/97 & Crl.A.174/97 Page 4 of 8The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that once the version of PW5 Kali Charan, that the appellants after catching hold of the deceased had exhorted their co-accused Chander Pal to kill him, is disbelieved, the only overt act which can be attributed to them was that they caught hold of the deceased.Therefore, in absence of any evidence of prior concert between the parties, they ought not to have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.It is well-established that before a person can be held liable for the acts done by another under the provision of Section 34 IPC, it must be established that; (a) there was common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan between the two and; (b) the person sought to be made liable had participated in some manner in the act constituting the offence. | ['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. |
19,369,237 | (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE PGShri B.J.Chourasia, learned counsel for the objector.This appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed for grant of bail to the appellants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 214/2016 for the offence under Sections 323, 325 and 506/34 of IPC, under Section 3(2)(5k) of SC/ST( Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 registered at Police station Baheriya District Sagar.According to the case of the prosecution, the appellants herein have dragged the complainant from the bus and beaten him.The complainant has stated in the FIR and in 161 statement that there was previous enmity between the complainant and the applicants herein on account of which the applicants gave effect to the said incident.Besides the complainant, there are two other witnesses whose statement under Section 161 has also been recorded in which they have corroborated the act of violence against the complainant by the applicants herein.The IPC offences are bailable but one for the offence under Section of the SC/ST Act.As regards the offence under the SC/ST Act, neither the complainant states in the FIR nor in the 161 statement and in the statement of the witnesses also that the applicants herein have the prior knowledge that the complainant was of the SC/ST community and no allegations of caste based abuses have been hurled by the applicants as alleged.Under the circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act will not apply.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow the instant application and direct that the appellants herein to be enlarged on anticipatory bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand )with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court.The appeal is disposed of.C.C as per rules. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,699,378 | This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.69/2017 for offences punishable under sections 304(B) alternate 302, 498-A of I.P.C and also under Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station- Dharampur, District-Panna (M.P).According to the case of the prosecution, the applicant herein is in judicial custody since 22/05/2017 in the aforesaid case.He is the husband of the deceased.The parents of the deceased have stated that the applicant used to demand dowry in the form of a motorcycle and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the time of the marriage and that he used to consume alcohol and beat the deceased.The postmortem report also records the presence of suit particles carbon in the trachea of the deceased.From the postmortem report, it is, prima facie apparent that this is not a case where the deceased was first put to death and then her body was burnt and that she was alived at the time when her body was set on fire.There are no eye witnesses to testify whether there was deliberate act on the part of the applicant herein in setting fire to the deceased.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 22/05/2017, and prima facie an offence under Section 302 does not appear to have been made out, I am inclined to allow the instant application and direct that the applicant herein be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The observations made hereunder are purely for the sake of deciding the bail application and they shall by no stretch of imagination influence the learned Court below in the conduct of the trial.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE julie | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,704,534 | (i)Based on the complaint given by one S.Ramar to the respondent police on 03.01.2000 at about 23.00 hours, the First Information Report in Crime No.3 of 2000 under Section 436 IPC was registered against the Kamaraj @ Kannan (A1), Antonyraj (A-2) and Jeyaseelan (A-3).(ii)The crux of the complaint reads as below:- The de facto complainant is running a betel-nut shop in Government poramboke land next to the patta land of Jeyachandran, the father of the first accused.Adjacent to his shop five months before the complaint, few persons of Vadakkukurankudi put up the thatched structure and has started Kamarajar Narpanimandram.According to the de facto complainant he belongs to the different village namely, Vellalan Vilai.So to evict him, they have put up the structure and started causing hindrance to him.On 03.01.2000 at 05.00 p.m., when Pushpakaran, son of the de facto complainant was in the shop, Jeyaseelan, Ansari, Seikuthun and Kamaraj picked up quarrel with him and pulled down the milk pot and ran away.In this connection, on the same day the complainant gave a petition to Eeththamozhi police station at 06.00 p.m. The Head Constable of Eeththamozhi police came to Vadakkukurankudi village and searched for the accused.After Head Constable left the village, at about 08.00 p.m., Ansari came with Aruval to the shop and threatened Pushpakaran how dare he has given a complaint against them and tried to attack Pushpakaran.When Pushpakaran tried to prevent the attack, his right hand thumb got cut.When the de facto complainant and another son Sritharan tried to stop Ansari, he fell down.The neighbours intervened the quarrel, Ansari left the place.Knowinghttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 this at about 09.00 p.m., when the de facto complainant was closed his shop, Ansari friend Kamaraj came to the shop and threw two pepsi bottle and left the place threatening that he will set fire to his shop.After closing the shop, the de facto complainant and his son went home.At about 10.00 p.m. One palani came to his house and informed that his shop has been set to fire.PRAYER: Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in connection with the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil in C.A.No.138 of 2004 dated 10.09.2012 by confirming the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil made in S.C.No.265 of 2000 dated 11.06.2004 and set aside the same.PRAYER: Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2004 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil and set aside the sentence and conviction passed by the said Court on 10.09.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2004 and allow this revision petition.The revision petitioners herein are second and third accused in S.C.No.265 of 2000 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil and they have found guilty by the trial Court.They were convicted and sentenced to undergo four year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of six months for the offence under Section436 IPC.2.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, they have jointly preferred Crl.A.No.138 of 2004 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.The lower appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court.Hence, Crl.R.C(MD)No.73 of 2013 is preferred by the second accused namely, Antony Raj and Crl.R.C(MD) No.507 of 2013 is preferred by the third accused namely, Jeyaseelan.3.The cases projected by the prosecution and defence taken by the accused are one and the same arises from the same judgment.Hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, both the criminal revision cases were heard together and common order is passed.4.The brief facts leading to the criminal revision cases are as follows:-When they immediately came to the shop, they found entire shop burned besides the neighbouring shops were also caught fire.In his Estimate, the loss in the accident is to an extent of Rs.40,000/-.(iii)Based on the above said complaint, the prosecution has registered the case against the offenders.After completion of investigation, the respondent police has filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate for the offence under Section 436 IPC.Since the offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Nagercoil and taken on file as S.C.No.26 of 2005 and made over the case to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil.5.Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses and marked ten exhibits and five material objects.P.W.1- Ramar/de facto complainant has narrated the sequence of events tookhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 place on 03.01.2000 which started at 05.00 clock morning when the accused picked quarrel with his son and pulled down the milk pot, attack of Ansari at 08.00p.m, visit of Kamaraj to his shop at 10.00 p.m., and threat to set his shop to fire and later the fire at his shop, which is in consonance to his complaint (Ex.P.4).The shattered Tape Recorder and wooden logs were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2 and his earlier complaint against Ansari marked as Ex.The son of the de facto complainant/Pushpakaran, who has been examined as P.W.3, has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the enmity between the accused and his father regarding the shop.P.W.5, Vaikundamani is one of the victims in the fire accident, whose shop was also burned in the said accident.P.W.6 (Jeyabal) is one of the witnesses to the observation mahazar and the seizure mahazar of material objects from the place of occurrence and they are identified by him.The observation mahazar is marked as Ex.P.5, the seizure mahazar is marked as Ex.P.6 and the material objects 3 to 5 were seized from the scene of occurrence.The fire on 03.01.2000 late night and defusing of fire is spoken by P.W.7(Sundaram), Fire Station Officer.Considering these evidence, which corroborated the complaint of P.W.1, the trial Court has found all the accused guilty for the offence under Section 436 IPC.6.The lower appellate Court had re-appreciated the evidence and in the light of the defence raised by the accused, has found that the prosecution has proved the previous enmity between de facto complainant and the accused persons.The incident took place earlier to this case is spoken by P.W.1 and P.W.3 and corroborated by P.W.8 (Kesevan).The Head Constable of Eeththamozhi police has received the complaint given against Ansari regarding the accident which took place on the morning of the incident, which proves the motive.After taking note of the deposition of other witnesses which corroborates the evidence of P.W.1, the lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court judgement.7.In these present criminal revision cases, the accused challenging the concurrent findings on the ground that P.W.1 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and he came to know about the fire accident only through P.W.4 (Palani) who in turn, is not an eyewitness, but hearsay witness through P.W.2 (Suyambu).Through cross examination of P.W.2 (Suyambu) who claims his presence at the time of occurrence, is dented.Since the prosecution has not proved the guilt of these accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, the judgments of the Courts below is erroneous and the contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 in respect of how P.W.1 camehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 to know about the occurrence.Therefore, this should have enured the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons.8.It is also contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that in the fire accident not only the shop of P.W.1, the adjacent shops including the thatched Narpanimandram alleged to have been put up and administered by the accused persons was also damaged.The prosecution has failed to examine all the victims of the occurrence.Further it has failed to note that no person will cause damage to himself and the person alleged to have set fire to P.W.1 shop, would necessarily know that it will spread to the nearby thatched structure of Kamarajar Narpanimandram.Contending that the entire case as false prompted due to political rivalry between P.W.1 and A-3, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that they are entitled for acquittal.9.Point for consideration:-Whether there is any error in appreciation of evidences in the Judgments of the Courts below?10.P.W.1 is the de facto complainant and his shop has been set to fire on the fateful day.This fact is well proved through eyewitness and the evidence of P.W.7 (Sundaram) Fire Station Officerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 and his report (Ex.P.8).The fire accident which was set to the shop of P.W.1, has spread to the neighbouring shops is not disputed.It is the case of P.W.1 that after P.W.8 left the village, A-1 came to the shop, threatened him with pepsi bottle, throw the bottle on the road and vowed that he will set the shop to fire.Immediately after one hour, the shop has been on fire.P.W.2 has seen the accused persons suspiciously and soon after he also saw the fire emanating from P.W.1 shop.Putting together these evidence, the guilt of the accused persons is well established.11.Therefore, the plea of the revision petitioners that benefit of doubt should be given to them, has no legs to stand since without any doubt the prosecution has clearly proved the guilt of these accused on all aspects.Hence, this Court finds no error in the findings of the Courts below convicting these accused for the offence under Section 436 IPC.12.Regarding the sentence, it is contended by the learnedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that since the occurrence has taken place 18 years ago and the damage caused is around Rs.40,000/- which includes damage caused to neighbouring shops of P.W.1 and also the structure of Kamaraj Narpani Mantram, some leniency on sentence may be shown.13.This Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice the period of sentence against A-2 and A-3 is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment from 4 years rigorous imprisonment.The fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.20,000/- each in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.14.With the above directions, these criminal revision cases are partly allowed.The trial Court is directed to secure the revision petitioners and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.Bail bonds, if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.2.The Assistant Sessions Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil.3.The Inspector of Police, Eeththamozhi Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section (Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.cp COMMON ORDER IN Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.73 and 507 of 2013 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8004 of 2018 | ['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,710,354 | Applicant has no criminal history, he may be enlarged on bail.Sri Mushir Khan, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,711,882 | Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Moinuddin Shaikh h/f Mr. Kazi S.S.APP for Respondents: Ms. P.V .CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE & SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI.1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent, heard boththe sides for final disposal.Present application is filed for relief of quashing of FIR bearingNo.0163 of 2016 registered with City Police Station, Beed for theoffences under Section 498-A, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IndianPenal Code.During the arguments learned counsels for applicants andrespondent No.2 - first informant have submitted that, the partieshave settled their dispute.Affidavit in that regard is filed on recordand it shows that respondent No.2 has given no objection to grantthe relief.This Court has carefully gone through the contents of the ::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2018 01:46:45 ::: 2 Cri.Apln 4758-2016settlement, terms mentioned in the affidavit.Though in the pastthis Court had rejected the application of applicants No.1, 2 and 3, inview of the settlement which can be seen in the affidavit, this Courtholds that, in view of the nature of the dipsute and the circumstanceof the settlement, the entire FIR bearing No. 0163 of 2016registered with City Police Station, Beed needs to be quashed andset aside.::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2018 01:46:45 :::In the result, application is allowed.The entire FIR bearingNo.::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2018 01:46:45 ::: | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,718,568 | C. No 9951/2020 ( Shivam Gupta Vs The State of M.P. ) which he received various injuries.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first bail application u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicant apprehend his arrest in connection with offences punishable u/S 452, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC registered as Crime No. 69/2020, by Police Station Kotwali District Datia (M.P.) Allegation against the petitioner in short is that on 14/02/2020 at about 8.00 am altercation took place between the complainant and applicant and other co-accused.They started using filthily abuses and thereafter caught hold hairs of the complainant and started beating him.Thereafter, complainant ran away inside the house.Applicant and other co-accused persons entered into house and beaten him with kicks and fists due to THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts. | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,724,081 | 1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.With the consent of the parties, the applications are taken up for final hearing.Present proceedings are filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for relief of quashing of First Information Report bearing Crime No.93/2017, registered in Vazirabad Police Station, Dist.Nanded for the offence punishable under section 384 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.The complainant Balaji Dharmaji Boddawar, who is serving as Office Superintendent in the office of the District Vocational Education and Training Officer, Nanded, lodged the first information report on 2/7 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:32 ::: apln1915&2660-17.odt17.03.2017 alleging that since last four months he used to take apple vinegar medicine, 15 Ml.daily alongwith water for heart disease.While the complainant was taking the medicine in office, accused Gopal Ingale recorded video shooting on his mobile and forwarded the said video on the mobile of accused Bharat Satwaji Khanderao.Thereafter, the accused Bharat Khanderao and Ashok Gaikwad prepared a compact disk (CD) of the said video shooting and shown the same to the Principle Secretary of the concerned Department at Mumbai alongwith representation falsely stating that complainant used to drink liquor in the office and also used to abuse and harass them and therefore he may be suspended immediately.::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:32 :::It is alleged that on 14.03.2017, the complainant had been to Anuradha Palace at about 07.00 p.m. to meet his friends.At that time, the accused Bharat Satwaji, Gopal Ingale and Ashok Gaikwad, who are colleagues of complainant, came there and told the him that they had created a C.D. of the video which was recorded while he was drinking liquor in office; 3/7 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:32 :::apln1915&2660-17.odtpursuant to which departmental enquiry is going on against him and if complainant wants that they should not write anything against him, he should pay Rs.5 to 10 thousand to them.Complainant told them that at present he don't have money and would see tomorrow and left.It is alleged that on 15.03.2017, at about 1.00 p.m, accused Ashok Gaikwad made a phone call to the complainant and asked him that accused Gopal Ingale and Bharat Khanderao wanted the complainant to pay Rs.5/10 thousand for not giving statement against the complainant and asked the complainant to pay the money immediately.The complainant requested him not to do so, tried to convince him and put his mobile off.After some times thereafter, again Ashok Gaikwad made a call on the mobile of complainant and threatened him that if the amount is not given immediately, they would give statements against him.It is alleged that since the complainant was not desirous of giving money, the complainant had cut the phone call of accused and then he made a call from his another mobile handset which was having call recording facility and thereby recorded all conversation with the accused persons and prepared a C.D. of the same.4/7 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:32 :::apln1915&2660-17.odtThereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint of extortion against the accused and produced the said C.D. On the basis of the said complaint, crime as referred above came to be registered against the accused persons/applicants.During investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded statement of witnesses Sunil Jayram Kapure, Puran Chavan to whom the complainant has narrated the incident dated 14.03.2017, so also prepared the panchanama of Mobile conversation between the accused and complainant.The mobile conversation shows that there had been talk about the demand of money from the complainant.Investigating Officer Shrikant Bharate, PSI, ATS Mumbai filed affidavit on record.The Investigating Officer has further stated that the Mobile Numbers of accused persons and complainant were sent to Cyber cell to obtain call 5/7 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:32 ::: apln1915&2660-17.odtDetail Record.During Police custody of the accused, samples of voice of all the three accused and also the sample of voice of the complainant Balaji Boddawar were recorded in Digital Voice recorder in presence of two witnesses by expert from Nanded and were sent to Forensic Laboratory.Report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory shows that the voices of accused Ashok Gaikwad and accused Gopal Ingale are positive.::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:32 :::It is alleged in the FIR that the accused Ashok Gaikwad made a phone call to the complainant and put him under fear of making statements against him and asked the complainant to pay them Rs.5/10 thousand for the accused persons.Offence of extortion punishable under Section 384 IPC is registered against the accused persons.To establish the offence punishable under section 384 I.P.C., following ingredients need to be there:(1) the accused must put any person in fear of injury to him or to any other person; (2) the putting of a person in such fear must be intentional; (3) the accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable property;(4) such inducement must be done dishonestly.6/7 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:32 :::apln1915&2660-17.odtOn perusal of the first information report and evidence on record, prima facie, it appears that the accused persons, made a call to the complainant and put him under fear of making false statement against him and asked him to pay Rs.5/10 thousand.In view of seriousness of the allegations, it is not desirable to prevent the police from making further investigation and to reach to the conclusion.This Court finds no reason to interfere in the matter at this stage.Criminal applications stand dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:32 ::: | ['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,937,248 | The case of the prosecution is as follows:(a) The first appellant/A.1 is the husband of the deceased Elizabeth Rani.The second appellant/A.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased.P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased.Out of the lawful wedlock, they have a female child.(c) P.Ws.1 to 4 have deposed about the marriage.There was a dispute in respect of dowry given by P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of motor bike, which was pacified by both side villagers.After two months, the deceased went to her parents' house and demanded the motor bike stating that it would be more helpful for her husband for going to office.After then, she gave birth to the child.At that time, she was not presented with gold minor chain.15 days prior to the incident, the deceased went to a marriage, where P.Ws.1 to 4 questioned about her injury on her face and at that time, the deceased told that because of not giving motor bike, she was harassed by her husband and in-laws.After 15 days, they came to know that P.Ws.1 and 2's daughter, the deceased, committed suicide by setting herself ablaze with kerosene.(d) On 17.7.1998, when A.1 went to Office and A.2 who is none other than the mother-in-law of the deceased, went for thithering cattle and when A.2 returned at about 5 p.m., she questioned the deceased about paddy.The deceased shown the paddy and since there was only lesser quantity of paddy, A.2 scolded the deceased.On the same night, after giving food to others, the deceased committed suicide as indicated above.(e) P.W.5 who knows the accused, turned hostile.(f) P.Ws.6 and 7 who are neighbours and know the accused, have stated that the deceased committed suicide.(g) P.W.9 who resides near the house of the accused, has deposed that at 10.30 p.m., on the request of A-1, he has taken a vehicle to Thenur Hospital.P.W.9, A.1, A.2 and others took the deceased to Thenur Hospital.(h) Subsequently, P.W.10 Dr.Annie B.Juliet examined the deceased in the Community Centre Hospital at Thirunallar and issued Ex.P-2 accident register in respect of the deceased and she was referred to Government Hospital, Karaikal, where P.W.11 Dr.Ravichandran gave treatment to the deceased.(i) In pursuance of the same, P.W.15 Head Constable registered a case in Cr.No.32 of 1998 for the offence under Section 309 IPC.He examined the witnesses.P.W.11 Dr.Ravichandran sent Ex.(j) P.W.15 Head Constable conducted inquest and Ex.P-9 is the inquest report.Intimation was sent to P.W.14 Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate.After receipt of the FIR, since the deceased died within seven years of her marriage, P.W.14 proceeded to Government Hospital and conducted enquiry.(k) P.W.17 the then Station House Officer and P.W.18 the then Superintendent of Police, took up the matter for investigation.Since P.W.18 was not well-versed in Tamil, with the assistance of P.W.17, he conducted the investigation.He took steps through P.W.13 Photographer to take photographs, which are marked as Ex.P-5 and the negatives are Ex.He examined the witnesses.Heart intact, contained black colour jelly postmortem clots.Abdomen and pelvis Stomach intact, contained semi digested food materials.No unusual smell.Liver spleen, kidneys intact and pale.Intestines contained gas and contents.Uterus intact and empty.Description in details (if any) Contact.Lesions are fresh and antemortem in nature.Cause of death "Death is due to hypovolaemia shock as a result of burns sustained."(m) After autopsy, the Police handed over the body to the relatives of the deceased.The Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment, dated 27.6.2002 in S.C.No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Karaikal, whereby the appellants/A.1 and A.2 were convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC read with 34 IPC and each sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo three months' imprisonment, also convicted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and each sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment and also convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 IPC and each sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment.The sentences imposed on the appellants were directed to run concurrently.He went to the place of occurrence and seized M.Os.1 to 3 in the presence of P.W.8 under Ex.P-1 Crime Details Form.(l) After the inquest, on the basis of the requisition, P.W.12 Dr.Narasimha Murthy conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P-4 post-mortem certificate, wherein the following injuries are stated:"External examination (including external injuries):Deceased is an adult female aged about 23 yrs.of moderate built and nourishment.Height-160 cms.Scalp hair was black in colour-55 cm long.Cornea clear.Rigor mortis well established and retained all over the body.Singeing of frontal hair portion present.All external orifices normal.Superficial external burns dupuytren's 11..: to 111: seen all over the body except scalp, face, neck portions of chest palms and soles Approximately 95% burns.Erythema, charring and singeing of body hair present.Internal examination:Neck structures intact.Soot particles present in trachea and principle bronchus.Lungs intact and congested on cross section frothy fluid blood exudate present.P.W.18 the then Superintendent of Police completed the investigation.Since P.W.18 was transferred, P.W.19 Superintendent of Police took up the matter for further investigation.He examined the witnesses and concluded the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The trial Court questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and put forward incriminating materials against the accused.The accused denied the charges.During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked and M.Os.1 to 3 were produced.Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced them as indicated above.Learned counsel for the appellants-accused would put forth the following points:(i) Ex.P-10 which is the dying declaration of the deceased, has not been considered by the trial Court.(ii) Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the vital witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 were recorded on 16.7.1999 after one year of the occurrence.Initially P.W.15 Head Constable recorded Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.Ws.2 and 3, which was suppressed by the prosecution.(iii) There is a contradiction between the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of demand of dowry.(iv) P.W.14 Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate has not spoken about the harassment of the accused.(v) Even Ex.P-10 statement of the deceased, has to be treated as dying declaration as per Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. In Ex.P-10 statement, it was stated that there was only paddy quarrel and in respect of not taking care of the family affairs, which does not amount to harassment.That has not been considered by the trial Court.The case has been foisted.(vi) Since P.Ws.1 to 4 demanded jewels from A.1 and since A.1 refused to return the jewels as he is having one female child, a false case has been foisted against the accused and charge sheet has been filed against the accused.(vii) Enquiry has been conducted one year after the incident.Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions:(a) 1988 (3) SCC 609 (Kehar Singh Vs.State (Delhi Administration);(b) 2005 (3) SCC 689 (Jagjit Singh Vs.State of Punjab) and(c) MANU/SC/0001/2010 (Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh).Learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) appearing for the respondent-Police, submitted that the best persons to speak about the incident are the parents of the deceased.P.Ws.1 and 2 have deposed about the demand of dowry.That has been corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 6, who are the neighbours of the accused.The ingredients of dowry have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.Learned Government Advocate further submits that 15 days prior to the incident, when P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 met the deceased in a marriage function, the deceased disclosed that she was harassed for not bringing motor bike.However, subsequent to the marriage, the deceased Shanti was harassed for not bringing more dowry.Ten days prior to the incident, the deceased had come to the complainant's place and stated that her in-laws were demanding Rs.7000 as they wanted to purchase a buffalo.Thus, the argument in the present appeal centres around only the last ingredient i.e. whether there was cruelty or harassment on account of demands for dowry.The deceased wife who could be the best person to speak about such demands; as the demands were allegedly made to her, is no more, the only remaining evidence can be that of the parents of the deceased to whom she would be supposed to mention about such demands in order to ascertain if they could meet the same.It is pertinent to note that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 17.7.1998 at about 10.30 p.m. The deceased was examined by P.W.10 Doctor at Thirunallar Community Health Centre and Ex.P-2 Accident Register was issued therein.The nature of injury has been mentioned as 90% burns.In Ex.P-2, it is further stated that, "alleged to have sustained burns by pouring kerosene...".Since the deceased was subsequently referred to Government Hospital, Karaikal, P.W.11 Doctor's evidence plays vital role to consider the veracity of Ex.P-10 statement of the deceased.P.W.11 Doctor at Karaikal Government Hospital deposed that at the time of recording the complaint by P.W.15 Head Constable, the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give the statement.So, considering the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 15, I am of the opinion that Ex.P-10 statement of the deceased, is valid in law and the same is admissible in evidence.Since the deceased died on 18.7.1998 at 7 p.m., as per Ex.At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants-accused culled out some portion of Ex.P-10 statement of the deceased (dying declaration) and submitted that the deceased herself has deposed that there was no demand of dowry either by the in-laws or by her husband or harassment.Relevant portion of Ex.P-10 reads as follows:VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETEDSo, as per the statement given by the deceased in Ex.P-10, before her death, it is clearly proved that there was no demand of dowry.Considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 along with the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.4 is very loyal than the master.P.W.1 in his chief examination has stated that, VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETEDThus, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their chief examination stated that her daughter sustained injuries on her face.P.W.4 also has deposed that 15 days prior to the death of the deceased, she saw the deceased in a marriage function and at that time, she witnessed the injury on the face of the deceased.She made enquiry and the deceased disclosed that she was subjected to dowry harassment.Therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC have not been made out."To convict a person under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence."There are so many dictums rendered by the Supreme Court that even if a person utters the word "go and die", there would be no mens-rea for instigating the deceased to commit suicide.In such circumstances, I am of the view that merely because A.2 has scolded the deceased only for mending her family ways, as the deceased has not taken care of household duties promptly, that will not amount to abetment of suicide.(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand."In the present case, on the fateful day of 17.7.1998, as per Ex.VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETEDConsidering the averments in Ex.P-10 statement of the deceased, I do not find that ingredients of Section 498-A have been made out.The deceased has not made any allegation against her husband or in-laws, in commission of suicide.The said decisions read as follows:The courts below have taken the view that delay in examining her has caused no prejudice to the defence.Counsel for the appellant submitted that this period was utilised by the prosecution for tutoring the witness, and therefore the delay of three days in her examination under Section 161 CrPC is significant.The trial court took the view that since she was under a shock she was not in a position to make a statement and, therefore, her statement was recorded later.This is clearly erroneous because the case of the prosecution is that she regained consciousness on 30.8.1996 and, thereafter, she was fully conscious The evidence of Dr.Bhupinder Singh, PW 7 who gave a certificate of her fitness to make a statement is also to the same effect.The reasoning of the trial court that the victim PW 6, was under great shock and was not in a position to make the statement, cannot be sustained.Neither the trial court nor the High Court cared to closely examine the evidence on record to find out whether there was any evidence on record to prove that the appellant was known to PW 6 or that PW 6 had any reason to know his name so as to be able to identify him by name.The explanation furnished by PW 6 five years after the occurrence, that she knew the appellant because he happened to be the son of Amar Singh at whose tubewell her grandparents resided, is unacceptable particularly, in view of the fact that there is no evidence to establish that she had ever earlier seen the appellant and in none of the three statements made by her earlier the name of Amar Singh is mentioned.The delay in examining her in the course of investigation also creates a serious doubt in the absence of any explanation for her late examination after three days, when admittedly she was the sole eyewitness who was also injured in the course of the occurrence.We are, therefore, of the view that though she may have witnessed the occurrence, she did not know the appellant by name as she had no opportunity of knowing or seeing him earlier, and that she has involved the appellant at the instance of her father, who was the person who suggested the involvement of the appellant when her statement Ext.PW-6/A was being recorded."With this we are now left with the evidence of Amarjit Singh who is an important witness as per the prosecution.It has come on record that his statement during investigation was recorded thrice: twice by police under Section 161 and then under Section 164 CrPC.The first statement is Ex.PW44 which was recorded on November 24, 1984, after 25 days of the incident and the second statement Ex.On December 21, 1984 the third statement Ex.PW 44-A under Section 164 of the Code came to be recorded.In the first statement there is no involvement of Balbir Singh.The second statement according to the witness was recorded at his own instance.He states that it did not occur to him that assassination was the handiwork of Balbir Singh and Kehar Singh.After he had learnt about the firing and death of Smt.According to him, he recalled bit by bit and that was the reason, he gave the subsequent two statements.If we carefully peruse these statements it is clear that the entire approach of the High Court appears to be erroneous.Amarjit Singh PW 44 states before the courts as follows:"In the first week of August 1984 I had a talk with Beant Singh.Then he told me that he would not let Mrs.Shri Balbir Singh also used to tell me that if he could get a remote control bomb and his children are sent outside India then he also could finish Mrs Indira Gandhi.I used to think that he was angry and I used to tell him that he should not think in these terms.In the third week of October 1984, Balbir Singh told me that Beant Singh and his family have been to the Golden Temple along with Kehar Singh his phoopha.He further told that Beant Singh and Constable Satwant Singh had taken Amrit in Sector 6, R.K.Puram, New Delhi at the instance of Kehar Singh."In his first statement PW 44-DA which has been exhibited during his cross-examination admittedly there is no reference to Balbir Singh at all.No reference to Balbir Singh telling the witness that if he could get a remote control bomb and his children are sent outside India, he could also finish Mrs.Indira Gandhi.There he has stated:"In the end of September 1984 SI Balbir Singh met me once in the Prime Minister's house and told me that Beant Singh wanted to kill the Prime Minister before August 15, he (Beant Singh) agreed to kill her with a grenade and remote control but this task was to be put off because the same could not be arranged.Actual words being 'In do cheeson ka intezam nahin ho saka isliye baat tal gayi'.Similarly in his earlier statement Ex.PW 44-DA what this witness said was:"In the third week of October 1984 Beant Singh SI met me and told me that he had procured One Constable.Actual words being 'October 1984 ke tisare hafte main Beant Singh mujhe mila usne bataya ki usne ek sipahi pataya hai' and that now both of them would put an end to Smt.Indira Gandhi's life very soon."These portions of the statement which were put and proved from Amarjit Singh as his first statement recorded by the police clearly go to show that he had only alleged these things against Beant Singh.What he did later was to improve upon his statement and introduce Balbir Singh also or substitute Balbir Singh in place of Beant Singh.The only other inference is that he was himself a party to that conspiracy.In his second statement he has tried to introduce things against him.But whereas, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by P.Ws.17 and 18 investigating officers during the course of investigation, was only on 16.7.1999, i.e. after one year of the occurrence.At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants-accused culled out the statement of the accused when they were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which A.1 has stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 demanded return of jewels of the deceased, he refused to return the jewels, since he is having a female child.Then only, the Police have taken steps to investigate the matter.Considering the same, admittedly, from 18.7.1998 till 16.7.1999, no witness has been examined and after that only, all the witnesses were examined, i.e. on 16.7.1999 and charge sheet has been laid against the appellants-accused.In her cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated as follows:Furthermore, as per the evidence of Ex.P-10 statement of the deceased (dying declaration), it is clearly proved that the appellants-accused are not guilty of the offences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.Moreover, as contended by learned counsel for the appellants-accused, P.W.14 Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, in his evidence, did not speak about the version of the witnesses that there was any demand of dowry or harassment, though some of the witnesses spoke only about the demand of motor bike.For all the reasons stated above, the appellants-accused are entitled to be given "the benefit of doubt" and they are liable to be acquitted of the charges.In fine,(a) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.(b) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A.1 and A.2 are set aside.(c) The fine amounts, if paid by the appellants/A.1 and A.2 shall be refunded.(d) The bail bonds, if any executed by the appellants/A.1 and A.2 shall stand cancelled.The Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikal.The Union Territory of Pondicherry, Rep. by Superintendent of Police, Karaikal.The Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry), High Court, Madras | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,939,931 | She committed suicide by hanging herself on 5-7-1989 at Jabalpur.Complainant Gopendu Kumar Biswas (P.W. 7) and Dugendu Kumar Bishwas (P.W. 8) are the brothers while Smt. Chandra Biswas is the sister of deceased Deepa.The prosecution case stated in brief is that the complainant Gopendu Kumar Biswas (P.W. 7) had in the marriage of his sister Deepa with accused/appellant Anoop given dowry according to his capacity, and had spent about Rs. 1,50,000/- in the marriage.After the marriage deceased Deepa Biswas resided with her husband the accused/appellant, and his other family members at Jabalpur.The accused/appellant and his other relatives after the marriage made demand of dowry.The deceased Deepa was assaulted and tortured by herin laws and also by the accused/appellant.The deceased Deepa intimated her brother Gopendu Kumar Biswas (P.W. 7) about the demand and maltreatment as above.However, keeping in view her future, they used to tell her to carry on with her husband and his family members.It is also alleged that the accused/ appellant was a person of doubtful character.He consumed liquor and used to remain absent from the house sometimes for the whole night.On protests by the deceased Deepa he used to threaten and assault her.The complainant Gopendu Kumar Biswas (P.W. 7) and Satish Bhasin had come to Jabalpur and had persuaded the accused/appellant to change his ways and habits.The accused/ appellant and his brothers Ashok and Vinay had assured the complainant Dugendu Kumar Viswas (P.W. 8) and Satish Bhasin, that they would not give any cause for complaint in future.However, situation did not improve, and maltreatment with deceased Deepa continued.A daughter was born to deceased Deepa Rai, and on that occasion the complainant Dugendu Kumar (P.W. 7) had given a sum of Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) in connection with the ceremonies of the birth.The accused/appellant wished to start his own business which required an investment of R. 3,00,000/- and he asked Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant Dugendu Kumar (P.W. 8) for the said purpose.Since his demand as above was not met, the accused/appellant and his family members tried to throttle Deepa.On receiving information complainant Dugendu Kumar (P.W. 8) had come to Jabalpur.The statement of complainant Gopendu Kumar (P.W. 7) and Dugendu (P.W. 8) -- the brothers of deceased Deepa Rai, and the statement of Smt. Chandra Biswas (P.W. 9) -- the sister of deceased Deepa Rai, would indicate that the accused/appellant and the deceased Deepa Rai were married on 26-2-88 at Bareli (U.P.).It is also not disputed that deceased Deepa Rai resided with the accused/appellant and his family members at Jabalpur after her marriage.The dead body was sent for postmortem.Postmortem report (Ex.In the above connection Complainant Gopendu Kumar Biswas (P.W. 1) has stated that the accused/appellant, his brothers co-accused Ashok Kumar and Vinay Kumar and his mother Smt. Sarala Rai used to harass the deceased for bringing lease dowry.He has further stated that his sister deceased Deepa Rai had told him and other family members at Bareli when she visited them, regarding her harassment as above on account of demand of dowry.Gopendu (P.W. 7) has stated that the accused persons demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) for opening the shop of accused/appellant, but Gopendu (P.W. 7) expressed his inabil ity to pay the above amount.He has also stated that he had paid Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) for furniture to his sister deceased Deepa Rai in two instalments one of Rupees 3,000/- (three thousand) and the other of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand).He further states that a daughter was born to his sister on 18-3-98 and a month thereafter ceremony in connection to birth was held for which he came from Bareli to Jabalpur, and had given Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) to Ashok Kumar the elder brother of the accused/appellant towards expenses of the ceremony.Complainant Gopendu (P.W. 7) has further stated that he as well as his other family members apprised the accused/appellant of their circumstances and requested the accused/appellant and his relatives not to harass deceased Deepa.The accused/appellant and his family members has assured that in future the deceased would not be harassed.He has further stated that letters (Ex.P/8-A to Ex.P/8-I) were written by deceased Deepa which he produced before the police and they were seized from him as per seizure memo (Ex. P/9).The letter (Ex. P/8-C) written to Smt. ChandraBiswas (P.W. 9) is the expression of poignant feelings of deceased Deepa, and shows that she was in a state of intense mental agony and torture.The letter (Ex. P/8-E) mentions about the taunts and misbehaviour by her in-laws.Clearly therefore, the reading of the letters of the deceased as above, unmistakably indicate that deceased Deepa was being subjected to humiliation and harassment.She was taunted as coming from a poor family.There was expectation of payments from time to time by her brothers and sisters.JUDGMENT V.K. Agarwal, J.The accused/appellant stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.He has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, for offence under Section 304B of I.P.C. while he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for four months for offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code; by judgment dated 23-2-1998, in Sessions Trial No. 271/90, by Addl.Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jabalpur.Undisputably the deceased Deepa Rai was married to the accused/appellant Anoop Kumar on 26-2-88 at Bareli (U.P.).He sent a written report (Ex. P/10) dated 12-7-1989 of the incident.On the basis of above written report (Ex. P/10) Police Omti Jabalpur recorded First Information Report and registered the offence.The inquest report (Ex. P/3) on the dead body of deceased Deepa Rai was prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.Dr. A.C. Nagpal (P.W. 3) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Deepa Rai.It was reported in the post mortem report (Ex. P/4) that here was a dark read ligature mark in front of the neck from right to left side.It was leaning obliquely higher on the left side and faint on the right lateral side of neck missing at the nape of neck.Ligature mark was 23 cms.The ligature pattern discernible on front and left lateral side of neck for 17 cm.x 1 cm., Skin of the ligature was dark red and hard.It was opined that the ligature mark the ante-mortem and the deceased died of asphyxia which was caused by hanging.During investigation Letters (Ex. P/8-A to Ex. P/8-I) were seized by the Investigating Officer, ASI B.P. Mishra (P.W. 6) as per seizure memo (Ex. P/9).After concluding other usual formalities during investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant and the co- accused his brothers Ashok Kumar and his mother Smt. Sarla.Learned trial Court framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant as also against other co-accused Ashok Kumar and Vinay Kumar, brothers of the appellant and Smt. Sarla Rai, his mother.They abjured guilt.By the impugned judgment trial Court acquitted the co-accused Ashok Kumar, Vinay Kumar and Smt. Sarla Rai.However, it was held that charge for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code are proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/appellant and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced therefor, as has been mentioned earlier.The learned Counsel for the accused/ appellant has challenged the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court.It lias been urged that the oral evidence led by the prosecution or the letters (Ex. P/8-A to Ex. P/8-I) produced by the complainant Gopendu (P.W. 7) do not disclose that there was any demand of dowry.It has also been urged that it has not been established from the evidence and material on record that lhe accused/appellant harassed the deceased Deepa, or subjected her to cruelty, soon before her death, for or in connection with any demand of dowry.Therefore, his conviction either under Section 498A or 304B of the Indian Penal Code, is not sustainable.It has also been urged that written report (Ex. P/10) sent by complainant Gopendu (P.W. 7) is not only belated but has been sent after the due deliberation levelling false allegations against the accused/appellant.P/3) of Dr. A.C. Mangal (P.W 3) discloses that she died due to asphysia due to hanging, which indicates that she committed suicide.Therefore, indisputably the deceased was married within 7 years of her death and that her death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances.Therefore, the questions that arise for consideration are as to whether :(a) Deceased Deepa Rai soon before her death was subjected/cruelty or harassment by the accused/appellant?(b) that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand of dowry?He had sent a complaint dated 12-7-89 to the Supdt.of Police regarding the death of his sister-deceased Deepa.Smt. Chandra Biswas (P.W. 9) has stated that deceased Deepa had come to Barcli from Jabalpur, four or five times after her marriage.She slates that deceased Deepa had informed her that the accused/appellant had asked for Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) for starting his shop, upon which Smt. Chandra Biswas (P.W. 9) told about it to Gopendu (P.W. 7) - her brother, and other family members.Smt. Chandra Biswas (P.W. 9) has further stated that deceased Deepa used to tell her that the accused/appellant always taunted that her relatives were distitutes and had not.given anything in dowry.Deceased Deepa also used to complain that the accused/appellant was in the habit of drinking and would come home late in the night.The accused/appellant would also insist the deceased Deepa should also take liquor and on her refusing to do so, she was beaten by the appellant and that accused/appellant also levelled false allegations against her.She has stated that letters (Ex.P/8-A, Ex.P/8-G and Ex.P/8-1) were addressed to her by the deceased.Dugendu (P.W. 8) brother of deceased Deepa has staled that deceased committed suicide on account of demand of dowry.However, he has not specified any particulars regarding the said demand.Smt. Chandra Biswas (P.W. 9) has also stated that deceased Deepa committed suicide on account of harassment regarding the demand of dowry.From the statement as above of Gopendu (P.W. 7) -- brother of deceased, it would appear that the accused/appellant had demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) for starting his shop, regarding which he had expressed his inability.Similar is the statement of his sister Smt. Chandra Biswas (P.W. 9) who has State that the deceased Deepa had told her that the appellant was demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) for starting his shop.Learned Counsel for the appellant had submitted that the demand as above would not amount to demand of dowry, and it was natural for the appellant to seek financial assistance for starting his business from his relatives including his in-laws.In support of his contention learned Counsel for appellant has referred to Kamesh Chandv.State of U.P., 1992 Cri LJ1444, wherein the Allahabad High Court has observed that even if the husband had asked the wife to bring some jewellery, this by itself could not be unlawful demand as no law would punish mere demand without settlement of dowry at the time of marriage.It has further been urged that in the circumstances of the instant case, the mere demand of the accused/appellant of an amount from the relatives of his wife without any further persistence or harassment on that account would not make the demand as unlawful or a demand of dowry.It is clear from the evidence led in the case that the demand as above was only by way of help for starting the business.It may further be noticed that Gopendu (P.W. 7) had expressed his inability to his sister to pay the above amount.It is also noted that the above demand has not been mentioned in any of the letters (Ex. P/8-A to Ex.P/8-I) written by the deceived to her close relatives including Gopendu (P.W. 7) and Smt. Chandra Biswas (P.W. 9).it therefore appears that the accused/appellant thereafter did not pursue the demand as above.It also does not.appear that the accused/appellant in any way insisted on the amount being paid.Obviously therefore such a demand would not amount to a demand of dowry.It is also to be noticed that Gopendu (P.W. 7) has also stated that there was demand of some amount by his sister deceased Deepa for purchasing furniture.He states that in all Rs. 5,000/- (live thousand) were paid by him, towards purchase of furniture by his sister-the deceased Deepa.It may be noticed that the deceased Deepa requested that the above amount be given to her, as she wanted to purchase dressing table and almirah, as has been referred to by her in her letters (Ex. P/8-A and Ex. P/8-H).It is true that there is no direct evidence that the above request by deceased Deepa was at the instance of the accused/appellant as there is no mention in the said letters that the accused/appellant had directed the deceased to ask for the amount.However, it is abundantly clear from her letters that Deepa was greatly embarrassed in asking for the above amount which speaks for itself and shows deceased was compelled by her circumstances in her matrimonial home, to make the said demand.However, since on reading of said letters written by deceased Deepa, and on consideration of the oral statement of Gopendu (P.W. 7), it does not appear that the request for payment of furniture was at the instance of the accused/ appellant, hence the demand by deceased Deepa for purchase of furniture as above therefore, would also not amount to demand of dowry by the appellant.20. Gopendu (P.W. 7) has also stated in para 7 of his statement that a daughter was born to her sister-deceased Deepa, on 10-3-89, and that he had arrived at Jabalpur to participate in the ceremony and festivity relating to the above birth.He has further stated that since he was told by accused persons that the expense of ceremonies have to be borne by 'Mama' -- the maternal uncle; he had given an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) to Ashok Kumar - the elder brother of the accused/appellant.It is clear there- lore, that the amount as above was not given in pursuance of demand of dowry by the appellant, but was only given as it was customery to do so.Thus, the evidence as above does not establish that the accused/appellant or any of his relatives demanded dowry.The question that now deserves to be considered is whether the deceased was treated with cruelty?Smt. Chandra Biswas (P.W. 9) - sister of deceased, has stated that the latter had told her that the accused/appellant used to harass the deceased.He would taunt has that sufficient dowry was not given in their marriage and that the relatives of deceased Deepa were destitutes.He would also consume liquor and would come late in the night.He would also insist that deceased Deepa should give him company in drinking.On deceased Deepa declining to accede to his demand he would beat her and would level false allegations against her character.She has further stated in para 5 that deceased Deepa had also told her that the accused/appellant had illicit relations with a girl named Bharti, who used to frequently telephone him.Gopendu (P.W. 7) has also stated that deceased Deepa always used to tell them that the accused/appellant continuously harassed her.They had also requested the accused/appellant and his relatives not to harass her, upon which they had assured that they would not do so, but it appears that the matters did not improve.Reference in this connection may also be made to the letters written by deceased Deepa which are marked as (Ex.P/8-A to Ex.P/8-I).From letter (Ex.P/8-D), it would appear that deceased Deepa was in a state of mental torture and tension.Though she wanted to express herself but could not do so on account of her inability.She has expressed that she is having a volcano within her and that there were such occurrences taking place in her matrimonial household which were not worth mentioned and that she was averse to even write about them.The contents of the said letter also contains reference though in an indirect manner that the accused/ appellant was not maintaining relations with deceased Deepa, which she as wife normally expected.She had beseeched her sister Smt. Chandra Biswas (P.W. 9) in the said letter to do something in the matter, so that the accused/appellant gets attached to her and starts caring for her.In letter (Ex. P/8-D) deceased Deepa has requested that some amount be sent on the occasion of some function, so that she may not to have suffer humiliation and may not be taunted.She has also narrated the incident of her humiliation on account of paltry amount of Rs. 50/- (fifty) only being given by her sister Smt. Chandra Biswas (P.W. 9) to a child of her matrimonial family.Smt. Chandra Biswas (P.W. 9) in para 8 of her statement has stated that the deceased had indirectly mentioned therein that the appellant had extramarital affair and that deceased Deepa wanted that the accused/appellant should severe his relations with that girl and should become faithful and get attached with the deceased.She has stated therein that she was being humiliated beyond her forbearance.She has also thereby requested her sister Smt. Chandra Biswas (PW 9) that they should not visit her at Jabalpur in any ceremony or function because she is being taunted in her matrimonial home.Deceased by the said letter forbade her sister and other to visit her, because she feared that they may be humiliated by her in-laws.Letter (Ex. P/8-I) also indicates that the deceased seems to be in great mental distress and tension, as she apprehended that in the marriage of some relative, something may not be said regarding the disclosures made by deceased Deepa to her relatives from the parents side.It would also appear from that letter that she wanted that the relatives from her husband's side should be told that deceased was talking well about them and that they were not of the type as they appeared at the time of her marriage.From letter (Ex. P/8-B) it appears that it was written by the deceased Deepa in sheer desperation and a frantic request thereby has been made by her to her brothers that she should be taken back to her parents home immediately on receipt of letter.It was also been stated in that letter it was probably that last letter being written by her implying that she may not live in case she was not taken back to her parents' home.It appears that apprehensions expressed in the said letter by deceased Deepa, materialised and deceased Deepa was forced to take the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself.It also appears that she felt great embarrassment in asking money for furniture, and on other counts, but was compelled to meet the said expectations while she was at her matrimonial home.It is abundantly clear from the letters that deceased Deepa was in constant and acute mental agony, on account of the circumstances prevailing in her matrimonial home.It is also apparent from her last letter (Ex. P/8-B) written shortly before her death that she had decided not to continue to live in her matrimonial home with the accused/appellant.The statement of her sister Smt. Chandra Biswas (PW 9), indicates that the accused/appellant had illicit affair with a girl.He used to drink and insist that deceased Deepa should also give him company by taking drinks with him.On her refusing to do, so, appellant would beat her.He would come late in the night.He taunted her that dowry given in their marriage was inadequate.He would also caste aspersion on the character of deceased Deepa his wife.Admittedly deceased Deepa was married to the accused/appellant on 26-2-1988, and committed suicide within 1 1/2 years thereafter.This was shortly after giving birth to a daughter.Commission of suicide by deceased'within a short span of 1 1/2 years of her marriage leaving behind her young daughter was obviously for some extremely compelling reasons.Those reasons are disclosed by the statements of her sister Smt. Chandra Biswas (PW 9), her brother Gopendu (PW 7) and Dugendu (PW 8), who stand fully corroborated by letters (Ex.P/8-A to Ex. P/8-I) of the deceased which are indicative of the constant torture and torment, which the deceased was facing at her matrimonial home.The evidence as above clearly establishes that the deceased was constantly taunted, harassed and humiliated, at her matrimonial home.The above evidence also indicates that the appellant: had illicit relations with another girl and shows intense desire of deceased that her husband - the accused/appellant, should severe such relations and should become faithful and attached to her.The letters also indicate the low mentality and expectations of the appellant and his family members.Obviously, the accused/appellant was mainly responsible for the above predicament of his wife the deceased Deepa.She was under great mental stress and agony from almost the beginning of her married life, till she met her unfortunate end, due to the behaviour of the accused/ appellant.In the foregoing circumstances, there appears to be no doubt that the accused/appellant treated her with cruelty within the meaning of explanation (a) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.In Gurucharan Singh v. Satpal Singh 1990 Cri LJ 562 : AIR 1990 SC 209, it has been laid down that constant dowry demands from a newly wedded wife and consequent taunts, maltreatment, cruel behaviour, torture and insinuation that she was carrying an illegitimate child are grave, and serious provocation, and were enough to drive an ordinary woman in the Indian set up to commit suicide.years of her marriage with the accused/appellant leaving behind her young daughter.But, as has been noticed earlier since the accused/appellant persistently treated deceased Deepa with cruelty, a presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act will have to be drawn, and it is therefore held to be established from the above evidence and circumstances of the case that the accused/appellant had abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Deepa.Therefore, though the conviction of the accused/appellant tinder Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is not justified, but for the foregoing reason;-;, lie deserves to be eoisvicfed for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, and further his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code also, deserves to be maintained.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.The conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and instead he is convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,996,220 | Brief Summary:That on 11.07.2009, at about 9.30 p.m. opposite to Thathaneri BurialGround, when the deceased Peer Mohammed and his brother-in-law Mohammed KasimP.W.1 were proceeding in a bicycle, the appellant/accused had voluntarilywaylaid and hit himself against their bicycle.When questioned his authority ofdoing so, the appellant/accused had stabbed the deceased Peer Mohammed withknife on the lower part of left side neck and thereby caused his death.P1 to P9and material objects in M.Os.1 to 8 were marked.The gravamen of the prosecution case is this:The deceased Peer Mohammed is none other than the elder sister's husband ofP.W.1 Mohammed Kasim.P.W.1 is residing at Aruldasspuram and was working in anEversilver workshop at Anuppanadi.That on 11.07.2009 at 9.00 p.m. he came toGoripalayam for the purpose of going to Anuppanadi.When he was waiting for thebus, the deceased Peer Mohammed came there in his cycle.On seeing him, bothwere returning to home.The deceased Peer Mohammed was riding his cycle.P.W.1was sitting on the pillion.When they were proceeding opposite to Thathaneriburial ground, after passing the railway gate, the appellant/accused hadvoluntarily waylaid them and hit himself against the deceased's cycle.When thedeceased had questioned his authority of waylaiding, the appellant/accused hadreplied as "mg;goj;jhd; nog;Bgd;".While saying so, he had taken out a knifefrom his back and stabbed on his (deceased) chest below his neck.Afterreceiving the stab injury, Peer Mohammed had slided down.Thereafter, P.W.1 had taken the deceased in an ambulance.But in thehospital he was declared dead.In this connection P.W.1 had lodged a complaint(Ex.P.1) before P.W.8, the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Sellur PoliceStation at 11.45 p.m. Based on his complaint, P.W.8 had registered a case inCrime No.1454 of 2009 under Section 302 I.P.C. The Printed First InformationReport was marked as Ex.Subsequently, P.W.11, Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station, afterreceiving the copy of the First Information Report, had taken up the case forinvestigation.At about 00.45 a.m. on 12.07.2009, he had been to the place ofoccurrence and inspected the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.5Nagarajan and one Murugan and prepared an Observation Mahazar Ex.P.8 in respectof the place of occurrence.He had also collected some blood stained earth andsome un-blood stained earth in the presence of above said witnesses under thecover of a Seizure Mahazar Ex.At about 7.45 a.m. P.W.11 had been to RajajiGovernment Hospital, Madurai and conducted an inquest on the dead body of PeerMohammmed, which was kept in the mortuary, in the presence of panchayathars.Peritoneal cavity - empty : Pleural cavities empty; Pericardium - contains 15 mlof straw colour fluid; Heart - both chambers empty; Coronaries - patent; Lungs -cut section pale; Larynz & trachea - normal; Hyoid bone - intact; Stomach -contains 400 gms of partially digested food particles, nil specific smell,mucosa pale; Liver, spleen & kidneys - cut section pale; Small intestine -contains 20 ml of bile stained fluid, nil specific smell, mucosa pale; Bladder -empty; Brain - surface vessels pale, cut section pale."After the completion the postmortem examination, P.W.7 had opined that "thedeceased would appear to have died of shock & haemorrhage due to stab injury tothe neck, 12 to 16 hours prior to autopsy".To that effect, he had issued apostmortem certificate under Ex.(Judgment of the Court was made by T.MATHIVANAN, J.)This memorandum of criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment dated11.10.2011 and made in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.220 of 2010, on the file ofthe learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II),Madurai finding the appellant/accused guilty under Sections 341 and 302 I.P.C.,convicting him thereunder and sentencing to suffer one month of RigourousImprisonment for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. and to suffer imprisonmentof life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer rigorousimprisonment for a further period of six months under Section 302 I.P.C.That on 09.10.2009, P.W.12, the Inspector of Police attached to SellurPolice Station had laid a final report against the appellant/accused, before thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, alleging that he had committed theoffences punishable under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii)The learned PrincipalSessions Judge, Madurai had in turn made over the case to the learned AdditionalSessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai for disposal.After the appearance of the appellant/accused and on hearing the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutorappearing for the State, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed thefollowing charges as against the appellant/accused:(i) Charge No.1 : Under Section 341 I.P.C.(ii) Charge No.2 : Under Section 302 I.P.C.(iii) Charge No.3 : Under Section 506(ii)I.P.C.When the ingredients of the charges were explained and questioned, theappellant/accused had pleaded innocent and claimed to be tried and therefore, hewas put on trial.In order to substantiate it's case, the prosecuting agency has examined asnearly as 12 witnesses and during the course of their examination Exs.Thereafter, he had sent the complaint Ex.P.1 andthe First Information Report Ex.Atabout 9.45 a.m., he had completed the inquest and prepared an inquest reportunder Ex.Then P.W.11 had sent the dead body for conducting postmortem examinationthrough P.W.10 Head Constable attached to Sellur Police Station along with arequisition.On receipt of the requisition, P.W.7 Dr.Whileso, he had foundthe following antemortem injuries on the dead body:An oblique stab injury 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep noted on the outeraspect of lower part of left side of neck, 2 cms above the inner end of leftclavicle bone.On dissection, the wound is directed downwards & inwards piercingthe underlying muscles, carotid sheath, carotid vessels and nerves through &through and ends as a point in the underlying muscle.Note: The margins of the injury are regular with one end pointed and other endcurved.Other findings:P.W.11, the investigating officer had examined the witnesses andrecorded their respective statements.Then at about 2.00 p.m. on 12.07.2009, hehad arrested the appellant/accused near the Corporation Lavatory, which islocated on the northern side of Madurai K.V.Main Road in the presence of P.W.6,Village Administrative Officer and his Menial one Paramasivam.On interrogation, the appellant/accused had voluntarily given aconfessional statement, which was reduced into writing by P.W.11 in the presenceof the above said witnesses and based on his disclosure statement under Ex.P.4,P.W.11 had recovered the knife M.O.1 at the instance of the appellant/accused inthe presence of the above witnesses under the cover of a Seizure Mahazar Ex.Thereafter, P.W.11 came down to the Police Station along with theappellant/accused and material objects and subsequently he had sent theappellant/accused to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai for beingremanded to judicial custody.Thereafter, the case records were entrusted with P.W.12, the Inspector ofPolice for further investigation.After the completion of his investigation, hehad laid a final report against the appellant/accused under Sections 341, 302and 506(ii) I.P.C. on 09.10.2009, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Madurai.When the incriminating circumstances, arising out of the testimonies of theprosecution witnesses, were put to the appellant/accused during the course ofproceedings under Section 313(i)(b) Cr.P.C. so as to enable him to explain, hehad replied that this case was foisted against him.He had also replied that hewas arrested and detained in the police station and subsequently, this case wasfoisted against him.Neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was adducedon his behalf.On evaluating the evidences both oral and documentary, the learned AdditionalSessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai had found the appellant/accusedguilty under Sections 341 and 302 I.P.C., convicted him thereunder and sentencedas aforestated.He was not found guilty under Section 506(ii) I.P.C., andtherefore he was acquitted of the charge under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. Thesentences were directed to run concurrently and the period already undergone bythe appellant/accused during the trial was also directed to be given set offunder Section 428 of Cr.P.C.5. Having been aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentencedated 11.10.2011, as afore stated the appellant/accused now stands before thisCourt with this appeal.We have heard Mr.P.Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for theappellant/accused and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondent Police and carefully perused the testimonies of theprosecution witnesses and other documentary evidences.P.Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused whileadvancing his arguments has raised a suspicion with regard to the presence ofP.W.1 at the time and place of occurrence.During the course of his argument, he has also drawn our attention to theaverments of his complaint, which has been marked as Ex.P.1 as well as to hisexamination in chief with regard to the crime weapon.In this connection, Mr.P.Kumarasamy, learned counsel has maintained that inEx.P1 it was stated as if the appellant/accused had taken out the knife, whichwas hidden in his hip, whereas in his evidence in chief, he had stated as if hehad taken out the knife from his back.He has also adverted to that since theplace, where the crime weapon was said to have been hidden, was differentlyspoken to by P.W.1, his presence at the time of occurrence was highly suspected.Secondly, he has adverted to that, as it was revealed from the testimoniesof other witnesses, since there was a wine shop near the place of occurrence,somebody could have stabbed the deceased under the influence of alcohol andsince P.W.1 happened to be the brother-in-law of the deceased might have beenprepared by the prosecuting agency to lodge the complaint as against theappellant/accused as he was arrested and kept in the police station inconnection with some other case.He has also alleged that Ex.P.1 complaint couldhave been fabricated by the prosecuting agency after confabulation, for whichP.W.1 might have been used as an instrument.He hasalso added that after hearing the hue and cry of P.W.1, P.W.2 Gopal, who wastaking tea in the nearby tea shop, had rushed to the place of occurrence andseen the deceased Peer Mohammed lying in the pool of blood.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also added that P.W.2 hadcategorically deposed that P.W.1 had taken the deceased Peer Mohammed to thehospital in the Ambulance and on the next day, he had been to the hospital andseen the dead body of Peer Mohammed.He has also argued that since P.W.2 hadcorroborated and supported the evidence of P.W.1 with the aid of the testimoniesof other witnesses, it could not be heard to say that the prosecution had notbrought home the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubts.13. P.W.6 Ganesan, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai North Village AdministrativeOfficer had deposed about the arrest of the appellant/accused near theCorporation Lavatory, situated at the Northern side of Madurai K.V. Main Roadand he has also spoken to about the recovery of the crime weapon M.O.1 byP.W.11, which was produced by the appellant/accused from the place lyingproximity to the burial ground and apart from this evidence and the evidence ofP.W.7 Dr.Selvaraj, who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body ofdeceased Peer Mohammed appears to be cogent and convincing.The injury specified in Ex.P.6 Postmortem Certificate appears to beconsistent with the testimony of P.W.1 and therefore, we find that though P.W.1is a solitary eye-witness, his evidence is sufficient to inspire confidence andto prove the guilt of the appellant/accused.It is a trite law that theconviction can very well be maintained on the basis of solitary eye witness.Accordingly, while we maintain the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellant/accused under Section 341 I.P.C., by thelearned Trial Judge, we modify the conviction and sentence imposed on theappellant/accused under Section 302 I.P.C., to one under Section 304 Part III.P.C.,In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed and theappellant/accused is convicted under Section 304 Part II I.P.C., and sentencedto suffer five years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.In default of payment of fine, the appellant/accused shall undergo rigorousimprisonment for a further period of six months.The substantive portion ofsentences are directed to run concurrently.The period sofar undergone shall begiven set-off against the sentence of imprisonment under Section 428 Cr.P.C.,Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai2.The Inspector of Police, D2, Sellur Police Station, Madurai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,000,992 | Anbumani Ramadoss & Ors.CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 4 of 33& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 4 of 33Brief facts stated are CBI registered an FIR RC No. AC2-2010-A-0003/ACU-II, SPE/CBI/ND on following information:But inspection by Inspectors of Medical Council of India (MCI), conducted on 8 & 9th May, 2008, observed certain deficiencies regarding shortage of teaching faculty.Thus MCI asked college to submit a compliance report.Accordingly college authorities submitted compliance report claiming rectification of deficiencies.But in another inspection conducted on 27.5.2008, MCI team again found certain deficiencies which had been claimed to be rectified.Thereafter, another compliance verification inspection was carried out by the MCI Inspectors on 19.8.2008, in which again deficiencies were observed.On 25.8.2008, in the meeting of the Executive Committee of MCI, including the adhoc members of the council appointed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it was decided to recommend to Ministry of Health and Family Welfare not to renew the permission for admission of 2d batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2008-09 at Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre Indore due to deficiencies observed during various inspections.Subsequently during the hearing on 26.09.2008 of WP (C) 420 of 2008 (Mayank's Welfare Society & Ors Vs UOL & Ors) in Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was stated on behalf of Union of India that the percentage of teaching staff in CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 5 of 33 various departments and other facilities of the said college were inadequate and the petitioner institution can not be given permission.Therefore, the Writ petition was disposed off without prejudice to the right of the college to continue to get permission in next calendar year.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 5 of 33However, contrary to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, 26.09.2008 itself Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India granted permission to Index Medical College and Research Center on the basis of an Inspection Report dated 25.09.2008 of the Central Team consisting of Dr. DK Gupta Specialist Gr.I and HOD Hematology, Safdarjung Hospital and Dr. J.S. Dhupia, Professor Consultant and HoD (Pathology).Vardhman Medical College, Delhi.This team claimed in their report that the signatures of the entire teaching faculty including Residents were taken to confirm the staff position.It is also reliably learnt that on 01.10.2008, just after 6 days of the inspection by the Central team, another inspection by MCI team was conducted at Index Medical College and Research Centre.In this inspection it was observed that clinical material was grossly inadequate, bed occupancy shortage was 27.71 %, teaching faculty shortage was 65.11% and Residents shortage was 32.89%.Thereafter, Secretary, MCI vide letter No. MCI-34(41)/2008-Med./27854 dated 06.10.2009 intimated to the Secretary, GOI, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of Health) that the Executive Committee of the MCI had resolved to urge the Central Government to recall the letter of permission dated 26.09.2008 issued to Index medical College and Research Centre.Therein it was mentioned that it is not possible for the CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 6 of 33 college to rectify all the deficiencies within such a short period of about one month (from 19.08.2008 to 25.09.2008 and it appeared that Central Team did not carry out inspections properly, as MCI team again found the deficiencies with in 6 days of the inspection by Central team.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 6 of 33It is reliably learnt that the signatures of various faculty members taken by the Central Team on 25.09.2008 were forged just to show the full strength of the faculty members.For renewal, college has to apply to MCI six months prior to expiry of initial permission.The process of renewing permission continues till the time establishment of medical college and expansion of hospital facilities are completed.Thereafter, formal recognition to medical college is granted.As per schedule prescribed by the MCI, application for new colleges and renewal should be received by Central Government from 1st to 31 August of any year and recommendation of MCI to Central Government for issue of letter of permission or otherwise should be given by 15th June of the ensuing year, and the letter of permission of central government is to be issued by 15th July.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 7 of 33C. In the instant case dispute pertains to grant of admission of second batch (i.e., first renewal) of MBBS students for academic year 2008-The College was inspected by the MCI on 8th and 9th of May 2008 for its first renewal.MCI found various deficiencies and Executive Committee and the Adhoc Committee appointed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recommended to the MoHFW to not renew permission for admission of second batch of students.A compliance report was sought by the Ministry on recommendation of MCI which was submitted by the college on 20.05.2008 pursuant to which another team of MCI was deputed which conducted inspection on 27.05.2008, it found deficiency of teaching faculty and residents.CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 8 of 33 D. After this inspection report, Adhoc committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme court and Executive committee of the MCI recommended the Ministry to not renew permission for second batch of 150 MBBS students.Thereafter, vide letter dated 18.06.2008 decision was communicated to chairman, then on 26.06.2008 accused Suresh Singh Bhadoria requested Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for further inspection.On this the then Secretary Health directed accused K.V.S. Rao (Accused No. 2) to examine the request.Accused K.V.S. Rao Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary and the Secretary endorsed the notes for approval for Minister for re-inspection by the Central team.Thereafter, on 19.07.2008 accused Minister Anbumani Ramadoss (Accused No.1) called for a meeting for discussion but did not agree with this proposal for re-inspection, and agreed with the recommendation of MCI not to renew permission for second batch of 150 MBBS students in Index Medical college.E. Consequently, a writ petition was filed by the college in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 11.08.2008 advised MCI to conduct inspection of the college.In compliance of the order, MCI conducted the inspection on 19.08.2008 and found shortage in faculty as well as clinical material.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 9 of 33H. During the hearing on 22.09.2008 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Index Medical College acknowledged the deficiencies and requested for considering reduced intake.ASG appeared on behalf of the Central Government, communicated the said submissions of the college to accused K.V.S. Rao vide letter dated 22.09.2008, and this CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 10 of 33 letter was received through fax on 23.09.2008 in the MoHFW.Thereafter, it was processed in the file on 24.09.2008, and on the basis of this communication, recommendation of MCI was sought.The MCI sent its recommendation on 24.09.2008 i.e., on same day by fax received in the office of K.V.S. Rao at 3:17 PM, and recommended that college could not be granted permission even for 50 students.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 10 of 33However, it was informed to Standing counsel that MoHFW had not granted the permission to the college.This was done with the approval of K.V.S. Rao contrary to the fact that he was well aware about the sending of Central team on 24.09.2008 for inspection.J. Consequent to the direction of accused K.V.S. Rao to conduct inspection of Index Medical college.Dr. Jagdish Prasad Medical CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 11 of 33 Superintendent prepared a inspection team of accused Dr. J.S. Dhupia (Accused No.4) and accused Dr. D.K. Gupta (Accused No.5).Thereafter, both the doctors reached Indore at night and stayed at hotel Landmark Fortune booked on the direction of accused Suresh Singh Bhadoria.On the next day, they inspected the college and during inspection accused Nitin Gothwal (Accused No.9) submitted a list of faculty members and the said faculty members made to sign on the said list before the Inspectors.Nitin Gothwal (Accused No.9) and Dr. Pawan Bhambani (Accused No.10) prepared report containing information regarding bed occupancies.Thereafter, the said team of doctors prepared inspection report on 26.09.2008 opining adequate strength of faculty for admission of 100 MBBS students and other facilities for 150 students.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 11 of 33K. However, during the forenoon of 26.09.2008, accused K.V.S. Rao did not brief the Ld. ASG Sh.Gopal Subramanium who on the instructions of MCI stated before the court that percentage of teaching staff and other Facilities were not adequate.Accordingly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India disposed off the petition without prejudice to the rights to get permission in the next calendar year.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dayan Krishnan on behalf of Accused No. 2 K.V.S. Rao has submitted that Mr. K.V.S. Rao was Deputy Secretary in CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 20 of 33 Ministry of Home and Family Welfare and there was no illegality in the permission granted by the Ministry.Mere meeting with the owner of the college, that too on directions of the Apex Court and/or closeness to the then Home Minister; or a wrong, inaccurate or incorrect decision will also not bring out criminality, as such.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 20 of 33Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the Health Minister was the competent authority and has granted permission on the basis of note and recommendations put up by Section Officer, signed and recommended by Under Secretary, the Dy.Secretary, the Joint Secretary and the Secretary Health.None of these officers are said to have made any dissenting note on the file or briefed the Minister to the contrary.None of these officers have been made accused.Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that in the present case there is no evidence either showing any agreement of conspiracy or that any undue pecuniary advantage has flowed from the acts or omissions of the Petitioner herein.CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 21 of 33CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 22 of 33& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 22 of 33There was an inspecting team consisting of three doctors who conducted the inspection.This report has pointed out various deficiencies with medical college.Learned S.P.P. has submitted that Dr. J.S. Dhupia and Dr. D.K. Gupta has given the inspection report which pertains to Index Medical College.This fact has come on record in the statement of PW-79 (Arun Arora) who stated that "They reached Indore on 24.09.2008 and stayed at Hotel called Landmark Foundation which was booked by S.S. Bhadoria and the expenses were paid by S.S. Bhadoria and Rs.20,000/- each was paid to each individual to Dr. J.S. Dhupia and Dr. D.K. Gupta who went there for its inspection of Index Medical College."Learned S.P.P. for CBI has further submitted that the aforesaid amount was given by the Government for making inspection and preparing reporting thereof of the facility available in the college.Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that once this amount was given by the Government, the aforesaid Doctors Dr. J.S. Dhupia and Dr. D.K. Gupta should not have accepted it in any favour from the College which they had gone to inspect and prepare the report thereof, Dr. J.S. Dhupia and Dr. D.K. Gupta visited the Index Medical College on 24.09.2008 and on 25.09.2008 they have conducted the inspection and they gave the report that the College has adequate facility to have admission of the second batch students without proper verification of faculty, teaching staff and other facility.Factually, the list of the faculty members was prepared by Nitin Gothwal and Pawan Bhambani as stated by CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 23 of 33 the PW-5 (Piyush Singh) Chief Coordinator of the Index Medical College and the said list was accepted without verifying if the persons are actual or dummy faculty members of Index Medical College.The list shows dummy medical faculty members who were brought for the purposes of this inspection only.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 23 of 33Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that the attendance sheets were prepared by accused Nitin Gothwal (Coordinator) and the same was signed by the Medical Dean and the Medical Superintendant of the Index Medical College and PW-5 (Piyush Singh) has stated this to CBI that the said attendance sheet was not verified by Dr. J.S. Dhupia and Dr. D.K. Gupta.Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that lot of faculty members were not present at the time of inspection and PW-5 (Piyush Singh) has stated in his statement that there are eight faculty members who were not present on the aforesaid date and Piyush Singh again stated that few faculties were presented on 25.09.2008 who have signed the attendance sheet.The list of the faculties who were shown to be presented were factually not present and their signatures has been forged in the attendance register and placed before Dr. J.S. Dhupia and Dr. D.K. Gupta basing for his biased/incorrect report.Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that both the Doctors Dr. J.S. Dhupia and Dr. D.K. Gupta did not verify the declaration form submitted by them and the faculty members and many of the documents declaration forms and documents submitted along with it were found to be forged.CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 24 of 33& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 24 of 33Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that inspection team comprising of Dr. J.S. Dhupia and Dr. D.K. Gupta failed to verify as to whether the faculty members who were present there for the inspection whether they were full time members or whether they were part time members or whether they were procured only for the purposes of getting favourable inspection report in their favour.PWs-1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8,10, 12, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 76, 99, 103, 105, 107 were not regular faculty members and most of them were hired only for the purpose of inspection and some of them were not present even at the time of the inspection and their signatures were forged in the attendance sheet.Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that PWs-2, 3 and 4 also have stated that Medical College does not have adequate teaching faculty and most of them were hired only for the purpose of inspection and were paid accordingly.Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that PW-5 has stated that the faculties were procured before inspection of the MCI through faculty providers.Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that Nitin Gothwal and Pawan Bhambani used to deal with the faculty providers and all the work of the appointment of the faculty in MCI inspection was done by Nitin Gothwal and Pawan Bhambani on the direction of S.S. Bhadoria who happened to be the Chairman of Index Medical College.Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that PW-6 Satish Bhardwaj also supported prosecution version.Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that inspection report of Dr. J.S. Dhupia and Dr. D.K. Gupta dated 25.09.2008 does not contain the proper CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 25 of 33 verification of the teaching facility and the infrastructure that was available in the College.PWs 37, 39, 42, 43, 45, 53, 56, 57, 75, 76, 103 say that there was no proper teaching facility available in College and the infrastructure was inadequate and the Doctors.Dr. J.S. Dhupia and Dr. D.K. Gupta did not verify bed occupancy report submitted by the Doctors.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 25 of 33Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that it was the duty of the inspection team Dr. J.S. Dhupia and Dr. D.K. Gupta, they were to verify contents of the form submitted to them and were also to physically verify the infrastructure, bed occupancy, teaching facility and other facilities which was required for running of the Medical College and that inspection was supposed to have the detail in the proper inspection as per the terms of the Medical Council of India.Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that team of inspection was supposed to make the report of pre and para medical clinical departments, along with the infrastructure and equipments, hostel facilities for boys and girls, residents, interns, residential accommodation for the teaching staff non- teaching staff, college library, examination hall and various endorse wards.OPD along with the bed occupancy and casualty attendants and laboratories and radiological tests facilities, and the faculty verification is to be done by reviewing the declaration form submitted by each faculty.This allegation is based on the statement of PW-14 Rajiv Verma, Assistant Medical Education in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.In the similar way PW-94 has also stated that incorrect note was submitted to him who is the Joint secretary in the Ministry and Family Welfare.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 26 of 33Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that PW-32 N. Barik (Under Secretary, MoHFW) further stated that Sudershan Kumar along with K.V.S. Rao (Secretary to the Minister) visited the resident of the Minister with the inspection report and recommendation note and got the approval letter signed record.Thereafter, Sudershan Kumar and the K.V.S. Rao went to the Ministry and got the approval letter and came back office at 9:30 PM and handed over the approval letter to the Chairman (S.S. Bhadoria) of Index Medical College.In my view, it is the Medical Council of India and the Central Government who are jointly responsible for the quality of medical education and consequent public health.However, I may make it clear that while there may be contest with reference to areas where one should have supremacy over the other, I am not persuaded to advise that the Central Government should reiterate the permission granted in favour of M/s Index Medical College, Indore as well as Rohilkhand medical College, UP.As I said, the wide disparity between the findings of the team deputed by the MCI and the team deputed by the Central Government raise serious questions including the question which one is authentic for the purpose of according admission.I confirm that in a meeting with the officers of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare at which meeting Health Secretary was present.I had advised in order to satisfy myself before advancing further submissions in respect of the said two colleges that a new team of senior and distinguished professors of medical/medical education in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, PGI, Chandigarh and Christian Medical College, Vellore be constituted to conduct inspection and give a report for both the colleges.I also insisted that the said inspection should be clearly videographed including the interaction between the members of the inspection team and the teachers/faculty. ..."& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 29 of 33CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 30 of 33& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 30 of 33The factum of carrying out of the videography is also coming in the statement of Shri Rajeev Verma, Assistant, ME(P-11) Section, M/o Health & Family Welfare, Room No. 539-A, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.His statement is at Page 261 of the petition No. CRL.Relevant extract from his statement is reproduced below:Vide this note, Shri Sudershan Kumar, Section Officer submitted that as per the advice of ASG permission may be withdrawn or wait and submit the facts of the case to ASG who has directed for a detailed conference before the Hon'ble Supreme Court re-open.This note was submitted to US who endorsed the same to DS(ME).DS(ME), Shri KVS Rao submitted that he took personal responsibility for not briefing ASG.He further submitted that ASG also of view that the Ministry to withdraw the permission of the college to sustain the credibility of the Government and sent this file to JS on the same day.Then JS after seen it endorsed the file to secretary(HFW).The Secretary(HFW) Shri.But this file was not seen by HFM.Thereafter, Shri.CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 31 of 33 Now you have shown me note dated 22.10.2008 available at page 45-46/N submitted by Shri Sudershan Kumar, Section Officer.As per the report submitted by Dr. Rajvardhan Azad dated 22.10.2008, the team of Dr. Azad found that there is sufficient facilities of 150 students.He also vediograph the inspection and submitted the cassette to this effect.This note was put up to US(ME), Shri N. Barik and DS(ME), Shri K.V.S.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 31 of 33This Ministry's decision to grant renewal of permission to the said medical college may remain unchanged.Secretary(HFW), Shri Naresh Dayal on 23.10.2008 and finally approved by Union Health Minister Shri A. Ramdoss on 23.10.2008 I identify their signatures.The video-cassettes submitted by Dr. Rajvardhan Azad along with his report dated10-2008 was with the custody of Shri Sudarshan Kumar.Section Officer who handed over the said video-cassettes on 30.08.2010 which you had seized vide Production cum Seizure Memo dated 30.08.2010 in my presence.The said seizure memo having my signatures as witness and signatures of Shri Sudarshan Kumar.Before seizing the same you also obtained our signatures of (on) each cassettes and sealed the same in separate envelopes.Instant are Quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by accused persons Anbumani Ramadoss (Accused No. 1), K.V.S. Rao (Accused No.2), Suresh Singh Bhadoria (Accused No. 6), Nitin Gothwal (Accused No. 9) and Dr. Pawan Bhambani (Accused No. 10) and Criminal Revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. filed by CBI against accused persons Sudarshan Kumar (Accused No. 3), Dr. J. S. Dhupia (Accused No. 4), Dr. D. K. Gupta (Accused No. 5), S.K. Tongia (Accused No. 7) and Dr. K.K. Saxena (Accused No. 8).All these petitions are arising from impugned order dated 07.10.2015 in CBI Vs.vide CC No. 03/12 passed by Special Judge (P.C. ACT) CBI-01, Patiala House Court in FIR RC No. AC2-2010-A-0003/ACU-II, SPE/CBI/ND under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act. The said FIR was registered for taking action against all the 10 Accused persons and summoning them to face trial for the commission of the aforesaid offences.Thus the aforesaid facts prima facie reveal commission of offences punishable u/s 120 B IPC r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, sec.464/465/466/468 & 471 IPC by Dr. DK Gupta, Specialist Grl and HOD Hematology, Safdarjung Hospital and Dr. J.S Dhupia, Professor Consultant and HoD (Pathology), Vardhman Medical College Delhi, the Unknown officers of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, unknown office bearers of Index medical College and Research Centre, Indore and other unknown persons. "3. CBI after completion of the investigation filed chargesheet on 12.06.2012 stating facts as below:A. Mayank Welfare Society formed in the year 1996 was headed by Suresh Singh Bhadoria (Accused No. 6).The society proposed in 2005 to open a Medical college and established Index Medical College on 28.09.2007 after getting approval from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.Initially it was granted permission of one year and annual intake of 150 students.CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 7 of 33 B. Medical Council of India (MCI) granted permission to establish a medical college and to admit students by issuing a notification.College may admit students initially for a period of one year that has to be reviewed on yearly basis subject to verification of achievements of annual targets for next four years.Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 03.09.2008 directed MCI to submit its recommendation to the Government of India within 2 days and directed MoHFW to consider the matter within a week whether permission has to be granted and interested party may also be given an opportunity of being heard in person by the Ministry.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 8 of 33CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 9 of 33 F. Accordingly, MCI on 04.09.2008 on the basis of inspection report dated 19.08.2008 recommended Ministry not to renew the permission for second batch.Accused S.S. Bhadoria in compliance of the order dated 03.09.2008 appeared before accused K.V.S. Rao for personal hearing on 10.09.2008, thereafter vide note dated 11.09.2011 it was recommended that recommendations of MCI for not granting permission be accepted.It is also observed in the notes that MCI has pointed out serious deficiencies and the comments submitted by college authorities cannot be verified by 12.09.2008 the last date given by Hon'ble Supreme court of India, thus recommended that renewal of permission may not be granted.However, accused K.V.S. Rao returned the file directing "to wait for the order of SC on 23.09.2008".This decision was communicated to accused K.V.S. Rao by A.N. Setalvad, Secretary MCI on telephone before lunch on 26.09.2008 itself.Thereafter, the formal communication of the outcome of petition was also received from the MCI office to the office of accused K.V.S. Rao at around 7:50 PM, however same was also not processed in the file.CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 12 of 33 L. But on the basis of inspection report dated 26.9.2008 conducted by Dr. J. S. Dhupia and Dr. D. K. Gupta, a note 38 dated 26.09.2008 put up by the accused Sudershan Kumar (Accused No.3) Section officer on the direction of accused K.V.S. Rao, and after processing the same both visited the office chamber of accused Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 12 of 33M. It is also revealed in the investigation that accused Suresh Singh Bhadoria despite dismissal of his writ petition on 26.09.2008 was chasing the matter and visited the Ministry at around 4:30 PM, and received letter of permission on the same day from the Ministry.N. During investigation, it was found that list pertaining to departments given to the central team was authenticated by Dr. K.K. Saxena (Accused No.8) and Dr. S.K. Tongia (Accused No.7) knowing full well that some of the members of Faculty were not actual faculty members and even not present on the date of inspections and the signatures appended therein were forged only to show that the college had the actual strength as per MCI forms.And on the basis of that list the inspection CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 13 of 33 report dated 26.09.2008 was prepared by the inspection team of Dr. J. S. Dhupia and Dr. D. K. Gupta.During this inspection also MCI found deficiencies in the faculty as well as clinical material.Thereafter, on the advice of Ld. ASG another central team inspected the college on 20.10.2008 and submitted its report on 22.10.2008, and this team found adequate facilities in the college for grant of permission to admit 150 students.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 13 of 33P. On conclusion of investigation, CBI charge-sheeted accused Anbumani Ramadoss, K.V.S. Rao, Sudarshan Kumar, Dr. J.S. Dhupia, Dr. D.K. Gupta and accused S.S. Bhadoria for commission of offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420/465/468/471 IPC read with section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Furthermore, accused S.S. Bhadoria, S.K. Tongia, Dr. K.K. Saxena, Nitin Gothwal and Dr. Pawan Bhambani were also charged for committing offence under Section 120-B IPC read with 420/465/468/471 IPC and substantive offences thereof.CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 14 of 33& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 14 of 33On 08.06.2012 Ld.Special Judge, CBI took cognizance under Section 120-B read with Section 420/465/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 against all the 10 Accused persons.Subsequently, Ld.Special Judge vide order dated 07.10.2015 framed charges against Dr. Ambumani , Dr. K.V.S. Rao, S.S. Bhadoria, Nitin Gothwal and Dr. Pawan Bhambani under Section 120B r/w 13 (2) & 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 420/465/468/471 IPC.Besides this Nitin Gothwal and Dr. Pawan Bhambani too were found to have committed substantive offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC.However, accused Dr. J.S. Dhupia, Dr. D.K. Gupta, Sudershan Kumar, Dr. K.K. Saxena and Dr. S.K. Tongia were discharged.Being aggrieved from the impugned order dated 7.10.2015, both parties i.e. Accused Persons as well as CBI preferred instant petitions.The Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mohit Gupta on behalf of Accused No.1 Anbumani Ramadoss has submitted that the court below while passing impugned order on framing of charge skipped the relevance of videography conducted by MCI, same was seized by CBI.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that court below has also omitted statement of Sh.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner Anbumani Ramadoss that he instructed anyone to commit any offence in the manner so prescribed.CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 15 of 33In the absence of any allegation of pecuniary gain, the substance of conspiracy cannot be established.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that subsequently too such permission was granted pursuant to the advice of Learned ASG appearing in the matter on 20.10.2008 in the apex court with the observation that the inspection was duly videographed and no deficiency was found in the college.CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 16 of 33& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 16 of 33Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Hariharan on behalf of Accused No. 6 Suresh Singh Bhadoria has submitted that he was an elected chairman and not the nominated chairman of Mayank Welfare Society and Index Medical College and allegations of conspiracy against him are false.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that since the petitioner was elected chairman and acted as a coordinator so there was no occasion to get into the part of the conspiracy.The allegations start from the visit of the petitioner on 24.09.2008 to meet K.V.S. Rao, whereas the period of conspiracy alleged is from 24.09.2008 to 26.09.2008 and the object was to receive the approval for admission of students in relation to the second year program.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that prosecution tried its best to prove the presence of S.S. Bhadoria and therefore they have interpolated by inserting his name at serial.There is nothing on record to show that the signature belongs to S.S. Bhadoria.As Apex Court has not disturbed the status of the admission granted to the college which ipso facto makes it clear that nothing remains to be adjudicated further and the statement to this effect could be CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 18 of 33 seen from the statement of Rajiv Verma, Assistant, ME dated 08.08.2010 wherein the mentioning of the video cassette submitted is being maintained.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 18 of 33Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that substantive charge has been framed against the petitioners under Section 420 IPC.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that generally the CBI comes with a plea that the information was received from a person which factually has no source but on the basis of their presumption and convenience comes out with allegations against the petitioners.The source of the said information CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 19 of 33 could be seen from Section 39 Cr.P.C which does not cover under Section 420 IPC to make a cognizable offence only a cheated person can be a complainant and there is no one else in the present case who claims that he has been cheated.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 19 of 33& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 21 of 33Learned S.P.P. Mr. Prasanta Verma for CBI in Criminal Revision Petition Crl.R.P. No. 38/2016 has submitted that the dispute in general occasionally arises as the renewal of the permission for medical admission of new batches in the medical college lies with the Ministry, to which Medical Council of India (MCI) is one of the inspecting body to recommend or not to recommend to the Central Government.The final authority is the Ministry who grants permission for renewal of the admission of the new batches.Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that the instant petition relates to Index Medical College, a private Medical College in Indore, Madhya Pradesh.This approval was for a period of one year with an annual intake of 150 students for the academic session 2006-07 and thereafter, the college will get its permission for admission of students, which is to be renewed yearly.For the renewal of permission for admission of the new batch the college is required to make an application to MCI for annual inspection and the decision to renew the permission is with the Central Government, i.e. the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare on the recommendation of MCI and the final approval is granted by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.Nothing has been done by the inspection team in this manner.They were supposed to look at the radiological department with the various machines like X-Rays, UGI, CT Scan, MRI, Blood bank laboratories and Rural Health Training Centre and Urban Health Training Center, nothing was done by the inspecting team.Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that respondent No.3 Sudarshan Kumar was then the Section Officer in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.The inspection report reveals that there is adequate faculty for admission of 100 students and other facilities for admission of 150 students.However, further to the contrary he accelerated the number from 100 to 150 saying that there is enough facility which clearly indicates his involvement of conspiracy in the matter.Learned S.P.P. further submitted that Dr. S.K. Tongia who is the dean and Dr. K.K. Saxena who is the director went at the time of the inspection and endorsed forged faculty list which they should not have done being Director CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 27 of 33 and Dean of the Index Medical College and they failed to show their bona fide on the strength of ignorance about the said faculty and as a whole it is the punch of conspiracy.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 27 of 33Learned S.P.P. has further submitted that PW-5 (Piyush Singh) categorically stated in his statement that Dr. K.K. Saxena and Dr. S.K. Tongia has signed the teaching attendance sheet of all the departments and the photocopies and they were aware of the fact that procurement of the teaching faculty is only by procuring the faculty members and they were aware of this fact and according to the Court of Law has wrongly discharged the accused persons in presence of the aforesaid evidence.Therefore, impugned order is bad in law and so is liable to be set aside.Learned S.P.P. further submitted that evidence on record connects all the chargsheeted accused persons and they are liable to be charged as mentioned in the chargesheet and prays to allow the present revision petition filed by the CBI in the interest of justice.Learned Senior counsel, Mr. Hariharan on behalf of Accused No. 4 Dr. J.S. Dhupia, Accused No. 5 Dr. D.K. Gupta, Accused No. 3 Sudershan Kumar, Accused No. 7 Dr. S.K. Tongia and Accused No. 8 Dr. K.K. Saxena has submitted that the revision petition filed by CBI has no ground as there is no evidence against the aforesaid accused persons and the Court below has rightly discharged the aforesaid accused persons.Both the parties i.e. CBI as well as the petitioner dissatisfied, on merit filed their respective petitions, CBI filed Revision petition under Section 397 CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 28 of 33 Cr.P.C. and accused persons filed Quashing of the impugned order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 28 of 33The plea of the Petitioners/Accused persons Anbumani Ramadoss, Suresh Singh Bhadoria, Nitin Gothwal, Pawan Bhambani and K.V.S. Rao is that there is no evidence against them and thus seeking invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to which CBI disagrees evidence is available on record..The CBI too has filed a revision petition against the discharged accused persons Dr. J.S. Dhupia, Dr. D.K. Gupta, Sh.Sudershan Kumar, Dr. K.K. Saxena and Dr. S.K. Tongia showing material evidence available on the record and thus to charge them as well.During the course of the arguments, Learned senior counsels has pointed out that the inspection team has carried out videography and the said set of videography is not supplied to the Petitioners/Accused Persons.The factum of videography is not disputed in the statement of the witnesses as well as by CBI, still it was not made part of the chargesheet.The said videography is a material evidence to reach to the conclusion, thus, a CD of the videography be supplied to petitioners to show innocence on their part.The perusal of the record shows that the videography was asked to be carried out in the Letter from ASG Gopal Subramanium to Anbumani Ramadoss dated 13.10.2008 which is at Page 376 (Annexure-P10) of the petition No. CRL.Relevant extract of the Letter is reproduced below:"... I had pointed out that there is a serious concern of lack of transparency in the grant of recommendations by the Medical Council of India as well as the permissions granted by the Central Government in the setting up of medical colleges.I CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 29 of 33 had expressed my very deep concern that standards in private medical colleges have to be firmly in order lest there be a serious threat to the lives of citizens who would require treatment at the hands of doctors.K.V.S. Rao, DS(ME) submitted a note dated 16.10.2008 that on the advice of ASG, another team was deputed to both the colleges.RO&AC CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 32 of 33 Vipin Kumar (Inspector of Police) CBI ACU II/New Delhi "& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 32 of 33In presence of the above statements and arguments the impugned Order on Charge dated 07.10.2015 is set aside with a direction to the Trial Court to hear the parties on merit afresh after duly supplying the copy of videography of the inspection carried out by MCI on 20.10.2008 which was subsequently seized by CBI to all the accused persons.Court below is directed to proceed the matter in accordance with law.The revision petition of CBI under Section 397 and petition of accused persons under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of accordingly.No order as to costs.I.S.MEHTA, J (JUDGE) JULY 29, 2019 CRL.M.C. Nos. 4442/2015, 5003/2015, 5005/2015, 5007/2015 & 58/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 33 of 33& CRL.REV.P. 38/2016 Page 33 of 33 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,003,275 | Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No.6580/2019, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicants-Kishore Katiya and Kamlesh Kumar.The revision has been preferred under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., b y the applicants/accused against judgment dated 1.4.2019 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge Hoshangabad, District Hoshangabad (MP), in Criminal Appeal No.8/2018, affirming the judgment dated 9.2.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad (MP), in Cr. Case 1328/2008, by which the applicants have been convicted for offence under Section 332 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each and fine of Rs.1000/- , with default stipulation.A s per prosecution story, the complainant, namely, Gopal Singh Chauhan, who is posted as the post of Van Rakshak and during search operation with Gudda and Kishore who are villager on 25.12.2008, near Maharajganj, they saw that some people transported illegal bamboos and when the query about legality and bill then Kishan Katiya says not stop to their illegal work and thereafter applicants caused injury to the complainant by Lathi and thereafter, complainant lodged FIR at Police Station Bankhedi where Crime No.320/2008 was registered for interfering in Govt. work and then the police registered the offence under Sections332, 506 Part-II and 294 of IPC against the applicants and after completing further investigation, case Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 01/05/2019 11:16:57 2 CRR-1824-2019 was produced before the Court below.Learned counsel for the accused/applicants submits that accused- applicants are in jail since 1.4.2019 till now.He submits that complainant Gopal (PW/1) was intoxicated at the time of incident.He was misbehaving with the women of the Village.Gudda (PW/2) admitted this fact that complainant Gopal (PW/1) was misbehaving with women of the Village.He also admitted that at the time of incident, complainant Gopal (PW/1) was in an intoxicated condition.Satish (PW/3) has admitted this fact that accused/applicants were lying on the earth and at that time complainant was intoxicated.There are many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses.There are fair chances to succeed in the case.This revision is of the year 2019 and it will take time.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the applicants may be allowed and the period of their remaining jail sentence may be suspended further and they may be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the application.After hearing rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses, 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 applicants and grant bail to them.Consequently, I.A. No. 6580/2019 is allowed subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited.The custodial sentence awarded to the applicants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision Applicants-Kishore and Kamlesh Kumar shall be released from custody subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each, with one surety in the like Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 01/05/2019 11:16:57 3 CRR-1824-2019 amount each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicants shall appear and mark their presence before the trial Court on 20.08.2019 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates, as may be given by the trial Court in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.List the revision for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE A.Praj.Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 01/05/2019 11:16:57 | ['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,006,216 | The learned Single Judge adverted to the facts where from it is discernible that the company was availing certain credit facilities from the Indian Bank and at a particular time the Indian Bank refused to extend further credits to the company on the ground of RBI restrictions.Thereafter the company switched over to Punjab & Sind Bank and it falsified its accounts and presented the same before the Punjab & Sind Bank in order to obtain various credit limits and other facilities from the said bank.The company showed lesser liabilities and concealed the facts regarding true liabilities.Because of the said concealment of facts, the company and its officials induced the Punjab & Sind Bank to sanction credit facilities to the tune of Rs.618.51 lacs.% 17.09.2010 CM No.16698/2010 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The remaining matter be listed before an appropriate Bench for disposal."(Emphasis supplied) On a perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, we have no scintilla of doubt that a company can be prosecuted for the offence but what would be the eventual result in the criminal trial is another matter. | ['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,006,765 | - State.Heard on I.A. No.6993/2015, which is an application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.1 - Nandsingh @ Tanbana S/o Amarsingh, appellant No.2 - Premsingh S/o Amarsingh and appellant No.3 - Rahul S/o Babulsingh, who have been convicted under Sections 435, 342 and 506-II of the IPC and each of them have been sentenced to undergo 3 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/- and 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/- respectively under each Section with default stipulations.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that their jail sentence has been suspended by the Trial Court till 24.09.2015 and prays that this application for suspension of jail sentence be allowed and they be released on bail.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer and prays for its rejection.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the short period of jail sentence, which has been awarded by the Trial Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I.A. No.6993/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence is allowed.The substantive jail sentence of the appellant No.1 - Nandsingh @ Tanbana, appellant No.2 - Premsingh and appellant No.3 - Rahul are suspended subject to their depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 19.11.2015 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Certified copy as per rules.(P. K. Jaiswal) Judge gp | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,940,078 | The learned Magistrate framed charges against the accused under Section 477-A, I.P.C. but eventually and at the end of a full trial acquitted him.The charge-sheet filed before the Sub-Magistrate, was withdrawn by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to his own file.At that stage the petitioner filed an application under Section 403, Cr. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,013,665 | Thereafter, possession notice has been issued on 06.11.2014, reiterating the amount.Another possession notice dated 19.12.2015, was issued.According to the petitioner, bank has no right to issue repeated possession notices and that therefore, action taken to recover the alleged arrears, is vitiated.He also submitted that before the Tamilnadu State Legal Services Authority, the writ petitioner/borrower, was made to stand before a lion and that the said authority has not taken note of the payments made.Description of Properties standing in the name of Mr.N.SrinivasaluSurvey DetailsExtent Area / buildingRegistration District etc.S.No.166/3B, Patta No.4376, as per Patta S.No.166/22All that piece and parcel of land and building bearing Plot No.22, Door No.1/24-A, Venkateswara Nagar, 2nd Main Road, Chennai-600 089 land measuring an extent of 2756 sq.ft and Building in Ground Floor having plinth area of 2000 sq.ft.Schedule B: All that piece and parcel of vacant land situated at Plot No.105 & 106, Chitti Babu Naidu Street, DABC Lay Out, measuring 1202.6 sq.ft together with building in Ground Floor and First Floor having plinth area of 920 sq.ft., each and in second floor 200 sq.ft.Sub Registration District of Ambattur and Registration District of North Chennai.House site situate within the boundaries of:Schedule ASchedule BNorth byChitti Babu Naidu StreetBalance land belonging to owner Mr.R.JanakiramanSouth byRoad30 feet roadEast byPlot No.105 & 106 PartPlot No.105 & 106 PartWest byProperty of Mahalakshmi AmmalMahalakshmi Ammal's HouseAdmeasuringSchedule ASchedule BEast to West on Northern Side37 = feet37 feetEast to West on Southern Side37 feet37 feetNorth to South on Eastern side98 feet32 feet 6 inchesNorth to South on Western side97 feet32 feet 6 inchesPursuant to the above notice, the authorised signatory of the writ petitioner is stated to have sent a letter dated 18.04.2014, stating that due to economic slow down and government policies relating to quarry, power issues, customers are hesitating to place new orders for crushers.Things are getting better and requested co-operation.Authorised signatory of M/s.SSEI Crushers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai has also stated that company would make payments in a short period to bring down the excess amount in their CC Account.But, the bank has not accepted the request of the petitioner and thereafter, without prejudice to the rights, bank has issued a letter dated 22.04.2014, stating that working capital facility of Rs.60 Lakhs was sanctioned, account has become NPA on 05.02.2014 due to irregularity for more than 90 days.Description of the immovable property in the said notice dated 16.09.2015 is extracted hereunder.Description of Properties standing in the name of Mr.N.SivakumarSurvey DetailsExtent Area / buildingRegistration District etc.Out of the property in Schedule A.Perusal of the settlement memo, duly signed by the Chief Manager, on behalf of the Central Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch and M/s.SSEI Crushers Private Limited, rep.By its Directors Mr.N.Sivakumar and Mr.Lok Adalat is headed by a panel consisting of a Retired / Acting judge, Mr.Justin George and two panel members.And M/s.SSEI CRUSHERS PVT LTD BY ITS DIRECTORS MR.N. SIVAKUMAR & MR.N.SRINIVASALU, Opponent in the above said case have arrived at the compromise to settle the matter as follows:-Terms of SettlementThe officials of the petitioner, Central Bank of India are present.The respondent appears in person.The total outstanding as per the statement of the bank is Rs.9630805/-1)In the Lok Adalat held today after discussion between both the parties, the claim is amicably settled at Rs.8873000/- (RS.EIGHTY EIGHT LACS SEVENTY THREE THOUSAND ONLY) towards full and final settlement of the total claim amount.Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Chennai in the letter dated21.07.2017 has stated that the bank would proceed further to recover the further dues as per the rule including SARFAESI action.For brevity, letter dated 21.03.2015, is reproduced.But you have failed to close the account as per the OTS LOK ADALAT terms and conditions.N.Srinivasalu, have signed the settlement.They have agreed to pay the above settlement amount in the following manner3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.Perusal of the notice dated 10.04.2014 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, shows that M/s.SSEI Crushers (P) Ltd., Chennai, has availed loan of Rs.60 Lakhs.As on 07.04.2014, a sum of Rs.65,55,150/- was due and payable and therefore, the bank has issued demand notice dated 10.04.2014 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, requesting the petitioner to repay the abovesaid amount.situated in Ramapuram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.Sub Registration District of Saidapet Joint II and Registration District of South Chennai.House site situate within the boundaries of:North by : Plot No.23South by : Plot No.21East by : 30 feet wide pathwayWest by : Land in Survey No.166/3AAnd measuringEast to West on Northern Side : 84 feetEast to West on Southern Side : 83 feetNorth to South on Eastern side : 31 feetNorth to South on Western side : 35 feetin all admeasuring 2756 sq.ftDescription of Properties standing in the name of Mr.N.SivakumarSurvey DetailsExtent Area / buildingRegistration District etc.Out of the property in Schedule A.Despite several reminders, borrower has not bothered to adjust the overdues and regularize the account and therefore, recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act, has been taken.Bank has issued a possession notice dated 06.11.2014 under Section 13(4) of the Act, but not taken any steps to take physical possession.Schedule B: All that piece and parcel of vacant land situated at Plot No.105 & 106, Chitti Babu Naidu Street, DABC Lay Out, measuring 1202.6 sq.ft together with building in Ground Floor and First Floor having plinth area of 920 sq.ft., each and in second floor 200 sq.ft.Sub Registration District of Ambattur and Registration District of North Chennai.House site situate within the boundaries of:Schedule ASchedule BNorth byChitti Babu Naidu StreetBalance land belonging to owner Mr.R.JanakiramanSouth byRoad30 feet roadEast byPlot No.105 & 106 PartPlot No.105 & 106 PartWest byProperty of Mahalakshmi AmmalMahalakshmi Ammal's HouseAdmeasuringSchedule ASchedule BEast to West on Northern Side37 = feet37 feetEast to West on Southern Side37 feet37 feetNorth to South on Eastern side98 feet32 feet 6 inchesNorth to South on Western side97 feet32 feet 6 inchesN.Srinivasalu Chennai, shows that the bank claimed Rs.96,30,805/- towards the balance amount of the secured loan No.CC3017820468 and HL 3011805231 against M/s.SSEI Crushers Private Limited by its Directors Mr.N.Sivakumar & Mr.The total outstanding, as per the statement of the bank was Rs.96,30,805/-.After discussion between the parties, claim has been amicably settled at Rs.88,73,000/-.LOK ADALAT(As per Chapter VI of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987)Organised byTAMILNADU STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITYSettlement MemoType of Case: Suit Filed / Pre Litigation CaseCategory of Case Default in payment / Secured LoanCase No.77231Central Bank of IndiaASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, CHENNAI BRANCH PetitionerVersusM/s.SSEI CRUSHERS PVT LTD BY ITS DIRECTORS MR.N. SIVAKUMAR & MR.N.SRINIVASALU,2C/63RD STREET SOUTH PHASEAMBATTUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATECHENNAI600058 RespondentsDispute in brief: Default in payment/Secured LoanThe petitioner is claiming Rs.9630805/- towards the balance amount of Secured Loan No.CC3017820468, HL 3011805231 against M/s.SSEI CRUSHERS PVT LTD BY ITS DIRECTORS MR.The respondent agrees to pay the above settled amount in the following manner.1.RS.65,00,000/- ON OR BEFORE 31.12.20162.ON PAYMENT OF SAID RS.65,00,000/- DOCUMENT OF RAMAPURAM CHENNAI PROPERTY MORTGAGED TO SECURE CC LOAN SHOULD BE RELEASED TO RESPONDENTS3.BALANCE AMOUNTOF RS.23,73,000/- SHOULD BE PAID ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2017 WITH 10% S.I. TILL DATE OF PAYMENT.The respondents further agrees and undertakes that in case of default of the payment/anyone of the above instalments on the respect due dates and in case of default of the entire amount this award will amount to a decree with further interest thereon.The petitioner is entitled to file E.P. directly in the competent civil court or to file appropriate proceedings before DRT for issuance of Recovery Certificate to recover its full claim amount.We have arrived at these settlement terms willingly before the Lok Adalat held on 12th November 2016 at Chennai.No coercion or force is applied to arrive at the settlement.This case may be disposed off, as settled accordingly.Dated this day: 12/11/2016Place: Chennai.The matter is amicable settled as above before the Lok Adalat held on 12th November, 2016 at Chennai before the panel consisting ofHead of Panel (Retd/Acting Judge) : Mr.JUSTIN GEORGEFirst Panel Member : MR.G.ANANDANSecond Panel Member : MRS.V.PUSHPALATHAWe pass this award in terms of above settlementSignature of1. Head of Panel (Retd/Acting Judge) :Thereafter, petitioner has not made any payment.Hence, vide letter dated 21.07.2017, bank has stated that since M/s. SSEI Crushers Private Limited, Chennai has failed to close the loan account as per the Lok Adalat Terms and Conditions, and the settlement is treated as lapsed. | ['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,021,141 | He was required to file affidavit disclosing his antecedents.Petitioner in his affidavit dated 11.6.2015 disclosed that there was no criminal case against him.Later on, petitioner came to know about filing of first information report in Case Crime No. 625 of 2017 under Sections304-B and 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. lodged by his sister-in-law.Petitioner had earlier approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No.20169 of 2018, which was disposed of vide following orders passed on 19.9.2018:-The first information report has been lodged by petitioner's sister-in-law against petitioner's brother. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,068,058 | 1 05.06.2020 Item No.28 dc.C.R.M. 3797 of 2020 C.R.A.N. 2053 of 2020 (Through Video Conference) In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 09/05/2020 in connection with Ghatal P.S. Case No. 316/2019 dated 25.09.2019 under Sections 354/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 10/12 POCSO Act.And In the matter of : Saiyad Ansar Ali & Ors. ... Petitioners.Mr. A. K. Chakraborty ... For the Petitioners.Petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody for a considerable period of time and they have been implicated in this case because of previous rivalry.2 The learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that the case is at the stage of consideration of charge.Having due regard to the stage of the case, we are not inclined to release the petitioners on bail at this stage.Accordingly the application for bail of the petitioners being CRM 3797 of 2020 with CRAN 2053 of 2020 is rejected.(Samapti Chatterjee, J.) (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,068,562 | The appellant and the deceased were lovers.Arrangements were made for the marriage with the concurrence of both the families.On 09.03.2016, the appellant was seen along with the deceased at about 3 p.m., and both of them went to the house of the deceased.The deceased told the appellant that she was actually in love with somebody else and therefore, he should forget her.Enraged over it, the appellant picked up quarrel with the deceased and strangulated her.Thereafter, he called P.Ws.5 and 6 and took the deceased along with P.Ws.4 and 5 to P.W.11, a siddha doctor.As P.W.11 declined to treat the deceased, she was taken to the Government Hospital.Having found that the deceased was no more, he accordingly brought back to her house.P.W.1 is the author of the complaint given under Ex.P1 registered under Ex.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) Appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.127 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore.He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and convicted accordingly.2.PROSECUTION VERSION IN BRIEF:P.W.15 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report.P.W.16 is the investigating officer who conducted the inquest, prepared the observation mahazar, examined the witnesses and thereafter filed the final report while making arrangements to send relevant documents to the court.Page 2 of 14Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and marked Exs.No witness has been examined on behalf of the appellant nor any document was marked.Four material objects in M.Os.1 to 4 have been produced before the Court.The appellant was placed with incriminating materials.While denying the offence committed, the appellant has stated that the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.11 was correct.The trial Court after analysing the materials available before it accordingly convicted the appellant.3.WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS:3.1. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased.She has deposed that the appellant and the deceased were in relationship with each other.It is her further evidence that the appellant and P.W.5 took the Page 3 of 14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl A No 107 of 2018 deceased to the hospital and thereafter brought her back upon knowing that the deceased was no more.It is her further evidence that she did not know as to whether it was the appellant who called her over phone and informed.Page 3 of 143.2. P.W.2 is the neighbour of the deceased.He has turned hostile.However, P.W.2 has stated that he saw the deceased along with the appellant on 09.03.2016 between 3.30 and 4 p.m. 3.3. P.W.3 is the grandmother of the deceased.He spoke in tune with the case of the prosecution with respect to the deceased being taken to P.W.11 and thereafter to the hospital.3.5. P.W.5 is the neighbour who accompanied the appellant and the deceased to both places as stated.3.6. P.W.6, though turned hostile, in the chief examination, has deposed that the appellant asked him to go inside the house of the deceased.He informed P.W.5 about the occurrence thereafter.He was Page 4 of 14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl A No 107 of 2018 also treated as hostile.Page 4 of 14P.W.9 is the Village Administrative Officer before whom the confession has been given followed by recovery under Ex.P4 by which M.O.1 has been recovered.However, this evidence of P.W.9 is of variance over the evidence of P.W.12 doctor who conducted post mortem and he has stated that even at 11 a.m. on 10.03.2016 which is much before the so called recovery, M.O.1 has been shown to him.P.W.11 is the siddha doctor before whom the deceased was brought by P.Ws.4 and 5 along with the appellant.On his advice, the deceased was taken to the hospital.The post mortem certificate has been marked as Ex.P.W.13 is the witnesses who signed Exs.P9 and P10 Page 5 of 14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl A No 107 of 2018 observation mahazars.P.W.16 is the investigating officer who prepared the observation mahazar, rough sketch under Ex.P13 and made ready the inquest report under Ex.Page 5 of 144. SUBMISSIONS:4.1.Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is a doubt with respect to recovery.The witnesses have also spoken about the presence of the appellant along with the deceased prior to the occurrence and thereafter.Therefore, it is for the appellant to dispel the suspicious circumstances as mandated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Since it is a case of strangulation, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC.It is her further evidence that the appellant took the deceased along with him.P.W.2 though turned hostile has spoken about the presence of the deceased and the appellant together in her house.Therefore, from the abovesaid evidence, there is no doubt in our mind, as admitted by the appellant himself, during questioning that it is he who brought the deceased from her house in unconscious stage.Hence we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant has not discharged the initial onus.Admittedly, the occurrence took place in the residence of the deceased and in the presence of the appellant.Merely because P.W.12 deposed that M.O.1 was shown to him even much prior to the confession statement, the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected in toto.This might make us to disbelieve the recovery made.As stated, the appellant himself has admitted the primary facts.Thus, the facts governing would lead us to come to the conclusion that the appellant is to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304(II) IPC.Taking note of that fact that the appellant was only 21 years old at the relevant point of time and the case being based upon circumstantial evidence with no further evidence on motive or the strained relationship between the appellant and the deceased, we are inclined to modify the sentence to that of seven years rigorous imprisonment.In the light of the above discussion, the criminal appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. by the Trial Court are set aside and instead, he is convicted for the offence under Section 304 (II) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.The period of incarceration undergone by the appellant is directed to be set off.Page 12 of 14I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore.The Inspector of Police, Pernambut Circle, Melpatti Police Station.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 13 of 14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl A No 107 of 2018 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.Page 13 of 14and RMT. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 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. |
1,940,714 | 2. Facts necessary to dispose of the appeal can be briefly summarised as follows: The deceased is the daughter of P.W. 7 and the second wife of Al.Al married the deceased by misrepresenting to the mother of the deceased that he is a widower.The deceased on account of the wedlock conceived.Some time prior to Deepavali, Al left the house of PW-7 where the deceased and Al were residing, by stating that he is leaving for his village.He promised to come back, but, he did not return.She was seen thereafter by PW-4 whom, she asked the route to reach Sirukaranai, the village of Al.PW-4 gave her the directions and thereafter, the deceased took a cycle from a cycle-shop and went towards Sirukaranai.Thereafter the deceased was not seen alive.On 21-1-1989, PW-2 the owner of the casuarina 'thope' saw a dead body of a woman and informed the said fact to PW-1 the Village Administrative Officer of Parukkal Village at 9.30 a.m. who on the basis of the information furnished to him by PW-2 went to the place and found the dead body of a woman.He found a blouse, MO-2, and a saree MO-3 on the dead body.It had no jewels.MO-4 series, slippers were also seen nearby.He also noticed broken bangles, MO-6 series.PW-1 left the Talayari near the dead body and thereafter left for the police station at Acharappakkam.At Acha-rappakkam Police Station, he gave a complaint, Ex. PW-1 to a Head Constable, who is no more, and the said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No. 23 of 1989 under Section 302, IPC.Express reports were prepared.Ex. P-19 is the copy of the printed First Information Report.Investigation was taken up by PW-12, the Circle Inspector of Police, Acharappakkam Circle.On taking up the investigation, PW-12 reached the scene of occurrence and conducted inquest over the dead body of Deivanayaki between 8.45 p.m. and 10.45 p.m. in the presence of panchayatdars.Ex. P-23 is the inquest report.JUDGMENT N. Dhinakar, J.The appellant who hereinafter will be referred to as the first accused (Al) for the sake of convenience, was tried before the learned Sessions Judge, Chengleput, in Sessions Case No. 99/1990 on a charge of murder with an allegation that at 10.00 p.m. on 19-1-1989, he caused the death of his wife Devi alias Deivanayaki by smothering her.The other accused, who was tried along with Al in the said Sessions Case, was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and in this Judgment he will be referred to as the second accused (A2) for the sake of convenience.The learned Sessions Judge convicted Al and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.Hence, the present appeal.He issued a requisition, Ex. P-24 to conduct autopsy.On receipt of the requisition, Dr. Mahadevan attached to Government Hospital, Maduranthakam, conducted autopsy on the body of Deivanayaki and found the following ante-mortem injuries.A lacerated injury 3" the length 1/2" x 1/2" running across the palmar aspect of the right wrist front.A lacerated injury 1 ½" x ½" x ½" over the right forearm.A lacerated injury 1" x ¼" x ¼" over the left wrist joint.A lacerated injury over the left palmar 1 ½ x ¼" x ¼" across the 1st Metacarpophalanxal joints exposing outside the surfaces of the joints.Superficial abrasions over both the thighs, knees and legs on the anterior aspects.He issued Ex. P-18 the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to smothering.He also questioned the other witnesses in the case and seized M.Os. 1, 2, 7 and 14 produced by the police constable after postmortem.PW-13 on taking up the investigation, searched for A1 and arrested him at 10.00 a.m. on 25-1-1989 in the presence of witnesses.Al took the police party to a place from where he took and produced M.Os. 8 and 9 which were seized under a mahazar.Al also took PW-13 to PW-8 and on being pointed, PW-13 questioned PW-8 who then produced MO-13, a nose screw belonging to the deceased, which was seized under a mahazar attested by witnesses.When questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, Al denied his complicity and pleaded innocence.The fact that Deivanayaki died on account of asphyxia due to smothering is established through the evidence of the postmortem doctor who conducted autopsy.Dr. Mahadevan attached to Government Hospital, Maduranthakam conducted autopsy on the body of Deivanayaki and gave his opinion that she died on account of asphyxia due to smothering.As Dr. Mahadevan was on long leave, PW-11 who was familiar with the signature and the handwriting of Dr. Mahadevan, was examined to prove Ex. P-18 the post-mortem certificate, issued by the said doctor.PW-ll has in his evidence, stated that Dr. Mahadevan has opined on conducting autopsy, that Deivanayaki died on account of asphyxia due to smothering.The said fact was not disputed by the defence.We, therefore, hold that Deivanayaki died on account of homicidal violence.Though the occurrence was not witnessed by anyone, the prosecution, before the trial Court, let in evidence to prove the circumstances pointing out the guilt of Al.The first circumstance is brought out through the evidence of PW-7 the mother of deceased.PW-7 has in her evidence stated that A1 married her daughter, the deceased, at the office of the Registrar of Marriages on 16-9-1988 and Ex. P-ll is the certificate issued by the Registrar of Marriages.Al also does not deny his marriage with the deceased.According to PW-7, A1 left the house after informing her and his wife, the deceased that he is leaving for his native village Sirukaranai and will return before Deepavali, but, he did not return.Accordingly to her, the decaesed did not return and later, she came to know that a dead body was seen in a casuarina 'thope' and that she went to the police station where, on seeing the photographs of the dead body, identified the dead body in the photographs as that of her daughter.The evidence of PW-7 clearly shows that the dead body, that was seen in the casuarina 'thope' by PW-2 on the morning of 21 -1 -1989 is the body of Deivanayaki.Further, when the body was seen by PW-2 who went and informed PW-1 the village Administrative Officer of Parukkai Village, henoticed MsO-3.2 and 2, the clothes, which were worn by the deceased when she left the house of her mother.The next (sic) piece of evidence against A1 is the evidence of PW-4. PW-4 is a flower-vendor by profession.She was a resident of Acharappakkam and was doing her business at Acharappakkam.PW-4 told her the directions and thereafter the deceased took a cycle from a cycle-shop and proceeded towards Sirukaranai.The next piece of evidence is brought out through the evidence of PW-3 who is a resident of Sirukaranai village.PW-3 has, in her evidence, deposed that the deceased and A1 were seen proceeding towards a casuarina 'thope' and at that time, the deceased was wearing MOs.Next day, she heard people talking that the dead body of a woman is lying in the casuarina 'thope'.This evidence of PW-3 establishes the fact that the deceased was seen last alive in the company of Al and thereafter, was not seen by anybody and only her body was seen by PW-2, the owner of the casuarina 'thope'.The last and important piece of evidence is the arrest and recovery.PW-13 who took up investigation from PW-12 arrested Al at about 10.00 a.m. on 25-1-1989 and when qviestioned, Al gave a statement.In pursuance of the said statement, A1 took the police party to PW-8 and on being pointed, PW-8 produced MO-13, a nose screw which was seized under a mahazar attested by witnesses.It is, of course, true that A1 has married the deceased and he could have pledged the said nose screw after it was handed over to him by the deceased. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,071,636 | While considering a case under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, which also empowered the police to pass an order of externment, the Supreme Court observed in Pandharinath Sridhar Rangnekar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra (supra), as under:- " It is true that the provisions of section 56 make a srious inroad on personal liberty but such restraints have to be suffered in the larger interests of society.In the result, we quash the impugned order dated 18/11/2008 passed by the District Magistrate Rewa in Cr.Case No. 227/08 as well as the appellate order dated 13/01/2009 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division.No costs."In light of the aforesaid judgment, this court is of the considered opinion that there were a sufficient material -9- available before the District Magistrate to pass an order of externment and the District Magistrate has rightly passed an order of externment, on the basis of material forwarded to the District Magistrate while externing the petitioner for a period of six months, the District Magistrate has granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after taking into account the factum of acquittal, the District Magistrate has thereafter passed the impugned order .(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE RP | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,407,674 | By order, dated order, dated 13.5.2014 made in CMP No.2055 of 2012,the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur has declined to take cognizance of thecomplaint made by the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C., holding that noingredients for the offences under Sections 405 and 420 IPC were made out,but the materials available on record reveal that it is only an offence underSection 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and not under Indian Penal Code.Aggrieved over the above said order, the petitioner has comeforward with the present petition.The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that therespondent having availed the loan for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from thepetitioner, issued a cheque bearing No.1711193, dated 23.3.2011 in order torepay the same.The said cheque was presented for encashment by thepetitioner before the City Union Bank, but it was returned with anendorsement ?account closed?.Consequently, the petitioner filed a privatecomplaint against the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learnedjurisdictional Magistrate, for the offences under Sections 405 and 420 IPC.The learned Magistrate registered the case, recorded the sworn statement ofthe petitioner and referred the matter to the concerned police forinvestigation.After investigation, the police has filed a negative report,to which, the petitioner raised objections.Thereafter, the learnedMagistrate, passed the above said order, which is question in this petition.Heard both sides and perused the documents available on record.In the present case, the petitioner has filed the complaint under Section200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, alleging that therespondent/accused has committed criminal breach of trust and fraudulentlyinduced the petitioner by issuing the cheque in order to repay the amount dueto him, knowing full well that his bank account was already closed even priorto issuing the cheque, therefore, the respondent/accused is liable to beprosecuted for the offences under Sections 405 and 420 IPC.However, whileaccepting the report filed by the concerned police, the learned Magistratehas declined to take cognizance of the complaint, holding that no ingredientsfor the offences punishable under Sections 405 and 420 were made out. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,408,024 | P.W.7 was being enquired at that time.P.W.8 would depose that at that time he saw on the Inspector's table a wire basket and a tiffin carrier.He identified M.O.8 as the wire basket and M.Os.11 and 12 as tiffin carrier.As the Inspector of Police asked him to sign, he signed.P.W.10 is not an eye witness to the occurrence and his evidence also do not throw any light on the present prosecution case except stating that P.W.1 was examined by the Crime Branch C.I.D. Police Officers and at that time he was standing away and therefore he did not know what was the nature of enquiry.P.W.18 is a private medical practitioner, who was examined to prove the falsity of the plea of alibi set up by Rathinam (A.1 in S.C. No. 96 of 2000) and his mother.P.W.19 is having a photo studio.In the month of December, 1995 as requested by the then Investigating police station, he deputed his friend Kaliappan with a Camera to take photographs.M.O.21 are the developed prints.P.W.20 during the relevant time was the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Coimbatore.On receipt of the complaint forwarded to his office by the higher ups, he conducted enquiries on 5.4.1996, 6.4.1996 and 7.4.1996 at which point of time Sundarasamy (the sole accused in S.C. No. 110 of 1998) was in judicial remand.He sent his report to the higher ups.P.W.23 is the police photographer, who would state that on 24.12.1995 at 10.15 a.m. on a call made by the then investigating police station, he went to the hospital where he photographed the dead body from different angles.M.O.22 series are the photographs and the negatives.He enlarged those photographs and the enlarged photographs are M.O.23 series.P.W.25 is the investigating officer.Since re-investigation was ordered, he took up investigation in Crime No. 85 of 1995 on the file of All Women Police Station (S.C. No. 110 of 1998 had arisen out of Crime No. 85 of 1995 on the file of All Women Police Station).He examined P.W.1 and other witnesses on several dates.He prepared Ex.P.48, the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.49, the rough sketch.As noted earlier, he examined almost all the witnesses, who are examined as witnesses in the present sessions case.The examination of all those witnesses were after he took up re-investigation pursuant to court's order.He examined P.W.2 on 17.8.1999 by recording his statement and again examined him after a few days thereafter.He had taken steps to get the records from the office of the finger print bureau.On 30.8.1999 he examined P.W.16 by recording her statement.On 2.10.1999 at 9.00 a.m. he arrested Rathinam and at 12.00 noon he arrested Dhanushkodi (A.1 and A.2 in S.C. No. 96 of 2000) and brought them to the police station.At 11.00 a.m. on 3.10.1999 he arrested Damodaran (A.3 in S.C. No. 96 of 2000).He gave a requisition to the court to send the semen and saliva of Rathinam, Dhanusu and Damodaran (A.1 to A.3 in S.C. No. 96 of 2000) as well as the blue colour inner skirt and vaginal swab to the laboratory at Hyderabad.P.52 series are the Chemical Examiner's Reports.After completing the investigation, P.W.25 filed the final report in court against the accused namely, six accused including the present respondent under Sections 376, 302 and 120B I.P.C. When he was cross examined by the defence he admitted as hereunder:The compliant in Crime No. 81 of 1995 came to be registered under the caption "suspicious death" (under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).From 5.4.1997 he is working as the Inspector of Police in the present investigating police station.P.W.4 in his evidence would state that Rathinam (A.1 in S.C. No. 96 of 2000) is his friend and therefore on the day following the occurrence he had gone to the police station to see Rathinam.Right from day one namely, when the accused prepared the inquest report (Ex.P.42) he had decided to show the escape route for the real offenders.It what P.W.2 speaks in court is false and if really P.W.2 had stated during inquest that Sundaram alias Sundarasamy confessed to him admitting his involvement in the crime, then nothing would have prevented the accused from contradicting P.W.2 in court with his earlier statement, which he had not done.JUDGMENT R. Balasubramanian, J.The revision is by P.W.1 in that sessions case.The respondent in that sessions case was tried under Section 201 I.P.C. At the end of the trial, he was acquitted.Heard Mr. N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. K.V.Sridharan, learned Counsel for the respondent.We heard Mr. M.Venkataraman for the revision petitioner and Mr. K.V.Sridharan again for the respondent.Thereafter Law was set on motion by a complaint coming to be registered on the file of the police station concerned in Crime No. 81 of 1995 - the crime was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being "suspicious death".The respondent though knew fully well, who the real offenders are, yet, collected materials to bring home the prosecution case against only one person by name Sundaram alias Sundarasamy and as a result of those materials collected, a final report came to be filed on 28.8.1996 by the officer then incharge of the police station against Sundaram alias Sundarasamy under Sections 376, 302 and 201 I.P.C., in the very same Court of Sessions, which was taken on file as S.C. No. 110 of 1998 and therefore with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, he gave information regarding that offence (by collecting materials pointing out the guilt of another person) which he knows or believes to be false.The prove their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 25 besides marking Exs.The defence did not let in any oral evidence.But however the defence marked Exs.Since the charge against the accused is only under Section 201 I.P.C. - the sum and substance of which we have already given earlier, we are of the opinion that we need not give the entire evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the offence under Sections 376 and 302 I.P.C., since it would be suffice to advert to the relevant material namely, whether during the course of investigation the respondent knew, who the real offenders are and yet did he proceed to collect materials with a view to screen them and project a scapegoat in court for the purpose of trial? To complete the narration of facts, we would like to state that when S.C. No. 110 of 1998 was taken up for recording evidence on 11.11.1998 and 12.11.1998 the witnesses examined therein turned hostile.P.W.25 in the present case was the Station House Officer when the trial commenced in the earlier sessions case.That trial was proceeded against only one accused namely, Sundaram alias Sundarasamy.On the witnesses turning hostile in that sessions case, P.W.25 moved the Court of Sessions at that time for permission to re-investigate and accordingly such permission was granted.On such permission to re-investigate granted, S.C. No. 110 of 1998 was brought to an abrupt end without allowing it to reach its logical end.However on an application taken out by A.6 in that sessions case that there is misjoinder of parties, the then learned Sessions Judge passed a detailed order on merits splitting up the case against A.6 in that sessions case and trial in S.C. No. 96 of 2000 went on only against the remaining five accused.The split up case against A.6 in that sessions case was taken on file as S.C. No. 214 of 2000, out of which the present appeal and the revision had arisen.As we indicated earlier, the crux of the issue in the proceedings before us is, whether the respondent knew, who the real offenders are and yet did he collect materials (thereby giving an information) that the accused is somebody else other than the real offenders? With the limited scope as indicated above, let us proceed to state in sum and substance what the witnesses spoke in the court of sessions.P.W.1 is the mother of the victim.She only speaks about her daughter going for duty; not returning home; dead body found in the well and she set the Law on motion.Therefore at the best , her evidence would only show that her daughter, who left for work on the previous evening to the mill did not return home on the next day morning and she was found her dead body in a dilapidated well on that evening.Of course, she on her own and with a backing of a political party had sent a complaint to the higher ups that the investigation is not going on proper lines, as a result of which P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, Crime Brach CID was ordered to conduct an enquiry on that complaint, which he held for three days in the first week of April, 1996 and sent his report.Therefore we leave the evidence of P.W.1 as it is.P.W.2 is examined as an eye witness to the crime of rape, murder and screening the evidence of the offence.He was on duty on that day; after attending to some odd job, he went into the mill once again; as he entered the mill, he found the food basket of the victim in this case; on hearing the victim's voice, he asked A.2 as to what is happening; A.2 answered that the boss is doing like that and when he (the witness) asked A.2 as to how he can say like that, A.2 asked him to go to his department and watch if anybody is coming; A.2 called him a little later stating that the victim has become unconscious because of the act performed by the boss;... the girl was taken to the bed room and after some time when he went back to the mill, he found that the food basket of the victim was not there; A.2 called him; the boss told him that since he did like that to the girl, she died; he (P.W.2) expressed his anguish by stating that since they informed him earlier that the girl is unconscious and that she may taken to the bed room to rest and how can they say that she is dead now, for which A.2 answered that they would manage everything and if he (P.W.2) discloses this to anyone, his mother and his entire family would be eliminated, for which he prostrated at their legs and promised that he would not divulge; on the following Sunday (must be 24.12.1995) when he was grazing the cattle he was summoned by the mill owners and he accordingly went; A.2's father and others took him in their car to the police station and enroute he was informed that if he is questioned of any incident in the mill, he must plead ignorance; he was taken to the police station and he was called inside; the Inspector of Police Anbazhagan (the respondent) was there; the Inspector asked his name and questioned him as to whether the victim had come for work on the day; without knowing what to tell, he put his head down; Sundarasamy (the sole accused in S.C.110 of 1998) was summoned inside the police station; when he was questioned by the police A.1, A.2 (in S.C.96 of 2000) and their relatives were there; two days later he was taken to a room in the upstairs in the police station where he was confined for two or three days; A.1, A.2 (in S.C.96 of 2000), A.2's father and other relatives were there; Inspector of Police (the respondent) asked him whether he can read and he answered that he knows by stating that he had studied upto sixth standard; he (P.W.2) was given a paper containing written material and he was asked to read; he read twice or thrice; Inspector of Police Anbazhagan (the respondent) threatened him that he must speak only as written in the paper given to him in all the places, as otherwise, he (P.W.2) would also be locked up with Sundarasamy (sole accused in S.C. No. 110 of 1998); he agreed and signed; five or six months later, A.1 (in S.C.96 of 2000) told him that C.I.D. police is summoning him; he (P.W.2), A.1, A.2 (in S.C.96 of 2000) and Palanisamy went in their car; in another car mill owner and another lady worker came; enroute A.2 told him (P.W.2) that if he is asked, he must tell only what he was already told in the police station, as otherwise he (P.W.2) would also be put in the case and he would be tortured with pins; he (P.W.2) agreed and went with them; C.I.D. police asked him whether the victim had come for work and he answered in the negative; they asked him, who committed the crime and at that time A.1 and A.2 (in S.C.96 of 2000) were by his side and he said, he did not know; two days before attending the court, he (P.W.2) was asked to meet their lawyer; A.1 (in S.C.96 of 2000) took him to their lawyer, who asked his name and then, he (the lawyer) advised him that he (P.W.2) need not have any connection with the owners and for all the questions to be asked in court, he (P.W.2) should say that he did not know; he agreed to say so; he (P.W.2) was taken to the court in a Car and he was asked to sit in a place away from the view of the police.But however his evidence shows that he was on night shift in the mill on 22.12.1995 and he worked till 11.30 a.m. in the following morning namely, Saturday.When he was cross examined by the defence he would state as hereunder:After finishing his night shift on the Saturday morning he went home and slept; at about 6.30 p.m. Sundarasamy (the sole accused in S.C. No. 110 of 1998) and others met him on their way to their house; Sundarasamy came back within fifteen minutes and when asked Sundarasamy said that as police is there he (Sundarasamy) had come back and he wanted to see his Uncle; after seeing his Uncle he came back stating that the police is enquiring everybody in the company and therefore taking him (P.W.3) in his cycle Sundarasamy went to the police station; leaving P.W.3 outside, Sudarasamy went inside; though P.W.3 waited there for half an hour,Sundarasamy did not come out; therefore P.W.3 returned to his house and at 12.00 on that night, two policemen came in a Car with the mill owner's son and took P.W.3 to the police station, where P.W.3 was enquired and then asked to go.P.W.4 states that he is the friend of Rathinam (A.1 in S.C. No. 96 of 2000) and on the day following the occurrence day, he went to the police station to see Rathinam, where the police inspector (the respondent) asked him to sign.P.W.4 asked as to why he must sign, for which the Inspector of Police told P.W.4 that as he (P.W.4) is the friend of A.1 (in S.C. No. 96 of 2000) he can sign and accordingly he had signed.P.W.4 was also examined to prove that the Inspector of Police did not prepare the inquest report at the spot but only at the police station.When he was cross examined by the defence he asserted that since Rathinam (A.1 in S.C. No. 96 of 2000) is his friend he went to see him in the police station.P.W.5 had been examined to prove that the inquest was not conducted at the spot and the inquest report was prepared only at the police station.P.W.6 is examined for a similar purpose.P.W.7 is the Village Administrative Officer during the relevant time for Chinnavedampatti Village.We extract his evidence as hereunder:The occurrence was on 22.12.1995; at that time I was the Village Administrative Officer of Chinnavedampatti; on 23rd, 24th and 25th I was not in town; on 26th I returned and went for tax collection; on 27th morning I was contacted over the phone available in a shop close to my office asking me to come to the police station; accordingly I went; the Inspector of Police (the respondent) asked me to give a report that Sundaram alias Sundarasamy (the sole accused in S.C. No. 110 of 1998) surrendered before me on his own; I initially refused stating that it is a police case; however I reduced into writing what the Inspector of Police told me at that time; I was told to write that Sundarasamy (wrongly typed as Sundaramoorthy) surrendered on 23.12.1995; however I do not remember the time of surrender as mentioned by them; Ex.P.9 is the document which I wrote and I wrote that document in the police station; the contents of Ex.P.9 are false and it is incorrect to say that the said accused surrendered; I have not taken the accused to the police station but however he was already there; then the Head Constable (P.W.21) recorded the statement of the accused, in which I have signed and Ex.P.10 is my signature in that statement.When he was cross examined he admitted that when he was examined by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the code of Criminal Procedure he did not disclose that he wrote Ex.P.9 in the police station because he was threatened.P.W.21 is the Head Constable in the then Investigating Police Station.On 27th of that month he reduced into writing the confession statement of the accused (the sole accused in S.C. No. 110/1998) as dictated to him by the Inspector of Police and when he was recording the confession statement he saw the accused in the police station.He would also depose that at that time he saw on the Inspector's table a wire basket and a tiffin carrier, which he identified as M.O.8 (wire basket) and M.Os.11 and 12 (Tiffin carrier).P.Ws.8 and 9 are friends.P.W.8 would state that he went to the police station on 27.12.1995 to get a licence to use the amplifier and at that time he saw in the police station, the Inspector of Police (the accused) and the Village Administrative Officer of Chinnavedampatti (P.W.7).But however he would admit that he had signed in that statement as requested by the police officer.P.W.11 has affiliation to a political party.He would only state that the complaints have been sent to higher ups in the police when the investigation in this case was not going on the right lines.P.W.12 is the Head Constable in the then investigating police station, who had accompanied the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem.She would state that after post-mortem she removed the personal belongings found on the dead body and handed over the same to the investigating officer along with her special report.P.W.14 is working as an Office Assistant in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, who only speaks about the complaints given expressing doubts on the investigation done, which were forwarded to the office of the Commissioner of Police and the reports arising therefrom.P.W.15 would depose that he is acquainted with A.1 (in S.C. No. 96 of 2000) and he reached the then investigating police station at about 6.00 on 23.12.1995 and on that day A.1 (in S.C. No. 96 of 2000) was in the police station for interrogation.P.W.15 was asked to sign for the release of A.1 from the police station and accordingly he signed.When he was cross examined he would state that he went to the police station at 6.00 a.m. on 24.12.1995 at which point of time only he was asked to sign and it is true that he had stated in his evidence in chief that he went to the police station at 6.00 p.m. on 23.12.1995 to meet Rathinam (A.1 in S.C. No. 96 of 2000).P.W.16 is the finger print expert working in the finger print bureau in Coimbatore.We extract hereunder her evidence:On a call from the then investigating police station on 24.12.1995 I went to the crime scene to lift chance prints; there were no chance prints at the crime scene; Ex.P.31 is the report; on 27.12.1995 an eversilver tiffin carrier was sent to us for lifting finger prints; on examination of the same I found three finger prints, which were marked as Y1, Y,2 and Y,3; those finger prints tallied with the specimen left hand middle finger, left hand ring finger and left hand small finger of the suspected accused Sundaram, S/o Arusamy (the sole accused in S.C. No. 110 of 1998) sent to the laboratory; Ex.P.32 is the said report and Ex.P.33 is the paper containing finger prints of the suspected accused; on receipt of the finger prints Ex.P.W.17 is a Mason by profession and he was examined to prove that he witnessed the conduct of the inquest.Since the report was asked for very urgently he examined only the available witnesses and not others.In cross examination he had admitted that Exs.D.1 and D.2 as the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 given at that time.(But we find from the records that Ex.D.2 is the deposition of P.W.1 in S.C. No. 110 of 1998 on the file of the same court of sessions).When cross examined, he would admit that for taking the enlarged photographs, M.O.23 series, the negatives were given to him by the Court.P.W.24 is the police constable, who prepared Ex.P.47, the rough sketch as directed by the then investigating officer.At 10.00 a.m. on 4.10.1999 he arrested Krishnan (A.5 in S.C. No. 96 of 2000).All the accused were sent for judicial remand.On 30.10.1999 P.W.25 enquired Inspector of Police Anbazhagan (the respondent herein) on the case details.On 1.11.1999 P.W.25 gave a requisition to the court to send cotton, blood, tissue, oil and broken bangles (i.e.) already case properties, to the laboratory for examination.On the occurrence day there was only one All Women Police Station for the entire Coimbatore Town (B.3 Police Station).On 21.3.1996 some areas were transferred to Saravanampatty Police Station.The place of occurrence comes within the jurisdiction of Saravanampatty police station (B.9 Police Station).When S.C. No. 110 of 1998 came up for trial, he (P.W.25) was in the police station as Inspector of Police and the entire case diary in that case was in his custody.However he perused the case diary only when the trial against Sundarasamy commenced.He was in that police station for only ten months prior to the trial.At the time when the trial against Sundarasamy commenced, the Inspector of Police Anbazghagan was not in Coimbatore District but he was in Virudhunagar.However he does not know when he (the respondent) was transferred.The final report against A.1 Rathinam is under Sections 302 and 376 I.P.C. and the offences alleged against all the accused are under Sections 120B and 201 I.P.C. In the final report he had indicated that based on the materials collected by him during investigation that Anbazghagan/Inspector of Police had disclosed false materials and the Inspector of Police Anbazghagan was made as an accused only on 16.12.1999 namely, the date on which the final report was filed and prior to that he was not arrayed as an accused.When Bakkiam was examined as P.W.1 in S.C. No. 110 of 1998 he was in court.The Inspector of Police Pichai is not cited as a witness.P.W.25 examined C.B.C.I.D. Inspector of Police namely, P.W.20 on 2.12.1999 and on such examination, he came to know that he had examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and obtained their statements.He went through the statements.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he took a stand of total denial except on the following aspects:He would state that P.W.2 never told him at the earlier point of time that he saw the food basket of the deceased in the mill and later he did not see that.When P.W.16's evidence was put to him as question No. 51 he admitted that evidence as correct.He filed a defence statement in writing wherein he commented the evidence of each one of the witnesses as hereunder:P.W.1's evidence is false.Since in his statement he did not implicate anybody else except Sundaram alias Sundarasamy, he had no chance to know the involvement of any other person in the crime.P.W.2 also did not tell P.W.20 about the involvement of the more than one person in the crime and he had admitted that.Since P.W.2 is the only eye witness to the crime he did not examine any other witness.He never threatened P.W.2 to disclose what he (the accused) alone said.However P.W.4 had admitted his signature in the summons served on the panchayatdars for inquest.He had also admitted his signature in the inquest report.The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 are false.P.W.7's evidence is also false.P.W.7 produced Sundaram alias Sundarasamy before him (the accused) on 27.12.1995 along with his confession statement.P.W.8's evidence is false.P.W.8 had admitted his signature in the recovery Mahazar prepared pursuant to the confession statement of Sundarasamy.P.W.9 is speaking false hood.P.W.10 is also speaking false hood.However P.W.11 had spoken in public meeting that Sundarasamy is innocent and therefore re-investigation is necessary.P.18 was prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police.P.Ws.13 and 15 are speaking false hood.P.W.16's evidence is correct.She is the finger print expert.The accused does not know anything about P.W.20's evidence. P.Ws.21 and 22 are speaking false hood.The accused does not know anything about P.W.23's evidence.P.W.24 helped in the preparation of the rough sketch.P.W.25 is speaking false hood.The accused was investigating the crime from 23.12.1995 till 23.3.1996 and thereafter the investigation was done by the succeeding police officer by name Pichai.The said Pichai examined the medical expert and other witnesses and filed the final report.Pichai is not made either as an accused or cited as a witness.When the final report against Sundarasamy was filed, the accused was not in Coimbatore District at all and he was working at that time at Virudhunagar.The accused does not know the application filed by the investigating officer seeking permission to re-investigate.It appears P.W.25 was in court when the trial in the earlier sessions case commenced.P.W.25 approached the accused to help his relatives shown to have been involved in a murder case in Thazhavaipuram Police Station and since he (the accused) refused, P.W.25 has hatred and only having that in mind, he had fabricated a false case against him.As noted earlier, seven exhibits have come to be marked on his side.The learned Trial Judge in acquitting the accused had definitely failed to advert to various legal evidence available on record connecting the accused with the crime, which had resulted not only in the erroneous and unreasonable judgment but also resulted in miscarriage of justice.Though there may be no direct evidence on record that the accused knew, who the real offenders are, yet from the very fact that the accused started preparing incorrect records from the commencement of the investigation itself and the other circumstances available in this case, would definitely enable this Court to infer/presume that the accused knew, who the real offenders are, as otherwise there was no need for him to prepare incorrect records.At the foot of Ex.P.28 the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order (Central), Coimbatore had made an endorsement, before forwarding it to the higher ups that on the final report filed on 28.8.1996, the court is yet to take the case on file.P.28 stands marked and proved through P.W.14, who is working as an Assistant in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore.We have already referred to his evidence.From the contents of Ex.P.28 it is clear that Pitchai - the Inspector of Police, who succeeded the accused in this case, had not done any investigation on the material aspects at all and what all he had done before filing the final report is, collecting Chemical Examiner's Report; final report from the Doctor, who did post-mortem and getting the opinion of the Additional Public Prosecutor.Therefore the argument advanced before the Lower Court on behalf of the accused and reiterated herein that Pitchai - the Inspector of Police had also done substantial investigation on material aspects and therefore it is not possible to fix the responsibility on the accused alone, do not appeal to us at all.Therefore the learned Trial Judge is definitely wrong in holding that in the investigation originally done culminating in S.C. No. 110 of 1998 besides the accused, one other person had also done the investigation.In other words, we reiterate that Pitchai, the succeeding Inspector of Police had not done any investigation in it's real sense at all and what he had in fact done is reflected in Ex.P.28, about which we have already referred to.The learned Trial Judge appears to be under the impression that since in S.C. No. 96 of 2000 the very same court had acquitted all the accused therein tried under Section 376, 302 and 201 I.P.C. (A.1) and 120B and 201 I.P.C. (A.2 to A.5), the present prosecution may not survive.The learned Trial Judge rejected the submission made by the State before her that in the event of the acquittal of the accused in S.C. No. 96 of 2000, the charge against the present accused under Section 201 I.P.C. would survive for consideration, giving certain reasons.However the learned Trial Judge did not base her judgment in acquitting the accused on the above referred to discussion alone, but proceeded to decide the case against the present accused on its own merits.Before going into the correctness or otherwise of the approach of the learned Trial Judge in deciding the above issue, let us find out whether from the materials available on record could it be decided without any hesitation that the accused had framed incorrect records, knowing the real offenders, to show them their escape route? P.W.2 is examined as an eye witness to the crime.In sum and substance his evidence shows that at or about the time of the occurrence, he initially saw the wire food basket of the deceased at the threshold of the spinning mill and later, after a lapse of time, it was not seen there.His evidence also shows that he was taken to the police station on the following Sunday (the occurrence was on Friday).His evidence shows that he was summoned by the mill owners and he was taken in the mill owner's car to the then investigating police station and enroute he was told that if he is asked about any incident in the mill, he must plead total ignorance.His evidence also shows that when he entered the police station he saw the respondent there and after making some preliminary enquiries the accused/the respondent asked him as to whether the deceased had come for duty on that day.He had also stated that not knowing what to answer he put his head down.After sending for Sundaram alias Sundarasamy inside the police station, the accused had made some more enquiries and at that time A.1, A.2 and their relatives were there.P.W.2 would also state that two days thereafter he was taken to a room in the upstairs in the police station, where he was detained for two or three days and A.1,A.2 and their close relatives were also there.His evidence shows that the accused asked him as to whether he knows to read and when he answered in the affirmative, the accused made him to read what is written in a paper which he gave it to him.Of course P.W.2's evidence in cross examination shows that till he gave evidence in this case, he had not divulged those facts to anybody else.P.W.2 had stated that when he was taken before P.W.20, A.1 and A.2 told him to divulge only what he was earlier told in the police station.P.W.2 would add that since his employers were there, he told P.W.20 that he did not know anything.In this context we may also just refer to the evidence of P.W.2 which would definitely show that up to the time he gave evidence in the earlier sessions case, he was under the control of his employers.Just to refresh our memory we will summarise hereunder as to what he stated in that regard:Two days before the court proceedings I was asked to see their lawyer; A.1 took me to their lawyer two days before; on entering I was told that I need not have any connection with the incident; I need not have any connection with the mill owners and whatever may be the questions in court, I must say that I do not know anything.P.W.2 had also deposed that agreeing to the suggestion he left and on the day of the trial also he was taken by the mill owners in their car, who made him sit in a place which was not to be seen by the police.All of them have been examined before the court in this case.Each one of them stated that they did not witness the inquest and their signatures as witnesses to the inquest in the records were taken in the police station.In other words, the occurrence had not taken place inside the mill.Column 4 of the inquest report shows that P.W.1 alone saw the victim alive at about 6.30 p.m. on 22.12.1995 and this eliminates the presence of P.W.2 as an eye witness to the crime.It is further disclosed in column 9 of the inquest report that the said Sundaram alias Sundarasamy had disclosed to P.W.2 a couple of hours prior to the crime that he is going to have sexual pleasure with the victim and the said Sundarasamy had come across P.W.2 at about 8.30 p.m. on that night and disclosed as hereunder:I picked up the victim girl from near Venkatesa Mill and took her to the nearby land, where I raped her; strangulated her by a rope and then dumped the body in a nearby well.In column 15 of the said inquest report namely, Ex.P.42 we find that elaborate details as to how exactly the crime had come to be committed by Sundaram alias Sundarasamy are given.We just extract hereunder the details available in column 15 of Ex.P.42 disclosing the manner in which the crime had come to be committed:Sundaram had picked up the victim girl from Venkatesa Mill and then took her to a nearby land belonging to Arukutti where he had intercourse with her.The victim protested and refused and yet, he had sexual intercourse with her.Therefore the victim said that unless she is left alone, she would tell her mother and despite that he (Sundaram alias Sundarasamy) proceeded to complete the sexual intercourse.Then fearing that if the victim exposes him in the village, he would be put to shame and that he would be exposed to danger in the hands of the family members of the victim, strangulated her by a rope and then threw her dead body in the well situated in the lands belonging to Rangasamy Gounder.Therefore from the contents of the inquest report as referred to above the Court could conclude that the accused wanted to make it appear that Sundaram alias Sundarasamy is guilty of rape, murder and erasing the evidence of offence.We find from Ex.If that is so, we fail to understand as to why P.W.2 did not tell about that to P.W.1 at least immediately after that, so that P.W.1 would have been in a position to pass on that information to the investigating officer namely, the accused.P.W.1 would state that on 23.12.1995 when she asked P.W.2 as to whether he knew about her daughter, he answered that one day he would tell her.In our considered opinion if A.4 is the accused there was no need at all for P.W.2 to be evasive.Does this evasiveness of P.W.2 lead to infer that some one is trying to protect some one.P.W.2 has no stakes at all in protecting the real offender.Therefore it is sure that somebody else is behind P.W.2 which made him to be evasive at that time.Therefore we conclude at this stage that from Ex.P.42 it is made to appear that Sundaram alias Sundarasamy alone is accused of the offences perpetrated against the deceased in this case and to P.W.2 Sundarasamy had made an extra judicial confession.P.W.3's evidence shows that (see the cross examination) that around 6.30 p.m. on 23.12.1995 the said Sundaram alias Sundarasamy and his relatives met him on their way home and within fifteen minutes thereafter Sundaram alias Sundarasamy returned from his house and when questioned he answered that he came back because police is already in his house.We have already extracted his evidence earlier.P.W.3's evidence also shows that immediately thereafter, Sundarasamy took him in his cycle to the then investigating police station where leaving P.W.3 outside the police station Sundaram alias Sundarasamy went inside and he did not come out for almost half an hour, which made P.W.3 leave the police station.He would also state that around 12.00 in the night he was also taken to the police station with the owner's son (A.1) by two policemen to the then investigating police station.We searched the entire records to find out whether Sundaram alias Sundarasamy, who reached the police station on the evening of 23.12.1995 was seen again anywhere in the village free from the custody of the police but in vain.In other words, there is no evidence on record to show that Sundaram alias Sundarasamy, who reached and entered the police station around 7.00 p.m. on 23.12.1995 had come out at all thereafter.If this is so and if the contents of the inquest report showing the involvement of Sundaram alias Sundarasamy is true, then we fail to understand as to why the accused had not arrested him at all.A duty is cast upon the accused to explain to the court as to what happened to Sundaram alias Sundarasamy, who reached the police station as referred to above on the evening of 23.12.1995 and except denying the evidence of P.W.3 as false he had not taken any other step in regard there to to prove the contra.As noted earlier, the above referred to evidence of P.W.3 that Sundaram alias Sundarasamy entered the police station is elicited by the accused when he cross examined P.W.3, when the witness was totally silent on that aspect, in his evidence in chief.When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused stated that P.W.7 produced the accused/Sundaram alias Sundarasamy along with his report Ex.P.9 in the police station.The accused made it appear that on such surrender, Sundaram alias Sundarasamy was arrested and examined, during which time he gave a confession statement marked in this case as Ex.Let us now consider whether this facet of the prosecution case as sought to be made out by the accused (the Inspector of Police), when he was incharge of investigation is true or not? We have already referred to the evidence of P.W.7 earlier.Though he initially refused, yet, he gave the report.When P.W.7 himself do not speak that the accused compelled him to give such a record, we fail to understand as to how his failure to disclose earlier that he was compelled to create such a record could be of any significance at all.As noted earlier, P.W.7's evidence shows that he was summoned to the police station on 27.12.1995 wherein the Inspector of Police/the accused asked him to give a report that Sundaram alias Sundarasamy surrendered and though he initially refused and yet, he reduced into writing what the Inspector of Police (the accused) told.PW.7's evidence shows that he was told to prepare a report that Sundaram alias Sundarasamy surrendered on 27.12.1995 and Ex.P.9 is the said report.He would also affirm that the said accused (Sundaram alias Sundarasamy) never surrendered before him; he did not in turn surrender the accused (Sundaram alias Sundarasamy) in the police station but however the said accused (Sundaram alias Sundarasamy) was already in the police station.As noted earlier at all early stages and the witness (P.W.7) accepting the same except suggesting to him that he had not disclosed on the lines referred to earlier, no other worthy cross examination had been made to discredit his evidence as spoken to by him now in court.P.W.7 had also stated that thereafter the Head Constable (P.W.21) recorded the confession statement of the accused, in which he had signed.We perused Ex.It is a lengthy report containing plenty of details about the family of Sundaram alias Sundarasamy; his employment and the manner in which he came to commit the crime.P.W.7 had given evidence that to the narration of the accused/ Inspector of Police, he reduced into writing and it is Ex.There is nothing on record to show that P.W.7 had reduced into writing, any confession statement of Sundaram alias Sundarasamy.Therefore having the experience which we have in dealing with criminal cases, when we perused the contents of Ex.P.9, we have no doubt at all that it would not have been possible for P.W.7 to retain so many facts in his mind and then re-produce it in the chronological manner as he is shown to have done in his report Ex.In other words, unless a person dictates such a lengthy material, it would not have been possible for anybody to give such a lengthy report on his own giving all the details of Sundaram alias Sundarasamy.The falsity of Ex.P.9 as a voluntary report given by P.W.7 is also apparent from that statement itself and we reflect our mind on that hereunder:On this material evidence he had not been cross examined at all.P.W.21 is the Head Constable in the said investigating police station.He would also state that on the day when he recorded the confession statement of Sundaram alias Sundarasamy he saw the other accused (he must definitely mean the accused put up for trial in S.C. No. 96 of 2000 since as per the original final report, there was only one accused) and that he also saw the wire basket and tiffin boxes on the Inspector's table.Once again we find that this witness was also not cross examined on the above material aspect namely, the availability of M.Os.8,11 and 12 on the Inspector's table.Therefore the prosecution had definitely established that even on 27.12.1995 M.Os.8,11 and 12 which were in the possession of the victim in this case on the date of occurrence, were available, in specie, on the Inspector's table.Now we go back to Ex.P.9 - the so called report given by P.W.7 on surrendering Sundaram alias Sundarasamy and Ex.P.9 discloses that after committing the murder Sundaram alias Sundarasamy concealed the wire basket; an eversilver tiffin box; a small eversilver box; a plastic bag; a comb and the slippers available at the place where he had sexual intercourse with the victim, in the underground water and air cement exhaust pipe.P.44 is the statement of the accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by P.W.21 from Sundaram alias Sundarasamy on his alleged surrender by P.W.7 in the police station.P.44 shows that it was recorded at 2.15 p.m. on 27.12.1995 and there also Sundaram alias Sundarasamy disclosed the concealment of the articles referred to above in the place as referred to in Ex.Therefore one thing that is clear from the contents of Exs.P.9 and P.44 is that M.Os.8,11 and 12 were concealed by Sundaram alias Sundarasamy in a place known to him only.If that is the only conclusion that could be arrived at based on Exs.P.9 and P.44, then it is not possible to reconcile as to how M.Os.8,11 and 12 were found on the Inspector's table (the accused) on that day itself, when P.W.7 is stated to have surrendered Sundaram alias Sundarasamy in the police station.Assuming for a minute that the present prosecutor had deliberately suppressed it - which we do not say - then nothing prevented the accused from establishing that the recovery was made only pursuant to Ex.A question had been put to P.W.21 in his cross examination as to whether he knew that Sundaram alias Sundarasamy, pursuant to his confession statement, had produced any articles and he answered that he did not know.This question is a mischievous question since admittedly, the evidence do not show that Sundaram alias Sundarasamy had M.Os.8,11 and 12 with him on the day when he was surrendered by P.W.7 in the police station and the concealment of the above articles had come to surface only when Ex.P.9 is received by the police and the confession statement of Ex.P.44 of the accused came to be recorded.Therefore a duty is cast upon him to establish as to how and when M.Os.8,11 and 12 had come to be recovered, which he had not done.Therefore it is clear to our mind that the accused herein had definitely created incorrect records (i.e.) getting Ex.P.9 showing that P.W.7 surrendered Sundaram and Ex.P.44 - his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by P.W.21 totally forgetting that the presence of M.Os.8,11 and 12 on his table even on that day would expose him.Again on M.Os.8,11 and 12 we have to give our critical assessment.P.W.16 is the finger print expert.Her evidence also shows that specimen finger prints of the accused/Sundaram alias Sundarasamy was compared with the chance prints lifted and both tallied with each other.P.33 is the paper containing the finger prints of the suspected accused.P.33 shows that the finger prints were lifted on 27.12.1995 by Grade - I Police Constable.It is an established procedure and requirement of law - atleast as far as Courts in this State are concerned, that the incriminating objects recovered by the investigating officer during investigation shall always sent to the court with a requisition to send the same to the laboratory for chemical examination or Expert's opinion.There is nothing on record to show that when they were recorded and whether M.Os.8,11 and 12 were sent to the laboratory through court.In fact, it could not have been done in that manner because P.W.16's evidence shows that on 27.12.1995 itself she received the incriminating objects.How Ex.The constable, who is stated to have lifted the finger prints of Sundaram alias Sundarasamy is also not examined by the defence.The accused alone is aware about those facts and therefore a duty is cast upon him to establish the above facts, which he had again failed.Therefore the possibility of M.Os.8,11 and 12 and the finger print slip being sent to the laboratory directly by the accused/the respondent though a special messenger cannot be totally ruled out.Therefore it is clear that M.Os.8,11 and 12 and the finger print slip Ex.P.33 were not sent to the finger print bureau through court.Why the accused/the respondent had deviated from the established procedure of sending the articles through court is a mystery.In other words, he (the accused) appears to have done so obviously having a design in his mind, as otherwise it is unexplainable.P.W.21, the Head Constable working under the accused at that time had also deposed that M.Os.11 and 12 were found cleanly washed.Once again we find that this witness had not been cross examined at all on that material aspect.P.W.16, the finger print expert also stated in her evidence as hereunder:If the tiffin box is washed or wiped, then all the finger prints available therein would vanish; when I saw the tiffin box, I did not notice any food inside, not even spoiled food ; however it was clean and it was found to have been cleanly washed.The accused had not even cross examined P.W.16 on any part of her evidence and he had admitted when he was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the evidence of P.W.16 is true.On the above referred to materials, a suspicion - a strong one - enters our mind (i.e.) whether the accused was framing incorrect records? We discuss hereunder:We have already noted from the evidence that M.Os.11 and 12 along with M.O.8 were available on the Inspector's table on 27.12.1995 itself.According to us, a duty is cast upon the accused to explain this, which he had not done.Then we applied our mind as to whether there is any reason at all for washing M.Os.11 and 12 and the answer that immediately comes to our mind is, namely, in order to screen the real offenders and fix Sundaram alias Sundarasamy alone as the accused, the vessels might have been washed.The possibility of the accused either himself washing M.Os.11 and 12 or having it washed by any other person in the police station; then asking Sundaram alias Sundarasamy to handle those tiffin boxes and then sending it to the finger print bureau to get the incriminating material against the said Sundaram alias Sundarasamy stand to reason and such a modus operandi cannot be totally ruled out.We have already referred to the contents of Ex.P.42, the inquest report Ex.P.9, the surrender report stated to have been given by P.W.7 containing the disclosures stated to have been made by Sundaram alias Sundarasamy to him and Ex.P.44, the confession statement of Sundaram alias Sundarasamy itself recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The inquest report gives a detailed account as to how Sundaram alias Sundarasamy came to pick up the victim; made sexual assault on her; the manner in which the victim protested; how he succeeded in completing the sexual assault; strangulating her to death and then throwing the dead body into the well.The inquest report was prepared on 23.12.1995 and it had reached the court on 24.12.1995 at 9.30 a.m. Those finer details of the crime are found fully reflected in Ex.Almost similar details have come in Ex.If that is so, then, but for Exs.P.9 and P.44 the accused could not have got those details.Therefore it is easy to bring the loose ends together to conclude that the accused had Sundaram alias Sundarasamy in his custody form the evening of 23.12.1995 and that he did not come out at all thereafter.Though we might have discussed this issue in some other portion of this judgment, yet, at the risk of repetition, we want to reiterate our discussion hereunder:The disclosure made in Ex.P.44, the inquest report that A.4 had confessed to P.W.2 at 8.30 p.m. on 22.12.1995 that he is involved in this crime is apparently false.We have given reasons for holding so.If really such a disclosure was made by A.4 to P.W.2 at 8.30 p.m. on 22.12.1995 then we see no reason as to why P.W.2, should hold back that information in the following days to come.Evidence on record shows that P.W.2 had come across P.W.1 on the next day after she found the dead body in the well and whenever she asked P.W.1 as to whether he (P.W.2) knows anything about that P.W.2 was evasive.P.W.1's evidence is that when questioned, P.W.2 told her that he would disclose it on one day.The very evasiveness of P.W.2 on the lines indicated above raises a suspicion in our mind as to why he must evasive if anybody else other than A.4, who is a mill worker in Sundaram Mills is the accused.The reasons are far off to be seen namely, some force must be working behind P.W.2 and that force is none else than A.1, A.2 and their relatives.Therefore without any hesitation, we hold that the disclosure made in Ex.P.44 that A.4 confessed to P.W.2 at 8.30 p.m. on 22.12.1995 about his involvement in the crime is patently false.If that is so, then the finer details disclosed in Ex.P.44 about the manner in which the crime came to be committed by A.4 also could not have been available with the accused namely, the respondent herein.P.9 and P.42 as per record have come into existence only on 27.12.1995 and the finer details contained in those two documents as to how the crime came to be committed, are found incorporated in Ex.If we carefully analyse the entire sequence of events, it is clear to our mind that the accused had definitely designed to help the real culprits and that is how even in the inquest report he had put forward an imaginary story involving A.4 in the crime without little realising that if the contents of the inquest report on the above lines are found to be without any basis ,then he would be in the soup.His evidence discloses that the Inspector of Police (the accused) asked him to sign and when he asked him to why he must sign, the Inspector of Police told him that since he is the friend of Rathinam, he can sign and accordingly he signed.When he was cross examined, he affirmed that since Rathinam was his friend, he had gone to see him in the police station.Unless Rathinam's involvement in the crime is suspected by the accused, in our considered opinion, there was no need for the accused to interrogate him and ask P.W.4 to sign in a record in the police station.No worthy cross examination of this witness was done by the defence, to disbelieve his evidence that on 23.12.1995 he saw Rathinam (A.1) in the police station and at the instance of the accused/the Inspector of Police he had signed in the record.P.W.2 is eye witness for the occurrence proper.His evidence shows (we have already referred to it earlier) that around 12.00 in the morning of 24.12.1995 when he was grazing the cattle he was summoned by the mill owners and in the company of A.2's father and others he went to the police station.He would also state that when he entered the police station A.1 and A.2 came out of the police station.Pausing here for a minute this evidence of P.W.2 that when he entered the police station on 24.12.1995 he saw A.1 and A.2 coming out of the police station is definitely corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4, who would state that the police officer/the accused asked him to sign in a record on 23.12.1995 since he was the friend of Rathinam.Therefore it is legally possible to infer that on P.W.4 signing the record in the police station, the accused had allowed Rathinam to go out, obviously binding him over to appear before him as and when called for, as otherwise A.1 and A.2 coming out of the police station on 24.12.1995 cannot be explained at all.P.W.2's evidence again shows that when he was examined inside the police station by the Inspector of Police/the accused A.1, A.2 and others were also there.His evidence also shows that two or three days thereafter he was taken to a room in the upstairs in the police station, where he was kept in confinement for two or three days and during that time, A.1, A.2 and their relatives were also there.Even when P.W.2 was examined by P.W.20, A.1 and A.2 also had gone with him.It may be noticed in this context that the accused had not pinpointedly cross examined P.W.2 on the presence of A.1 and A.2 in the police station.In this context we may also refer to the evidence of P.W.15, whose evidence shows that he is acquainted with Rathinam (A.1 in S.C. No. 96 of 2000) for quite sometime and he reached the investigating police station at six hours on 23.12.1995 and Rathinam was kept there for interrogation.His evidence also shows that he was asked to sign by the police Head Constable as a witness and accordingly he signed.Therefore this Court can legally conclude from the evidence of P.Ws.2,4and 15 that Rathinam and Dhanusu (A.1 and A.2 in S.C. No. 96 of 2000) were in the mind of the Inspector of Police/the accused in connection with the crime.The continued presence of A.1 and A.2 in the police station, even after the completion of the inquest, which unerringly shows that A.4 alone is the offender, definitely reveals that the contents of the inquest report atleast so far the involvement of A.4 alone is incorrect.Therefore when there is direct evidence of P.Ws.2,4 and 15 establishing the presence of A.1and A.2 in the police station in which the accused was the investigating officer, a duty is cast upon him to disprove the same.But however, except denying the evidence of the above referred to witnesses as false, when he was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as noted earlier, the accused had not taken any material steps to disprove their evidence.She had given the complaint.She is not an eye witness to the crime.The dead body was admittedly found in the dry well.The complaint was registered in the late evening of 23.12.1995, since only on that day the dead body was found in the well.From the materials available on record and going by the reasons given by the learned Trial Judge we are of the considered opinion that nothing turns on the point referred to above and projected by the prosecution, since admittedly the complaint given by P.W.1 was registered only under Section 174 of the Code.In this context we may note that the learned Trial Judge proceeded to disbelieve the prosecution case that deliberately the scene of occurrence was shifted and on the ground also that the prosecution case in S.C. No. 96 of 2000 was disbelieved.Where exactly P.W.1 came to give the complaint leading to the registration of Crime No. 81 of 1995 namely, whether it was by the side of the well in which the dead body was found or in the police station, also do not assume importance, since P.W.1 did not implicate in her complaint any particular person as the accused in the murder of her daughter as she is admittedly not an eye witness to the crime.It may be noticed that P.W.12 is the police constable, before whom P.W.1 is shown to have given the complaint.To sum up, we would state, whether there is a shift in the scene of occurrence and whether there is any doubt as to the place where P.W.1 had come to give the complaint, may not detain us at all any longer since, in our considered opinion, have no bearing in deciding the issue projected by the prosecution against the accused in this case and therefore we pass on to the next stage.The material evidence that has to be considered in this case is whether the accused is guilty of preparing incorrect records? We have already found that the accused had prepared incorrect records.Let us now find out how the learned Trial Judge deals with the above aspect.The learned Trial Judge has completely misdirected herself in appreciating this aspect of the prosecution case.Almost all the witnesses examined in this case had admitted only their signatures (in the narration of the facts in this case, we have dealt with the above referred to material had come out) when the various documents were shown to them.It is for the accused to question on those documents if he has any point in his favour by getting the document itself marked.The prosecution by examining P.W.7 had marked Ex.P.9 which is one of the fabricated record.By examining P.W.21, the prosecution has marked Ex.When the accused was the investigating officer, Ex.P.42 the inquest report had also come to be marked.The learned Trial Judge herself adverts to the fact that Exs.P.42 and P.44 are marked and those documents also, according to the prosecution, are incorrect and framed documents.Therefore the learned Trial Judge is not justified in making a sweeping criticism that the so called incorrect framed documents have not been marked at all.Whether the earned leave already sanctioned to P.W.21 was cancelled or not, again may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding this case.But however the learned Trial Judge has proceeded to comment upon that also in disbelieving the prosecution case.As rightly pointed out by the learned Trial Judge, it is not the present prosecution case that the documents prepared in "draft form" by the side of the well when the dead body was there varied when they were transferred into "regular form".The inquest report Ex.P.42 stands marked through P.W.21 since he is the scribe.The place where Ex.P.42 came to be written namely, by the side of the dead body or in the police station is not the issue.Since nothing much turns on that, we leave it as it is.Likewise, who prepared the special report submitted to the investigating officer after the post-mortem was completed namely, giving the details of the articles produced (i.e.) whether it is P.W.12 or P.W.13 may not be relevant once again since nothing turns on that.The learned Trial Judge had found in more than one place that there are lapses committed by the investigating officer in preparing the records.The learned Trial Judge had then taken up for consideration Ex.P.44, the statement of Sundaram alias Sundarasamy recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act when the respondent was the investigating officer.In the same breadth the learned Trial Judge had taken into account Ex.P.9 the report shown to have been given by P.W.7 on the accused surrendering before him - the report containing details disclosed by Sundaram alias Sundarasamy.The learned Trial Judge proceeded to disbelieve P.W.7 regarding the circumstances in which Ex.P.9 had come to be recorded on the ground that he being a responsible revenue official, it is unbelievable that he could have prepared the record.There was yet another accused.The facts in that case was, two young girls, who left their parents from the marriage house, were not to be seen thereafter and one of them was found dead in the sea near a sea resort.The presence of A.1 and A.2 on more than one occasion in the police station immediately following the occurrence day and A.1's presence in the police station for interrogation stands established.This means when the complaint given by P.W.1 came to be registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused could have definitely had some clue about the involvement of A.1 alteast, as otherwise he would not have summoned him for interrogation.P.W.7 surrendered Sundaram alias Sundarasamy in the police station on 27.12.1995 is definitely false, for which we have given enough reasons earlier.P.W.7 could not have prepared Ex.P.9 on his own but for the dictation of the Inspector of Police/ the accused.The presence of M.O.8,11 and 12 on the table of the Inspector of Police/accused on 27.12.1995 itself, as spoken to by the witnesses falsifies Ex.P.44 as the voluntary disclosure made by Sundaram alias Sundarasamy.If Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.44 alone reveal the concealment of M.Os.8,11, and 12 by the said Sundaram alias Sundarasamy in a different place, then it is not possible to explain as to how M.Os.8,11 and 12 were on the Inspector's table even by the time (i.e.) 27.12.1995 when Ex.P.9 was received, Ex.P.44 was reduced into writing.Sending M.Os.11 and 12 after cleanly washing it to the laboratory to lift the chance prints and that too, directly and not through Court is an incriminating material against the accused.There is no evidence before court to show, who lifted the finger prints of Sundaram alias Sundarasamy.P.32 and 33 are the reports from the Finger Print Expert Bureau and each is dated 27.12.1995 namely, the date on which Sundaram alias Sundarasamy is shown to have been surrendered by P.W.7 before the accused.We are unable to visualise as to how M.Os.11 and 12 and P.33, the paper containing the finger prints of Sundaram alias Sundarasamy could have been received in the laboratory on the same day; (i.e.) 27.12.1995; examined on the same day and the report were also sent on the same day.There is something mysterious about this.The modus operandi alleged to have been adopted by Sundaram alias Sundarasamy in first going about to have sexual pleasure with the deceased; murdering her and then throwing her into a dilapidated well, have come on record for the first time only from Ex.Post the appeal on 9.4.2007 for questioning the accused on sentence.The respondent/the accused in S.C. No. 214 of 2000 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore is present.We explained to him that we have found him guilty under Section 201 I.P.C. and asked him as to what he wants to say on the question of sentence to be awarded and he stated as hereunder: | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,081,941 | (Delivered on the 12th day of August, 2015) The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 25.3.1997 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T.No.197/1996, whereby each of the appellants has been convicted of offence under Sections 147, 307/149 of IPC and sentenced to one year's Rigorous Imprisonment and 2 years' Rigorous Imprisonment respectively.The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 3.3.1993, the complainant Nathu (P.W.5) went to the village Padariya to bring some domestic articles.He was accompanied by his brother Bapuda (P.W.4).While returning to their village Haripura, the appellants and other accused persons met him in the way.The appellant Mangilal gave a blow of Farsi on the-:- 2 -:-Criminal Appeal No.718 of 1997 neck of the victim Nathu and therefore, he fell down on the Earth.The appellant Teja and other co-accused persons had assaulted the witness Bapuda by sticks.Bapuda immediately ran away from the spot and thereafter, all the accused persons again assaulted the victim Nathu.On shouting of the complainant, witnesses Vinay and Veeran came to the spot and they saved the complainant Nathu.They took the complainant Nathu to the Police Station Bilkhiriya, District Bhopal.The complainant Nathu and his brother Bapuda were sent for their medico legal examination and treatment.Yogesh Gautam (P.W.8) examined the complainant Nathu and gave his reports, Ex.P/12 and Ex.P/13 respectively.According to him, one incised wound having length 2.5 cms was found on the victim Nathu below the right eye upto neck and various blood vessels were found cut.According to him, injury caused to the complainant Nathu was fatal in nature and he could die of that injury.After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Bhopal, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately, it was transferred to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.The appellants abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea in the matter and no defence evidence was adduced.-:- 3 -:-Criminal Appeal No.718 of 1997Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the prosecution's evidence, acquitted the accused Kailash and Biniya from all the charges.The appellants were also acquitted from the charge of Section 323/149 of IPC that were related with the victim Bapuda.However, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced of offence under Sections 147, 307/149 of IPC as mentioned above.Since the appeal was of the year 1997 and no one was appearing for the appellants to argue the matter, Shri Prakash Gupta, Advocate from the panel of High Court Legal Services Committe, who has vast experience to deal with the criminal case, was appointed to argue the matter on behalf of the appellants.Thereafter, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.In the present case, Bapuda (P.W.4) and Nathu (P.W.5) were examined as eye witnesses, whereas Veeran and Vinay Singh were not examined.According to these witnesses, the appellant Mangilal gave a blow of Farsa on the neck of the complainant Nathu and thereafter, Teja gave a blow of Farsa.Nathu has lodged the FIR, Ex.P/5 soon after the incident, in which it is mentioned that the appellant Mangilal gave a blow of Farsi, causing a wound on neck of the complainant Nathu and thereafter, Teja and other accused persons have assaulted him by sticks.In this context, evidence given by Dr.-:- 4 -:-Criminal Appeal No.718 of 1997 (P.W.8) is important.He found a single injury on the neck of the complainant Nathu.If Teja would have assaulted the complainant Nathu by a Farsi or a stick then, there should be at least a second wound due to assault caused by the appellant Teja.The complainant Nathu in his statement before the Court has stated that the appellant Teja assaulted him by a Farsi, whereas in FIR, Ex.P/5, he has stated that the appellant Teja assaulted him by a stick.The trial Court found that in absence of other injuries, the accused Biniya and Kailash did not participate in the crime.Looking to the material contradiction between his statement before the trial Court and FIR, it appears that the appellant Teja is falsely implicated in the matter.It is not proved beyond doubt that the appellant Teja at all assaulted the complainant Nathu by any weapon.Hence, prima facie no offence under Section 307 of IPC or any lower offence of the similar nature is made out against the appellant Teja directly.The testimony of Nathu (P.W.5) is duly corroborated by his brother Bapuda (P.W.4), timely lodged FIR, Ex.P/5 and medical report, Ex.P/12 proved by Dr.Yogesh Gautam and therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant Mangilal gave a powerful blow of Farsa on his neck.Gautam has opined that injury caused to the complainant was fatal in-:- 5 -:-Criminal Appeal No.718 of 1997 nature because some blood arteries were found cut.However, it is not alleged against the appellant Mangilal that he gave a second blow to the complainant Nathu and therefore, it cannot be said that he intended to kill the complainant Nathu.Hence, according to the provisions of Section 320 (8) of IPC, the injury caused to the complainant Nathu shall be counted as a grievous injury.After considering the statements of Nathu and Bapuda and circumstances of the case, it is proved that the appellant Mangilal assaulted the complainant Nathu without any sudden or grave provocation, also, without any right of private defence.He used a Farsa to cause assault and therefore, it shall be presumed that he had the knowledge of the result of his blow given by him and therefore, according to the provisions of Section 39 of IPC, the appellant Mangilal had voluntarily caused grave injury to the complainant Nathu and therefore, he is guilty of offence under Section 326 of IPC.However, looking to his conduct that he did not repeat the assault, he cannot be convicted of offence under Section 307 of IPC.If common intention of the appellant Teja is considered then, allegation made by Nathu and Bapuda against the appellant Teja appears to be incorrect because if Teja would have assaulted the complainant Nathu then, Nathu would have-:- 6 -:-Criminal Appeal No.718 of 1997 received other injuries.Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant Teja had any common intention alongwith the appellant Mangilal.Similarly, the trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Biniya and Kailash because they did not participate in causing injuries to the complainant Nathu and therefore, it is not proved beyond doubt that there were 5 persons intended to kill or to cause grave injury to the complainant Nathu and therefore, no unlawful assembly was constituted.In absence of any unlawful assembly, none of the accused can be convicted of offence under Section 149 of IPC.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants of offence under Section 147 of IPC and also in absence of any common intention, the appellant Teja cannot be convicted of offence under Section 307 of IPC with help of Sections 34 or 149 of IPC.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant Teja of offence under Section 307/149 of IPC.So far as the sentence is concerned, it is informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant Mangilal had surrendered before the trial Court on 25.3.1997 and he could be released on bail when an order was passed in his favour by this Court when appeal was filed and therefore, he remained in the custody for approximately 6 months and 15-:- 7 -:-Criminal Appeal No.718 of 1997 days.Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is acceptable that Mangilal was an immature person but, he was the first offender, who had given a single blow to the complainant Nathu.He has faced the trial and appeal for 19 years and therefore, looking to his custody period, it would be appropriate to reduce his jail sentence to the period for which he remained in the custody.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, appeal filed by the appellant Teja is allowed.His conviction and sentence of offence under Sections 147 and 307/149 of IPC are hereby set aside.He is acquitted from all the charges appended against him.Appeal filed by the appellant Mangilal is hereby partly allowed.His conviction and sentence of offence under Section 147 and 307/149 of IPC are hereby set aside.He is acquitted from the said charges.However, under the charge of offence under Section 307 of IPC, he is convicted of offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to the period for which he remained in the custody during the trial and appeal.At present the appellants are on bail.Their presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged.-:- 8 -:-Criminal Appeal No.718 of 1997Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 12/8/2015 Pushpendra | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 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. |
194,084,040 | Additional Commissioner of Customs" (supra) lays down the correct law in holding that it is permissible to impose penalty separately on partnership firm and its partners in adjudication S.R.JOSHI/PVR ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2016 00:00:30 ::: 53 Alt.Having recorded my respectful disagreement, I proceed to record my opinion on the issues which are arise for consideration of the larger Bench.::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2016 00:00:30 :::The issues are pure questions of law.Jupiter Exports" reported in "2007(213) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.)" lays down the correct law which holds that simultaneous penalties cannot be imposed on the firm and the partners.In the written submissions the appellants have urged as under:-Difficulties have also been experienced in the implementation of certain other provisions.The trade has been pressing for certain changes and facilities.Jasjit Singh, the Addl. | ['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,940,880 | JUDGMENT Arunachalam, J.A few of the convicts, who are now in prison for a few years in pursuance of the verdict of this Court and the Apex Court, sentencing them to the extreme penalty or law and who are awaiting execution, have thronged this Court by these writ petitions with a cry "I want to live-let me not die", though the Court had verdicted, they deserve to die.These writ petitions are mainly based on the long delay on the part of the executive in disposing of their mercy petitions.They claim to have suffered mental agony of living under the shadow of death for a long long period and clamour that they should not suffer that agony and longer.He was alleged to have committed the murder of Katheeja Ammal, Jainabgani Ammal and Abdul Majeed either by cutting with a knife or by administering cyanide poison to them.There were also charges under sections 392 read with S. 397 I.P.C., 201 and 307 IPC.R.T. No. 2 of 1979 and C.A. No. 208 of 1979 were disposed of together and by judgment dated 14th February, 1990, this Court confirmed the sentence of death imposed on the petitioner by the trial court.An order of stay was granted and execution had been stayed.The petitioner filed a mercy petition on 28-8-1985 addressed to the President of India.This petition was forwarded from prison and routed through the Governor of Tamil Nadu.Thus, there has been a delay of 2 years and 6 months in the disposal of the mercy petition by the President of India.It is also to be noticed that there is no explanation why it took 4 months for the State Government to forward the mercy petition of the petitioner to the President of India.In the counter filed by the Joint Secretary to Government, Home Department, Madras, sworn to on behalf of Respondents 2 to 5, various dates of the different proceedings in Court have been listed with a statement that in view of the stay order made by this Court in W.M.P. No. 15483 of 1985 in W.P. No. 10239 of 1985, the execution could not be carried out.The affidavit further states that by letter No. F. 9/1/86 Judicial dated 21-6-1988, the Under Secretary to Government of India, of Home Affairs, New Delhi, had informed the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home Department, Madras, that the mercy petition preferred by the petitioner to the President of India had been rejected and that the President of India was pleased to decline to interfere on behalf of the condemned prisoner Haja Mohideen.The affidavit further states that no condemned prisoner was kept in solitary confinement unless he was under sentence of death based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, .No explanation has been offered regarding the delay in consideration of the mercy petition by the Governor of Tamil Nadu as well as the President of India, undoubtedly the petitioner having a two pronged right to approach the Governor and the President for mercy.W.P. No. 6456 of 1988The petitioner in this writ petition Panchalingam is the friend of the prisoner Ekambaram, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Vellore, Ekambaram was tried in S.C. No. 143 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Session, North Arcot at Vellore, for having caused the death of his brother Chandran Chettiar, his two sons and daughters by cutting them one after another with an axe on the night of 18/19-7-1983 at their residence in Athimakulampalli village.The petitioner's approach to the Supreme Court did not yield fruit and on 17-12-1985 the sentence of death stood confirmed.The petitioner preferred a mercy petition on 5-9-1985 addressed to the President of India.Approximately 2 1/2 years delay stands unexplained.In the counter filed by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Madras, it is stated that the contention of inordinate delay in considering the mercy petition being in violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India was untenable.The allegation of the prisoner being kept in prolonged detention in illegal solitary confinement was also denied.The independent non-application of the mind by the President of India alleged in the affidavit of the petitioner was refuted as untenable.The several dates extracted earlier form part of the counter-affidavit.W.P. Nos. 7825 and 7876 of 1988These two writ petitions relate to the prisoner Subramani alias Subramaniam now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore.W.P. No. 7825 of 1988 has been filed by one K. M. Subramaniam a practising Advocate of this court and a staunch member in Kongu Vellala Community Association at Madras, on behalf of the prisoner, who is also stated to belong to the same community.This writ petition also challenges the execution of Nataraya Gounder and Nattudurai, who also belong to the same community.But as far as those two persons are concerned, this writ petition is not being disposed of in view of the impending impleading of the Central Government as a party, for consideration of their plea raised in this writ petition.Therefore, W.P. No. 7825 of 1988 will be considered only in respect of the prisoner Subramaniam, while the consideration of the cases of the other prisoners will be kept in abeyance.W.P. No. 7876 of 1988 also relates to the prisoner Subramani alias Subramaniam, this writ petition having been filed on his behalf by the Secretary, Legal Aid Centre, High Court.Subramani alias Subramaniam was tried in S.C. No. 5 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Session, Periar Division at Erode, for having caused the death of Nachimuthu Gounder, Chinnamani Ammal and Baby on 9-8-1982 at or about 6 p.m. in Thenmugam Kangayampalayam Village by cutting them with an aruval.By judgment dated 19-9-1983 the trial Judge sentenced Subramani alias Subramaniam to death.Referred Trial 9 of 1983 clubbed with C.A. No. 787 of 1983 preferred by the prisoner were together disposed of by this Court on 2-2-1984, confirming the convictions as well as the sentence imposed on the prisoner on all three counts of murder.A subsequent writ petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India in W.P. No. 106 of 1986 for commuting the sentence of death and questioning the validity of the death sentence was also dismissed.The prisoner sent a mercy petition dated 19-4-1985 addressed to the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the President of India.The Tamil Nadu Government forwarded the mercy petition addressed to the President of India only on 31-3-1986 along with the rejection order of the Governor of Tamil Nadu.In the counter-affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, it is stated that the Governor of Tamil Nadu had disposed of the mercy petition of the petitioner on 21-3-1986 and the allegation that the Governor had not disposed it of, was incorrect.It is further stated that the delay in execution was due to the fact of pendency of the prisoner's case before this Court or the Supreme Court as well as the mercy petition.The contention in the affidavit of the petitioner that the death sentence should be commuted to imprisonment for life on account of delay, according to the counter-affidavit, was untenable.The petitioner herein is the father of the prisoner Jayaprakash alias Jayaprakasam.The petitioner's son was tried in S.C. No. 89 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Session, Chingleput under 9 charges, each under section 302 IPC on the allegation that on 24-2-1984 between 3.00 and 10 p.m. at Plot No. 70, Palaniappa Nagar, he caused the death of the several persons either by beating with a casuarina stick or throttling their necks or cutting with a knife.The trial court, by judgment dated 10-10-1984 imposed death sentence on the prisoner.The appeal preferred by the prisoner in C.A. No. 703 of 1984 and the Reference R.T. 11 of 1984 were taken up together by this Court and disposed of on 9-4-1985, confirming the sentence of extreme penalty awarded by the trial court.On 22-8-1985 the prisoner preferred mercy petitions addressed to the President of India and the Governor of Tamilnadu, exercising his dual right.On the main aspect of delay, no material is furnished in the counter affidavit, offering an explanation.Having narrated the facts in all these writ petitions, our attention will have to be focussed now on the feasibility of issue of a direction not to carry out the sentence of death and the possibility of altering it into imprisonment for life.Mr. N. Natarajan, learned senior counsel, Thiru K. V. Sankaran and Thiru S. Krishnaswami, contended that the petitions for mercy under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India will have to be disposed of expeditiously by the Governor of the State and the President of India and if there was a delay in disposal of mercy petitions occurring at the instance of the executive, the sentence of death will become in executable.The mercy petition which will be relevant for consideration was sent on 22-8-1985 addressed to both the constitutional authorities. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,092,732 | avk 1::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::By the said judgment and order, appellant/accused no.1 Gulabdastagir R. Inamdar came to be convicted of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as P.C.Act, 1988, for the sake of brevity).For the offence punishable under Section 7 of the said Act, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, apart from imposition of fine of Rs.3,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.For the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.3 Facts leading to the prosecution of appellants/accused persons can be summarized thus :(a) Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, Pune, on 22nd August 2013 and lodged the complaint Exhibit 7 against appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke in his complaint Exhibit 7 made the following allegations :-(i) In November 2011, he (Santosh Bhelke) married Samiksha Borile, who was resident of the same Housing society, located at Survey No.87, Azad Nagar, Kothrud, Pune.avk 3::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc On 23rd May 2013 there was dispute between the couple over domestic issue.Two policemen then came to their house and called them to Alankar Police Outpost.Therefore, complainant/ PW1 Santosh Bhelke and his mother, so also Samiksha and her parents attended Alankar Police Outpost and met appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector and his staff.They were served with notice under Section 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Two or three days thereafter, appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, contacted complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke from his cell phone and told him to come to Alankar Police Outpost.When complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke attended Alankar Police Outpost, appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, demanded Rs.50,000/- from him by threatening that he (G.R.Inamdar) had not obtained the First Information Report (FIR) from Samiksha, but now also he can obtain the FIR.(ii) It is further averred in the complaint Exhibit 7 by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke that 2¼ months thereafter, appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, called him and informed him that Samiksha had lodged complaint and what is to be done in the matter.When complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke showed his willingness to cohabit with Samiksha, appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, said that he will conciliate and settle the matrimonial dispute and accordingly made efforts on two or three occasions to settle the matrimonial dispute.Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke further averred that in second week of August 2013, appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, again called him and demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of the work done by him, but complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke refused.Thereafter, avk 5::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, asked complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- immediately and granted time to pay rest of the amount after compromise in the matter.On this insistence by appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to him.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::(iii) According to complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, on 19 th August 2013, his wife Samiksha lodged FIR against him as well as his mother and three sisters, which resulted in registration of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Then he was released on bail.Thereupon, as per contention of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- from him by stating that he is to investigate the crime in question and he would investigate avk 7::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc the crime in a manner that the offence would not be proved and the charge-sheet favouring the accused persons would be sent to the court.It is categorically averred in the complaint by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke that appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, told him that he has already conveyed his demand of Rs.50,000/- to the friend of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke.Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke further alleged in his complaint Exhibit 7 that he informed appellant/ accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, that his financial position is not sound.Thereupon, appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, scaled down the demand to Rs.25,000/-.Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, further, reported to Anti Corruption Bureau, Pune, that he is not desirous of giving bribe to appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector and requested the Anti Corruption Bureau to take necessary action.203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc(b) PW3 Vinod Satav, Police Inspector of Anti Corruption Bureau, Pune, who is the Investigating Officer, recorded the complaint Exhibit 7 lodged by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke on 22nd August 2013 itself.Thereafter, two panch witnesses were requisitioned from the office of the Additional Director General of Police (Prison), Pune on 22/08/2013 itself.Accordingly, P.W.No.2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1) and Vijay Hile (Panch No.2) attended the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to as 'ACB' for the sake of brevity), Pune.Their consent was obtained.Then they were introduced to complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke.They verified the compliant (Exhibit 7) and thereafter put their signatures thereon.203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc(c) On 23/08/2013, both panch witnesses and the complainant came to the office of the ACB, Pune in the morning.Complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke produced government currency notes to be paid as bribe to appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.In pre-trap panchanama (Exhibit 10), this fact is noted by stating that complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke produced one currency note of Rs.500/-, two currency notes of Rs.100/- each and one currency note of Rs.500/- (though the demand was for an amount of Rs.25,000/-).Numbers of those currency notes were recorded in the pre-trap panchanama (Exhibit 10).The government currency notes produced by complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke were smeared with the anthracene powder by Police Head Constable Palande and they were checked under the ultra violet lamp.Then currency notes emitted bluish tinge.Police Head Constable Palande then folded those currency notes and kept in the left shirt pocket of the avk 10::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke.All these events were being recorded in pre-trap panchanama (Exhibit 10).Necessary instructions were imparted to the complainant/ P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke and panch witnesses.Complainant /P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke was asked to meet appellant/ accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar and to speak him in respect of work.P.W.No.2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1) was asked to hear their conversation carefully.It was further instructed to the complainant that after confirmation of the demand of bribe by appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar, then only he should hand over the tainted currency notes kept in his left shirt pocket by right hand to appellant/ accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar and then he should gave a pre- determined signal to the squad of the ACB.P.W.No.2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1) was asked to keep vigil and observe minutely as to whether bribe money is then kept by the accused.(d) Around 11.30 a.m. of 23/08/2013, raiding squad of the ACB accompanied by complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke and both panch witnesses reached near Alankar Police Outpost, where P.W.No.3 Vinod Satav, Police Inspector again reiterated the instructions and tagged the Digital Voice Recorder to the banian of complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke.P.W.No.2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) then informed P.W.No.3 Vinod Satav, Police Inspector of the ACB that complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke had introduced him avk 12::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc to appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar as surety and there was talk between both of them in respect of the work.Thereafter, P.W.No.2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) further informed P.W.No.3 Vinod Satav, Police Inspector and other staff of the ACB that complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke informed appellant/ accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar that he has an amount of Rs.20000/- with him and he will give the remaining amount in next two days.Upon that, as per recitals of P.W.No.2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch), appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar told complainant/ P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke that the entire amount be given immediately.Complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke then avk 13::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc told the appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar that he will come back in half an hour with the full amount.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::Members of the raiding team of the ACB as well as Panch No.2 Vijay Hile took their position nearby Alankar Police Outpost.Seven to eight minutes thereafter, appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar came out of the Police Outpost and went towards Kothrud.Thereafter, at about 1.20 p.m. of 23/08/2013, complainant/P.W.No.1 avk 14::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc Santosh Bhelke came out of the Police Outpost and gave pre- arranged signal.Reading squad of the ACB accompanied by Panch No.2 Vijay Hile then immediately rushed inside the Alankar Police Outpost.P.W.No.2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) was asked as to who has received the amount of illegal gratification.He pointed out appellant/accused No.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik as a person, who received the tainted currency notes.Thereafter, the Digital Voice Recorder was put off and taken in custody of the ACB.Upon checking hands and clothes of appellant/ accused No.2 S.P.Pokale in ultra violet light, those were found emitting bluish tinge showing presence of anthracene powder thereof.Tainted currency notes were recovered from right pant pocket of appellant/accused No.2 S.P.Pokale.Their serial numbers matched with the government currency notes produced by complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke.203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc(f) At about 1.50 p.m. of 23/08/2013, there was a phone call of appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar on the cell phone of appellant/accused No.2 S.P.Pokale.P.W.No.3 Vinod Satav, Police Inspector of ACB then asked appellant/accused No.2 S.P.Pokale to speak by putting on the speaker of his cellphone.Conversation between the appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar and appellant/accused No.2 S.P.Pokale was then recorded on the Digital Voice Recorder which was with P.W.No.3 Vinod Satav, Police Inspector of the ACB.(g) Appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar was then brought back to the Alankar Police Outpost and thereafter case papers of the FIR lodged by Samiksha against complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke were taken in custody by the ACB.Search of cupboard of appellant/ accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar was taken.Thereafter, the staff of the ACB along with panch witnesses and both appellants/accused went to the Police Station, Kothrud where further proceedings in respect of post-trap formalities were undertaken.Conversation avk 16::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc recorded in the Digital Voice Recorder right from verification of demand till conclusion of the trap was then heard.It was transferred on the laptop of the ACB.Transcript of the recorded conversation was prepared and incorporated in the Verification-cum-Trap panchanama (Exhibit 11).From the laptop, then recorded conversation between complainant/ P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke and appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar as well as the conversation with appellant/ accused No.2 S.P.Pokale and recorded telephonic conversation between both the accused came to be transferred to the Audio Cassette and that Cassette came to be seized.All these events including the transcript of recorded conversation during the verification of demand till end of the trap panchanama found in the Digital Voice Recorder were incorporated in the Verification-cum-Trap panchanama (Exhibit 11).(i) During the course of investigation, on 28/08/2013, both appellants/accused persons were given the Verification-cum- Trap panchanama and they were asked to read the portion conversation written against their names.That is how samples of voice of both appellants/accused persons came to be taken by recording recitals of the appellant/accused and preparing the audio cassette thereof.This event was recorded by preparing panchanama (Exhibit 15) of taking voice samples of both appellants/accused persons.That panchanama was also prepared in presence of P.W.No.2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1) and Vijay Hile.Call Detail Records of the appellants/accused persons and that of avk 18::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke were collected.(k) In order to bring home the guilt to the appellants/accused persons, prosecution has examined in all three witnesses.Exhibit Nos.12 and 13 are arrest panchanamas and Exhibit 15 is the panchanama of taking voice samples of appellants/accused persons.Allegations to that effect are bald.18 As per version of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, at the time of verification of demand, he met appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, while being accompanied by PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch).What happened at the time of demand verification is deposed in following words by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke :-".....I opened the discussion with the accused no.1 and told him that, I was short by Rs.5,000/-.Accused no.1 was insisting for entire amount of Rs.25,000/-.I assured him to pay the entire amount, provided that, there shall not be any trouble to me in future.Accused no.2 Mr.Pokale was present there.He had also participated in the discussion.Accused no.1 told avk 49::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc me to bring the amount immediately.I told him that I will withdraw the amount from ATM and come back.This evidence of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke makes it clear that appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, had participated in the conversation and demand of illegal gratification was not emanated from appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.It was complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, who offered money to appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector in present of appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik.Verification cum Trap Panchnama Exhibit 11, evidence of PW3 Vinod Satav, Investigating Officer, as well as cross-examination of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke goes to show that he was strictly instructed not to open discussion on the subject of demand or payment of bribe, but he should talk only about his work.1 This appeal is taken up for final hearing in view of the order dated 7th May 2018 of the Honourable Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3758 of 2018 filed by appellants/ accused.Appellant/accused no.2 Sunil P. Pokale came to be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C.Act, 1988, and he is sentenced to suffer avk 2::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, apart from payment of fine of Rs.3,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.Appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, at the relevant time, was working as Assistant Police Inspector, whereas appellant /accused no.2 S.P.Pokale was working as Police Naik with the Alankar Police Outpost falling under jurisdiction of Police Station Kothrud.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::Under this threat, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- to avk 4::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::When he accompanied his mother and three sisters to Kothrud Police Station, the staff working there directed him to meet appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, at Alankar Police Outpost, he being the Investigating Officer of the said offence.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::(iv) It is averred in the complaint Exhibit 7 by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke that, therefore on 22 nd August 2013, he met appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, at Alankar Police Outpost and showed him the order granting ad-interim anticipatory bail to his mother and sisters.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::avk 8::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::Panch witnesses as well as the complainant were then asked to come to the office of the ACB on 23/08/2013 for the purpose of verification of demand as well as for laying the trap.avk 9::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::He was, thus, to act as a shadow panch.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::With these recitals of P.W.No.2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1), P.W.No.3 Vinod Satav, Police Inspector and staff of the ACB came to the conclusion that there was demand of illegal gratification amounting to Rs.25000/- by appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar from complainant/ P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke and, therefore, it was decided to lay a trap.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::Those were also found to be smeared with an anthracene powder.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::avk 15::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::(h) On completion of post-trap formalities, along with covering letter (Exhibit 19), FIR (Exhibit 20) came to be lodged with avk 17::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc the Police Station, Kothrud by P.W.No.3 Vinod Satav, Police Inspector of the ACB.Accordingly, Crime No.3152 of 2013 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came to be registered against the appellants/accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::Vide letter (Exhibit 24) dated 19/09/2013 audio cassette of voice samples of both the appellants/accused so also the audio cassette of voice recording during the start of demand verification till the end of trap were sent to the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Mumbai, for report.On conclusion of investigation, the appellants/accused persons were charge- sheeted.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::(j) The learned Special Judge (ACB), Pune framed and explained charge for offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to appellants/ accused persons.They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Exhibit 23 is the letter addressed to the ACB by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pune giving details of service record of the appellants/accused persons.Exhibit 24 is the request letter for report by the ACB addressed to the Forensic Laboratory, Mumbai forwarding seized audio cassettes.Exhibits 25 to 27 are communications with and by Cellular Company.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::(l) Defence of the accused persons was that of total denial.According to appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar, API, he registered the offence against complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke on the basis of report lodged by wife Samiksha on avk 20::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc 18/08/2013 and had arrested said Santosh.He produced complainant in the Court and demanded police custody.Thereafter, on 23/08/2013, complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke came to him along with one surety and insisted him to accept the surety in pursuant to the ad-interim anticipatory bail granted to his mother and sisters.According to the defence, appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar informed him that interim bail cannot be accepted and he should bring two witness daily and also produce some documents.Thereafter, in the afternoon, complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke came alone and asked him whether he should give to Pokale saheb.Thereupon he said "yes" presuming that complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke must be asking about submission of documents.Thereafter, he left for offering namaj.So far as appellant/accused No.2 S.P.Pokale is concerned, his defence is to the effect that no work of complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke was pending with him and he had neither demanded nor accepted bribe.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::avk 21::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc 4 After hearing the parties, by the impugned Judgment and Order the learned trial Court was pleased to convict appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2)read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereas appellant/accused No.2 S.P.Pokale is convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the said Act. It is apposite to note the reasonings of the learned trial Court for recording this conviction and resultant sentence.The learned trial Court gave a finding that complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke has not supported the prosecution case on the point of acceptance of the amount in presence of P.W.No.2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1) and has changed his stand during the cross-examination.The learned trial Court further observed that the prosecution did not cross-examine complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke though it ought to have cross-examined the said witness because of his changed stand in the cross-examination.The learned trial Court further recorded that complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke has stuck up to the prosecution case in respect of the initial demand and there is avk 22::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc evidence of independent panch witness i.e. P.W.No.2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1).It is further observed that this shadow witness is a government servant working as 'Junior Clerk' with the Director General of Police (Prison), he is dutiful citizen of India, who came forward to assist the investigating agency and if his evidence is disbelieved, then it will add insult to his pride.The accused did not offer any plausible explanation as to how the accused No.2 came into possession of tainted currency notes.Call Detail Record shows that there was a phone call made by appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar to appellant/accused No.2 S.P.Pokale.With these reasonings, the learned trial Court concluded that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 22/08/2013 and 23/08/2013 and accepted the same through appellant/accused No.2 S.P.Pokale in order to avk 23::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc favour complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke in an official act.The learned trial Court further recorded a finding that both the appellants/accused misused their official position and by corrupt and illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage and thereby committed criminal misconduct.Thus, the learned trial Court itself found testimony of complainant/P.W.No.1 Santosh Bhelke unworthy of credit and had relied on part of his testimony.The appellants /accused were then convicted and sentenced on the basis of evidence of shadow panch i.e. PW2 Rahul Bodade.5 I have heard Shri.Mali, the learned Advocate appearing for both appellants/accused persons at sufficient length of time.By taking me through evidence of complainant/P.W.No.1 avk 24::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc Santosh Bhelke and by comparing it with evidence of P.W.No.2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch), the learned Advocate vehemently argued that entire evidence of prosecution regarding initial demand allegedly made by appellant/accused No.1 G.D.Inamdar is by way of omission.The learned advocate has placed reliance on various reported judgments, which I propose to deal with at the appropriate place.The learned APP on the other hand supported the impugned judgment avk 25::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc and order by contending that the purpose of recording evidence is not to test the memory of witnesses and in the case in hand, the prosecution has proved the demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::6 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the Record and Proceedings including oral as well as documentary evidence.7 Considering the charges leveled against appellants/ accused persons, in the case in hand, the prosecution will have to prove that the appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector had demanded and accepted through appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, gratification other than legal remuneration amounting to Rs.25,000/- as a motive or reward for showing favour in the official act.It will have to be avk 26::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc established that by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his position, the appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, had obtained for himself pecuniary advantage.It will have to be proved by the prosecution by cogent evidence that -::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::(a) at the time of the alleged offence, appellants/accused persons and more particularly appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, was a public servant;(b) Appellant no.1 / accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector demanded and accepted or obtained for himself gratification other than legal remuneration;Prior to appreciating, evaluating and analyzing evidence of the prosecution, let us put on record the position of law on the subject matter.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:29 :::Reliance is further placed on judgment of this court in the matter of Shri Balkrishna Bhau Desai vs. The State of Maharashtra4 to demonstrate that for seeking conviction for alleged offences, satisfactory evidence regarding demand is necessary.Paragraph 11 thereof needs 3 2015(4) RCR (Cri) Page 305 4 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 1913 5 (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 153 avk 30::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc reproduction which reads thus :::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification.While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.However, before the accused is called upon to avk 31::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution.The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness.In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person.(Vide: Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab AIR 1973 SC 498 ; T.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::10 Law regarding appreciation of evidence of trap witnesses as well as the complainant can be found in catena of judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this court.On this aspect, paragraphs 22 and 23 thereof needs reproduction and those read thus :-::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::Let us, therefore, consider evidence of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke on this aspect.However, prior to adverting to his evidence, it is apposite to put on record the spot of the incident where the initial demand as well as the avk 40::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc demand at the time of the trap and the events leading to tainted currency notes changing hands took place.This incident, according to the case of prosecution, took place at Alankar Police Outpost of Kothrud Police Station, Pune.Evidence of PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch), so also material elicited from cross-examination of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke shows that there is one hall after entering in the Alankar Police Outpost.Then, resting on backside wall of that hall, there are two cabins.Appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, used to sit in one of the cabins, whereas in another cabin, his Writer i.e. appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, used to sit.On the cabin of appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik board stating that it is cabin of "Daftari" or "Lekhnik" was hanging.Evidence of PW3 Vinod Satav, Investigating Officer of the Anti Corruption Bureau as well as Verification cum Trap Panchnama, Exhibit 11, reflects that at the time of trap, it was at this cabin of appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, he was found along with PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch).It is case of the avk 41::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc prosecution that it is in this cabin of appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, he was found with tainted government currency notes amounting to Rs.25,000/- and the incident of tainted currency notes changing hands took place inside the cabin of appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik.Subsequent discussion will reveal that this situation on the spot of the incident is relevant for determining the points involved in the instant case.14 Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke as well as his wife Samiksha were holding Masters Degree in Business Administration.The learned trial court in its judgment has observed that this complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke changed his stand in chief-examination itself and has not supported the prosecution case on the point of acceptance of illegal gratification.Instead of presence of PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) this complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke has stated in his evidence that at the time of the trap and at the time of happening of the incident of tainted currency notes changing hands, it was Panch No.2 Vijay Hile (not examined as witness by avk 42::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc the prosecution) who was present with him as a shadow panch and PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) was not present during the course of the trap.Meticulous analysis of evidence of this complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke will show that he has changed his category from the category of the forced bribe giver to the category of particeps criminis and rather than requirement of careful scrutiny of his evidence requiring general corroboration, his evidence may require corroboration in material particulars as that of evidence of accomplice, as per standard of evaluating evidence of complainant in the bribe case enunciated in the matter of M.O.Shamsudhin (supra).Careful scrutiny of evidence of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke and meticulous analysis thereof by comparing with other evidence adduced by the prosecution reflects that, without demand being emanated from appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke himself was offering money to him.This complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke was, undisputedly, arrested by appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, in the crime registered on the basis of report lodged by avk 43::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc Samiksha.His mother, as well as three sisters, were also accused in that offence, which was under investigation by appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.All these happened prior to lodging of the complaint Exhibit 7 to the Anti Corruption Bureau by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke.At that time, he was under legal advise of Advocate M.D.Pawar, as seen from his cross- examination.At the time of demand verification on 23 rd August 2013, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke had introduced PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) as surety for his mother and sisters and insisted appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, to get his surety bond executed.Appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, refused to do so by saying that it will be done after 31 st August 2013, as the interim protection was till that date.This position is clearly reflected from the prosecution case as well as evidence of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke.avk 44::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc 15 With this, let us examine what the complainant says about payment of bribe in pursuant to initial demands of appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.His cross- examination reveals that, for the first time, his wife Samiksha lodged complaint on 30th May 2013 and he received call from the police on 31st July 2013 for remaining present.On that day, his wife sought time and on 8 th August 2013, they both were advised by police to approach the Women Complaint Redressal Forum as there was no amicable settlement.It is, thus clear that, till lodging the FIR by Samiksha on 19th August 2013, there was no reason for complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke to pay the amount avk 45::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc totaling Rs.50,000/- to appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.Still, he claimed in his complaint to have paid such hefty amount to appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::The complaint Exhibit 7 makes an allegation that complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke was directed by the staff of Kothrud Police Station to meet appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, and therefore, he went and met appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, at Alankar Police Outpost, on 22 nd August 2013, when further demand of Rs.50,000/- was made to him.The complaint Exhibit 7 contains utterances of appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, made to complainant/ PW1 Santosh Bhelke.Those are to the effect that he conveyed this demand of Rs.50,000/- to friend of complainant/PW1 Santosh avk 46::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc Bhelke.The complaint Exhibit 7 contains further averment that appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, scaled down his subsequent demand to Rs.25,000/-.However, when evidence of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke is compared with this averment in the complaint Exhibit 7, then it is seen that before the court, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke is not speaking about further demand of Rs.50,000/- allegedly made on 22nd August 2013 by appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.He has not spoken about utterances of appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, that this further demand of Rs.50,000/- is conveyed to the friend of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke.Though not stated in complaint Exhibit 7, in his evidence complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke claims that he had attended Alankar Police Outpost on 22 nd August 2013 in pursuant to the phone call by appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, asking him to come and meet him.Thus, evidence regarding initial demands and payments, so also that of further demand of Rs.50,000/- made on 22nd August 2013, which was scaled down to Rs.25,000/-, is avk 47::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc totally unsatisfactory and highly doubtful.Evidence on that aspect adduced by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke is totally omnibus, vague, sweeping and inconsistent.It is hard to digest that even without there being any cause, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke would pay an hefty amount of Rs.50,000/- prior to lodging his complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::It is worthwhile to note that even as per prosecution case as well as evidence of all three prosecution witnesses, right from the beginning, digital voice recorder was hidden on person of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke and entire conversation held by him with appellants/accused persons as well as with others during the course of demand verification and trap, was being recorded therein.According to the prosecution case, the same was subsequently transferred in the audio cassette apart avk 48::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc from making transcript thereof which was incorporated in the panchnama.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::I left the police outpost...."::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::However, substantive evidence of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke shows that he straightaway opened the discussion by offering money and stating that he was short of money by Rs.5,000/-.avk 50::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc 19 PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) has deposed about the very same incident of verification of demand in the following manner.As per his version, conversation between appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector and complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke started by introducing this witness as a friend, who came to act as surety.PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) further stated that then three to four citizens came and appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, had conversation with them for five to ten minutes.Thereafter, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke told appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, that he had brought the amount of Rs.20,000/- and would pay the balance amount in two to three days.Appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, told to pay the entire amount in lump sum and complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke assured him that he would avk 51::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc come with entire amount within half an hour.Then, they left.In cross-examination, PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) has stated that all these events took place inside the cabin of appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, and in his presence appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector had not demanded bribe amount of his own from complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke.PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) has not stated about presence of appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, at the time of this discussion, though complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke had not only stated about presence of appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, but participation of appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, in the discussion.Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke has not spoken about any discussion regarding his request to accept PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) as surety or interruption of talks due to arrival of three to four citizens during the conversation, at the time of verification of demand.Both these witnesses are, however, congruous about the fact that appellant/accused no.1 avk 52::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, never made demand of illegal gratification of his own, but money was offered to him by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke.Moreover, rest of their evidence in respect of demand verification is totally inconsistent.20 Now let us examine evidence of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke and that of PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) in respect of the events occurred at the time of the actual trap.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::21 As per version of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, after fifteen to twenty minutes of returning from Alankar Police Outpost, he and Panch No.2 Vijay Hile(not examined by prosecution) were sent by the Anti Corruption Bureau to meet appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, for payment of illegal gratification in order to trap him.At the conclusion of his chief-examination, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke stated that PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) was with him at the time of the trap but avk 53::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc again in cross-examination complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke has stated that he is cocksure that at the time of the trap only one person i.e. Panch No.2 Vijay Hile(not examined by prosecution) was accompanying him and he had introduced Panch No.2 Vijay Hile(not examined by prosecution) as his tenant to appellants/accused persons.Thus, version of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke is to the effect that, infact, Panch No.2 Vijay Hile(not examined by prosecution) acted as a shadow panch to observe demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, thus, has spoken that PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) was not present and had not witnessed the incident of demand and acceptance at the time of the trap.Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke has stated about the actual incident leading to acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellants/accused persons in the following manner, in paragraph 8 of his chief-examination :-::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::"......Myself and Panch Witness No.2 entered the police outpost.Before handing over the amount I again requested both the accused to extend the help while filing the charge-sheet and both of them assured me.Accused no.2 accepted the amount and kept it in his pant pocket.I came out of the police outpost and gave pre-arranged signal.Before arrival of the A.C.B. Officials accused no.1 started his motorbike and went to offer namaz.A.C.B. Officials asked me, who had accepted the amount, I told them that accused no.2 Mr.Pokale had accepted the amount."::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::This evidence of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke shows that at the time of the trap, it was appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, who demanded bribe in presence of Panch No.2 Vijay Hile(not examined by prosecution) and had directed complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke to pay the amount of avk 55::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc bribe to appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik.Accordingly, in presence of appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke paid the amount of bribe to appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik.Then, after giving pre-arranged signal to the Anti Corruption Bureau by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke and before arrival of the raiding team of the Anti Corruption Bureau, appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, left the police outpost for offering namaz.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::22 If we go to the cross-examination of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, and particularly to paragraph 16 thereof read with paragraph 12 of the evidence of Investigating Officer PW3 Vinod Satav, then it becomes clear that entire evidence in chief- examination of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke in respect of demand of bribe by appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, at the time of the trap, has come on record by way of omission.PW3 Vinod Satav, Investigating Officer, has categorically stated that complainant/PW1 Santosh avk 56::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc Bhelke has not stated to him that as soon as he entered the police outpost, there was discussion between himself and both appellants/accused persons and then appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, inquired him as to whether he had brought the amount and when complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke said "Yes", appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, had asked complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke to hand over the same to appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik.It needs to be reiterated here that evidence regarding demand at the time of the trap and acceptance of illegal gratification is of great importance for concluding commission of such offence.If really appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, demanded the amount of illegal gratification from complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, at the time of the trap and accepted the same through appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, then there was no reason for complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, for not disclosing the same to Investigating Officer, PW3 Vinod Satav.This important fact was omitted by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke while giving his avk 57::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc statement to the Investigator in the anti corruption matter.If this material improvement in the version of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke is kept out of consideration, then his evidence reflects that even at the time of the trap, there was no demand of illegal gratification by appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, with a further direction to pay the amount of illegal gratification to appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::23 Cross-examination of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, in respect of how actual incident of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification at the time of raid by the Anti 12 (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 657 avk 58::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc Corruption Bureau happened, is also interesting.In cross- examination, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, has deposed about it in the following manner :-::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::".....It is true that as soon as I met accused no.1, I asked him whether I shall "give" and accused no.l told "give it".I again said whether to Mr.Pokale, accused no.1 said "give it"."This is how, according to evidence in cross-examination of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, the episode of demand and acceptance of the bribe took place, and that too, in the hall of Alankar Police Outpost.This admission of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, in cross-examination makes it clear that even at the time of the trap, the demand was not emanated from appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.Moreover, this admission in cross-examination probabilise the defence of appellants/accused persons that appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector had asked complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke to produce certain documents and thinking that those documents are being given, he replied to question of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, by answering "give avk 59::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc it".Evidence on record shows that appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, had informed complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke to produce two witnesses daily and also supply some documents for the purpose of investigation in the matter of the offence registered at the instance of Samiksha.That apart, evidence of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke in respect of the demand and acceptance at the time of the trap is also inconsistent and in the cross-examination this witness has virtually given up the story given in the chief-examination regarding demand of illegal gratification by appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.24 From further cross-examination of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, it is brought on record by the defence that entire episode of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and handing over and accepting the tainted currency notes, took place at the hall of Alankar Police Outpost and not in cabin.Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke was firm in stating that it did not happen that bribe was paid in cabin to appellant/accused no.1 avk 60::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.He categorically stated that he did not even enter in the cabin of appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, for this purpose.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::25 To test the veracity of version of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, let us compare it with that of shadow panch.According to the prosecution case, PW2 Rahul Bodade, Panch Witness No.1, acted as shadow panch, but complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke dislodged the prosecution case on this aspect and was firm in stating that it was Panch No.2 Vijay Hile(not examined by prosecution) who acted as shadow panch, whom he has introduced as tenant.Be that as it may, let us see what PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch according to the prosecution) says about the events which took place at the time of the trap.He deposed that, at about 1.10 p.m. of 23 rd August 2013, he, accompanied by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, entered in the Alankar Police Outpost where both appellants/accused persons were present.Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, then, told appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, avk 61::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc Assistant Police Inspector, that he had brought the amount and whether he should hand over the same to him (G.R.Inamdar).Upon that, as per version of PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch), appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, said "Yes".Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke then asked appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, as to whether he shall hand over the amount to appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik.Appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, said "Yes".Then, as per evidence of PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch), appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, said that he wanted to go for offering namaz and left Alankar Police Outpost.PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) further testified that then complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke and he himself went to the cabin of appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik and appellant/ accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, was found present in the cabin.PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) categorically deposed that, then complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke avk 62::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc paid the amount of bribe to appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, which was counted by the said accused by both hands.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::26 What is stated by this shadow panch PW2 Rahul Bodade is made further clear by him in his cross-examination.He stated that at the time of the trap, appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, did not demand bribe amount of his own.He further stated that the incident of giving and taking bribe did not happen in cabin of appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.As per version of this shadow panch PW2 Rahul Bodade, it was for the first time he saw appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik.This, in other words, implies that at the time of discussion at the time of the trap between complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke and appellant/ accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, appellant/ accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik was not present.The version of the shadow panch PW2 Rahul Bodade further shows that complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke and this shadow panch visited avk 63::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc cabin of appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, after appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector left the police outpost for offering namaz.As against this version of shadow panch PW2 Rahul Bodade, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke is stating that at the time of the trap when he and Panch No.2 Vijay Hile(not examined by prosecution) visited Alankar Police Outpost, there was joint discussion between him, appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, and appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik.Not only that, even as per version of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, at the time of demand verification also, appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, was present and had participated in discussion.Thus, not only versions of both these witnesses are divergent, even their versions in chief-examination and cross- examination are not matching.With this inconsistent and divergent evidence of the complainant and shadow panch, it is very difficult to ascertain whether PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) was the shadow panch, who accompanied complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke at the time of the avk 64::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc trap or whether, as claimed by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke, it was Panch No.2 Vijay Hile(not examined by prosecution) who accompanied him at the time of the trap.Even version of both these witnesses is not matching in respect of place of incident of transfer of tainted currency notes and manner of happenings of the incidents.Incident of demand verification and happenings thereof are stated differently by both these witnesses.Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke is very specific in stating that the entire episode of handing and taking over the bribe took place in the hall of Alankar Police Outpost, whereas PW2 Rahul Bodade::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::- shadow panch (according to the case of prosecution), is stating that at the time of the trap, they met appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, at his cabin and then after he left the police outpost, they entered in the cabin of appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, and handed over the tainted currency notes to appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik.This inconsistent evidence of two important witnesses casts serious shadow of doubt on the entire case of prosecution.Their evidence lacks assurance of trustworthiness avk 65::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc required in the criminal trial.With such discrepant evidence, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution has established demand of illegal gratification by appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector or that he has obtained the same through appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik.Critical analysis of evidence of both these witnesses reflects that their versions about the incidents of demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification are suffering from serious infirmities.They do not seem to be witnesses of the truth.These two alleged eye witnesses to the offence are coming up with a version which is even significantly different from the prosecution case.They have contradicted each other on material particulars by their inconsistent versions about the incidents.Their evidence does not show that the incidents happened in the manner alleged by the prosecution.Let us, therefore, examine whether there is any corroboration to the evidence of these two witnesses in order to cull out nuggets of truth from the version of these two witnesses and whether anything can be said, from such evidence, in favour of the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::avk 66::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc 27 As stated in opening paragraph of this judgment, right from the beginning of the process of verification of the demand till actual raid resulting in apprehending appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, with tainted currency notes, entire conversation of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke with all persons who came in his contact on 23rd August 2013, was being recorded in the digital voice recorder, which was kept concealed in his body.Even, as seen from evidence of PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) and PW3 Vinod Satav, Investigating Officer, subsequent to successful trap, there was phone call by appellant/accused no.1 G.R.Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, to appellant/accused no.2 S.P.Pokale, Police Naik, who at that time, was in custody of the avk 67::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc Anti Corruption Bureau and that conversation was also recorded in the digital voice recorder.Evidence of PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) and that of Investigating Officer PW3 Vinod Satav, makes it clear that during post trap formalities at Kothrud Police Station, the digital voice recorder was played and conversation recorded therein was heard by them.It has also come on record from evidence of these two witnesses as well as from the recitals in contemporaneous document Verification cum Trap Panchnama Exhibit 11 that the data from the digital voice recorder then came to be transferred to the laptop and audio cassette of recorded conversation came to be prepared and then it was seized.Panchnama at Exhibit 11 is clear on this aspect.28 It has come on record through evidence of PW3 Vinod Satav, Investigating Officer, that on 28th August 2013, in presence of both panch witnesses, he took sample of voice of both appellants/accused persons.The manner in which that voice avk 68::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc sample came to be taken is reflected in panchnama of taking voice samples Exhibit 15, which came to be proved by the prosecution, through evidence of PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) and PW3 Vinod Satav, Investigating Officer.Recitals in this panchnama Exhibit 15 unerringly points out that recorded version was reflected in the Verification cum Trap Panchnama Exhibit 11, as the same after transcription was also included therein.Both appellants/accused persons were made to recite and read their part of conversation reflected in Verification cum Trap Panchnama Exhibit 11 and recitals of appellants/accused persons were then came to be recorded in the audio cassette.That is how, sample of voice of both appellants/accused persons came to be taken by the Investigating Officer PW3 Vinod Satav vide Panchnama Exhibit 15 for comparing it with the recording made at the time of verification of demand and actual trap.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::29 Evidence of PW3 Vinod Satav, Investigating Officer, goes to show that during the course of investigation, along with Request Letter dated 19th September 2013 at Exhibit 24, both audio cassettes were sent for forensic examination and for supplying the necessary report as to whether the voice in the questioned recording matches with that of accused persons.However, the prosecution has not produced on record the said report.Investigating Officer PW3 Vinod Satav has not even deposed the reason for non-production of such report, though he had specifically requested the Forensic Laboratory to report as to whether the voice recorded during the Verification cum Trap Panchnama is that of both appellants/accused persons.This action on the part of the prosecution in withholding the available evidence requires me to draw adverse avk 70::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc inference against the prosecution in terms of Illustration "g" to Section 114 of the Evidence Act.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::30 The prosecution has not produced and proved electronic evidence in the form of recorded conversation though it was available with it.Production and proof of this electronic evidence in the form of recorded conversation was very relevant to establish guilt of both appellants/accused persons as ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution by examining complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke and PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) is found to be highly unsatisfactory as well as totally untrustworthy.In this view of the matter, for establishing guilt of the accused, it was avk 71::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the audio cassettes containing tape recorded conversation amongst the complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke and accused persons by following the due process of law.For the reasons best known to the prosecution, this evidence is not adduced by it creating further doubt in its case.The necessary inference which follows is that such evidence was not favourable and supporting the prosecution case.The learned advocate for appellants/accused persons rightly relied on the same.It is apposite to quote observations of the Honourable Supreme Court found in paragraphs 24 to 27 of the said judgment.Those read thus :::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::nology, scientific temper in the individual and at the institutional level is to pervade the methods of investigation.With the amendment to the Indian Evi- dence Act in 2000, Sections 65A and 65B were introduced into Chapter V relating to documen- tary evidence.Section 65A provides that con- tents of electronic records may be admitted as evidence if the criteria provided in Section 65B is complied with.The computer generated elec- tronic records in evidence are admissible at a tri- al if proved in the manner specified by Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Sub-section (1) of Sec- tion 65B makes admissible as a document, paper print out of electronic records stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 65B. Secondary evi- dence of contents of document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. PW 13 stated that he saw the full video recording of the fateful night in the CCTV camera, but he has not recorded the same in the case diary as nothing substantial to be adduced as evidence was present in it."::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::avk 73::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::Similarly, in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu , (2005) 11 SCC 600, the links between the slain terrorists and the masterminds of the attack were established only through phone call transcripts obtained from the mobile service providers." "26 The trial court in its judgment held that non-collection of CCTV footage, incomplete site plan, non-inclusion of all records and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused are in- stances of faulty investigation and the same would not affect the prosecution case.Non- pro- duction of CCTV footage, non-collection of call records (details) and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused cannot be said to avk 74::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount to withholding of best evidence.It is not the case of the prosecution that CCTV footage could not be lifted or a CD copy could not be made."::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::"27 As per Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, if a party in possession of best evi- dence which will throw light in controversy with- holds it, the court can draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that the onus of proving does not lie on him........"31 As stated earlier, conversation of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke with appellants/accused persons during the course of verification of demand since inception and till conclusion of the trap, so also telephonic conversation between both appellants/ accused persons after the trap came to be recorded in the digital voice recorder.The transcript of this recorded conversation was prepared as seen from evidence of PW2 Rahul Bodade (Panch Witness No.1/shadow panch) and PW3 Vinod Satav, Investigating Officer, as well as from the recitals of the Verification cum Trap Panchnama.It was made part of this Verification cum Trap avk 75::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc Panchnama Exhibit 11, as seen from evidence of Investigating Officer PW3 Vinod Satav, so also from recitals in the Panchnama Exhibit 15, by which voice samples of appellants/accused persons came to be seized.This Panchnama Exhibit 15 shows that both appellants/accused persons were given Verification cum Trap Panchnama and were asked to read the conversation of complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke with appellants/accused persons during the process of verification and conduct of the trap, transcribed thereat.However, perusal of Verification cum Trap Panchnama Exhibit 11 shows that no such conversation is transcribed therein.Separately prepared transcript was not proved by the prosecution by adducing necessary evidence in that regard and the same has not been exhibited before the learned trial court, after its due proof.This again gives an avk 76::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: 203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc indication that the transcribed conversation between complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke and appellants/accused persons may not be in favour of the prosecution case, and therefore, the transcript was not proved by the prosecution.Moreover, the prosecution has not explained during the course of evidence as to why such transcribed conversation between complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke and appellants/accused persons is not finding its place in the Verification cum Trap Panchnama.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::The prosecution has utterly failed to prove guilt of appellants/accused persons in respect of the charge leveled against them.33 In the result, I proceed to pass the following order : avk 78::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 :::203-APPEAL-823-2015-J.doc ORDER 1 The appeal is allowed.2 The impugned judgment and order of conviction and the resultant sentence imposed on the appellants/accused vide judgment and order dated 24th July 2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption Bureau), Pune, in Special Case No.32 of 2014 is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2018 01:21:30 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,095,064 | The petitioner seeks quashing of CC No.115 of 2012 on the file of thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai.The petitioner has been charged with the offence punishableunder Section 414 of IPC.2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant took theassistance of the first accused to withdraw and carry a sum of Rs.30.00 lakhsfrom the bank to the house of the defacto complainant.Since the defacto complainant had directly accused thefirst accused of having committed theft of Rs.5.00 lakhs, the firstrespondent police without registering a formal F.I.R had detained the firstaccused namely, Kanagaraj.3.The petitioner is a practising lawyer.He filed an application underSection 97 of Cr.PC for issuance of search warrant .According to thepetitioner herein, the said Kanagaraj was illegally detained in the premisesof the first respondent police station.Since the search warrant came to be issued immediately, thefirst accused was formally shown as arrested the remanded.Pursuant to theregistration of Crime No.494 of 2011 for the offences punishable underSections 379 (NP), 294(b), 506(i) IPC, the first accused was produced forremand before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.The first accused lodged acomplaint before the magistrate that he was ill-treated by the police andthat as a result he had suffered injuries in his shoulders.Therefore, aprivate complaint was lodged before the Human Rights Court.4.At that stage the petitioner herein was also implicated as if he hadcommitted the offence under Section 414 IPC.This implication of thepetitioner herein as A2 in this case was based on the confession said to havebeen given by the first accused.Final report was filed to this effectand the same was taken on filed by the Judicial Magistrate and summons were also issued to the petitioner.The same is sought to be quashed herein.In view of the stepstaken by the petitioner herein, he was falsely accused.6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly press the pointthat the entire prosecution as far as he is concerned is malafide in natureand was intended to wreak vengeance on him.He also pointed out that nomoney was recovered from the petitioner herein.In fact, it was shown tohave been recovered only from the first accused.A1 is already accused underSection 379 of IPC.7.There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was therecipient of the money or he facilitated its disposal.A portion of theamount was recovered only from the first accused.The remaining amount hasnot been recovered.Since there was no material to show that the petitionerhad played any role in facilitating the disposal of the stolen amount, thisCourt is of the view that the case under Section 414 of IPC has not at allbeen made out.That apart, this Court is clearly of the opinion that theprosecution had deliberately implicated the petitioner herein.The petitioner is apractising lawyer.He acted as an Advocate on behalf of the first accused.He is entitled to do.Law confers on him such a right.8.Therefore, merely because the petitioner filed a case against thepolice authorities, he has been arrayed as A2 in this case.But this Court however quashesthe case on the other grounds mentioned earlier as fas as the petitioner isconcerned.1.The Inspector of Police, Nithiravilai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,034,900 | On 07.05.2012, at about 2:35 p.m. upon intimation being received through Police Control Room (PCR), daily diary entry no.15- A was recorded at 2:35 p.m. in Police Station Dwarka Noth (Police Station) about some quarrel in the area of A Block, Sector 15, near Crl.A 793/2014 & 787/2016 Page 1 of 7 Mother Dairy booth.Upon inquiry being made, Sub Inspector Umesh Kumar (PW-15) met one Arun Tiwari (PW-8) who informed that a girl wanted to lodge a complaint and had gone into house No.E-202, Bharat Vihar, Sector 15, Dwarka.PW-15 proceeded to the said house and came across a girl (PW-6), aged about 19 years, a native of District Sidhi in Madhya Pradeh.The questioning of PW-6 revealed that she, besides two other girls (PW-7 and PW-14), also of same District of Madhya Pradesh had been victims of forcible sexual intercourse.PW-15 brought the said girls to the Police Station and the matter, for further inquiry, was handed over to Sub Inspector Nirmal Sharma (PW-19).PW-19 (the investigating officer) recorded the statement of the first mentioned girl (PW-6) vide Ex.PW-6/A which revealed that all the three girls had been victims of offences of rape, they having allegedly been seduced from their native place, and subjected to criminal intimidation, so as to be forced into sexual intercourse wherein the appellant Monika @ Rita Singh (Criminal Appeal No.793/2014) being wife of Kiran @ Kishan, respondent in State appeal (Criminal Appeal No.787/2016), having abetted the latter, he also having indulged in the offence of rape, besides co-convict Balram (Criminal Appeal No.190/2014).The girls were sent up for medical examination, their statements including under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) having been recorded before the Metropolitan Magistrate.A 793/2014 & 787/2016 Page 1 of 7On conclusion of investigation, report(s) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. were laid in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate seeking trial of four persons including appellant Monika and her husband Kiran @ Crl.A 793/2014 & 787/2016 Page 2 of 7 Kishan, the others being Balram (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.190/2014) and Pooja (since acquitted).A 793/2014 & 787/2016 Page 2 of 7Pooja was put on trial on the charge for offences punishable under Section 109 IPC and Section 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 on the allegations of she having wrongfully detained PW-6 in a room of the property rented out by her and having aided and abetted her rape, besides on the accusations constituting offence under Section 3 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 for keeping or managing a brothel house in the said tenanted room.Kiran @ Kishan could not be immediately apprehended.He was arrested on 27.12.2012 and brought to trial on the basis of supplementary charge sheet, formal charge having been framed against him on 22.02.2013 for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, the gravamen whereof was that on 03.05.2012 he had Crl.A 793/2014 & 787/2016 Page 3 of 7 committed rape against PW-7 and PW-14, having threatened the girls with death and, thus, having subjected them to criminal intimidation.A 793/2014 & 787/2016 Page 3 of 7A joint trial of all the four persons was held in the course of which the prosecution examined, in all, twenty three witnesses namely, ASI Sanjeev (PW-1); WHC Usha Rani (PW-2); Ajay Singh Shekhawat (PW-3); Lady Const.Sumitra (PW-4); Dr. Soma Mitra, (PW-5); the first prosecutrix (PW-6), the second prosecutrix (PW-7); Arun Kumar Tiwari (PW-8); Lady Constable Mukesh (PW-9); Ajay Kumar (PW-10); Dr. Uday Kumar Singh (PW-11); HC Mahavir (PW-12); HC Bijender (PW-13); the third prosecutrix (PW-14); SI Umesh Yadav (PW-15); Lady Const.Deepa (PW-16); Inspector Naresh Kumar (PW-17); HC Sat Narayan (PW-18); WSI Nirmal Sharma (PW-19); HC Yudhvir Singh (PW-20); ASI Rajender Singh (PW-21); Constable Ved Prakash (PW-22) and SI Monika (PW-23).By judgment dated 07.12.2013, Pooja and Kiran @ Kishan were acquitted.Appellant Monika was held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Sections 109/376 IPC and, by order dated 16.12.2013, she was awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default further imprisonment for nine months, with benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Balram was also held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC, he having been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.30,000/-.The criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No.793/2014) of Monika @ Rita Singh and the State appeal (Criminal Appeal No.787/2016) of the State challenging the acquittal of Kiran @ Kishan have come up Crl.A 793/2014 & 787/2016 Page 4 of 7 together for hearing against the above backdrop.A 793/2014 & 787/2016 Page 4 of 7Mr. Rajat Bali, counsel for the appellant Monika @ Rita Singh and Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Joginder Tuli, appointed as Amicus Curiae for respondent Kiran @ Kishan, have been heard at length.The trial court record has been perused.Whilst it is true that in their respective statements before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., PW-6, PW-7 and PW-14 had made allegations against all the four persons who were sent up for trial including appellant Monika @ Rita Singh and respondent Kiran @ Kishan, on close scrutiny of the evidence adduced at the trial, it is noted that there is no substantive evidence brought on record to incriminate appellant Monika @ Rita Singh or respondent Kiran @ Kishan.The evidence of the three girls, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-14, as given in the court, clearly brings out that all of them were brought from their native place by some third person, they eventually having reached the house of Monika @ Rita Singh in Delhi where she was living with her husband Kiran @ Kishan.It is clear from their court testimonies that the purpose of the girls coming to Delhi, and finding shelter in the house of Monika, was essentially to find some gainful employment.The evidence of the three girls in the court reveals that on the date in question they had been sent out by Monika so that they could visit local weekly bazar (Shani Bazar).It is from there that they appear to have been accosted by some persons, allured so as to be taken to some other place where the sexual assault statedly took place.A 793/2014 & 787/2016 Page 5 of 7Since the co-convict Balram (Criminal Appeal No.190/2014) is not pressing his appeal for hearing today, his counsel seeking adjournment on the ground he is not ready, this court refrains at this stage from making any observations with regard to allegations made against him or the role attributed to him.Be that as it may, in the court, none of the three girls (PW-6, PW-7 and PW-14) made any allegations whatsoever vis--vis appellant Monika @ Rita Singh.PW-6 spoke about she having been subjected to rape but there is no role attributed in that regard either to appellant Monika @ Rita Singh or to her husband Kiran @ Kishan.PW-7 and PW-14, on the other hand, are totally silent with regard to allegations constituting the offence of rape, criminal intimidation or abetment.It would be relevant to mention here in this context, that the evidence also reveals that the appellant Monika @ Rita Singh and her husband, respondent Kiran @ Kishan, were living in a rented accommodation.The evidence further reveals that they had a dispute with their landlord who wanted to have the rented accommodation vacated forthwith.The evidence of the three prosecutrix girls shows that while Monika @ Rita Singh had sent them out to visit the local weekly bazar, she had stayed back to look after her belongings in the house which she was expected to vacate.The statement, as made originally to the police, would further reveal that when appellant Monika @ Rita Singh later learnt about the forcible sexual intercourse against the girls, she had picked up quarrel with her husband.A 793/2014 & 787/2016 Page 6 of 7 if there was one entertained by any one, for the girls who had taken shelter in her house to be subjected to forcible sexual intercourse.This would take the steam out of charge of she aiding or assisting or abetting any person involved.A 793/2014 & 787/2016 Page 6 of 7In the above facts and circumstances, it is difficult to affirm the findings returned by the trial court vis--vis appellant Monika @ Rita Singh.Thus, the conviction of Monika @ Rita Singh for offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 376 IPC will have to be set aside.Since the evidence adduced in the court does not incriminate respondent Kiran @ Kishan in any of the offences, with which he was charged, the State appeal seeking his conviction cannot be allowed. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,940,363 | JUDGMENT C.L. Chaudhry, J.By the said order it was directed chat the petitioner be kept in Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi.It is mentioned in the detention order that the petitioner is an active criminal of the area of Police Station Saraswati Vihar.Delhi, who has indulged in acts of violence, murder attempt to murder, riots, robbery, wrongful confinement, abduction, .Mack on public servant, criminal intimidation.Place, Fir No. 490 dated 5-9-1988 under Section 394/398/342/34 Indian Penal Code and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act In this case the petitioner armed with 'Desi Katta' and a knife compelled a person and his friend to take off their clothes and took nude photographs in a room in York Hotel, New-Delhi He also snatched a gold chain and thereafter locked both the persons in the bathroom.The petitioner was apprehended and his disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the above case was recorded.He was arrested in this case but later on was discharged as he was not identified by the witnesses; (4) P.S. Saraswati Vihar, Fir No. 98/9-3-1983 under.Section 323/34 Indian Penal Code In this case the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with one unknown person stabbed one Ashok Kumar on the back and left hip because to inimical relations.The detention order was communicated to the petitioner on 14-12-1989 while he was already in Central Jail, Tihar. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,043,218 | (Delivered on 06.03.2018) As per S.K. Gangele, J:Prosecution story in brief is that the deceased had taken loan of Rs.20/- from appellant.On the date of incident appellant made demand of Rs.20/- from the deceased and abused him.The deceased told the appellant that he had no money at present in that event appellant had taken out knife from his pocket and inflicted a blow at the deceased.He was admitted in the hospital.Thereafter he was referred to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Rewa.After fourteen days from the date of incident i. e. on 17.7.1994 the deceased was died.She deposed that when deceased taking tea at Paras hotel appellant called him and inflicted blow at the deceased by knife.My husband informed me about the incident.I had taken the deceased to Police Station where we lodged report.The deceased was admitted in the Hospital at Maihar.Police filed charge sheet.Appellant abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.Trial 2 Court held appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded sentence of life with fine of Rs.1,000/-.Ms. Alka Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that conviction of the appellant is based on report lodged by the deceased himself and statement of the deceased recorded by the police treating aforesaid document as dying declaration of the deceased.Eyewitnesses turned hostile, there is no sufficient evidence to hold appellant guilty for commission of offence of murder.In alternate, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304-I of IPC.Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is sufficient evidence to hold appellant guilty for commission of offence of murder.Trial court rightly held appellant guilty and awarded proper sentence.Fatma Bi P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased.He was referred to Satna and thereafter Rewa.He was died after fourteen days of the incident.Abdul Nayeem P.W.2, Raju @ Imam Khan P. W.3, Sher 3 Khan, P. W.4 and Kallu @ Rajjav Ali Khan turned hostile.They denied that they had witnessed any incident.He deposed that I noticed one step wound on the person of the deceased.There was 22 stitches, pus was present in the cavity.Deceased received injuries on stomach and chest.He was died due to injuries suffered by him.There was injury in intestine of the deceased.R. N. Pandey P.W.7 is Investigation officer.He deposed that report was lodged at the Police Station, which is Ex. P.7 and I signed the same.Report was lodged by the deceased himself, which was recorded on the information given by the deceased.S. D. O. was requested to record dying declaration of the deceased.Statement of the deceased was also recorded.Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the Executive Magistrate.However, Executive Magistrate has not been examined.FIR is Ex. P.7, which was recorded on the instruction of the deceased.In FIR it is mentioned that the deceased had taken Rs.20/- as loan from the appellant, appellant made demand to return the money, deceased told the appellant that he had no money on that ground appellant had taken out knife from his pocket and inflicted a blow of knife on the chest of the deceased.Other persons reached at the spot.There is a statement of the deceased recorded by the SHO, which is Ex.In the aforesaid 4 statement deceased deposed same facts as mentioned above.FIR was recorded on the instruction of the deceased.There is a thumb impression of the deceased in the FIR.Statement of the deceased was also recorded.Mother of the deceased who had taken the deceased to Police Station deposed that she had taken the deceased to the Police Station where FIR was lodged by the deceased himself.She also deposed that deceased told her that appellant had inflicted blow of knife.In view of the aforesaid evidence, trial Court has rightly held appellant guilty for killing the deceased because dying declaration of the deceased was natural and could be relied.Next question is that what offence appellant had committed.It is a fact that deceased was died after fourteen days of the incident.He was admitted in the hospital. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,054,762 | Prosecutrix was a 5 or 6 year old girl.Complainant Bhagwati Bai (PW-1) is her grandmother, Savita (PW-5) is her mother and Manoj (PW-4) is her father.She lived with her parents grandmother and siblings in village Gorakhpur, P.S. Bajag, District Dindori.Her grandmother Bhagwati Bai worked as a peon in Gorakhpur branch of Central Bank of India.Appellant Chaitu Singh is their neighbour.At around 2:00 p.m. on 24 th of May, 2013, Bhagwati Bai was on her duty in the Bank.Manoj being ill, 2 was relaxing in his house.Prosecutrix, her brother Kuldeep and sister Somiya were playing besides their house.At that time, appellant Chaitu Singh took the prosecutrix inside his home on the pretext of giving her money.He shut the door and removed her panty and slacks.The appellant tried to make her lie on the cot.The frightened prosecutrix cried out.Hearing her cries, Savita rushed inside and asked the prosecutrix as to what happened.Appellant Chaitu Singh ran away from the room and lay in other room.Savita took the prosecutrix to her house and informed Manoj regar ding the incident.She also informed her mother-in-law Bhagwati on telephone, who came back and inquired about the incident from Savita and the prosecutrix.Thereafter, she rejoined her duty in the Bank and returned at about 5:00 p.m. Thereafter, Bhagwati took the prosecutrix to police outpost Gadasarai and lodged the report of the incident at about 6:00 p.m., the same day.Subsequently, the prosecutrix was sent to Dindori for medical examination.(11/11/2014) Per C.V. Sirpurkar JThis Criminal Appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.12.2013 passed by Shri R.G.Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, in Sessions Trial No.89 of 2013, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted appellant Chaitu Singh under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and for each offence has imposed imprisonment for life and a fine in the sum of Rs.2000/-.The appellant was also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months in default of payment of fine for each offence.The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as hereunder:The medical report indicated redness and swelling around vagina.Consequently, a case under section 376 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was registered.Learned trial Court framed a charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.In his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he stated that witnesses are telling a lie due to enmity and he has been falsely implicated.After trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant as stated above.The sum and substance of the prosecution evidence is that the prosecutrix was playing with her siblings besides the road near her home.Appellant Chaitu Singh took her inside his house on the pretext that he wanted the prosecutrix to fetch bidis from nearby shop.Once inside the house, the appellant removed her panty and slacks and made her lie on the cot and mounted her.The appellant inserted his finger in her private part.At that time, her mother Savita was 3 informed by her sister Somiya that accused had taken the prosecutrix inside his house and was doing something.Savita twice called out for the prosecutrix but she did not respond; whereupon, she entered house of the appellant.Seeing her the appellant put the prosecutrix down.She was trying to put her clothes back and was weeping.Savita slapped her daughter.The prosecutrix told her that appellant had mounted her and was inserting his finger into her vagina.At that time, her panty was wet and there was redness on both of her thighs.Appellant Chaitu Singh covered himself with a sheet and slept.Thereafter, she informed her mother- in-law Bhagwati Bai and husband Manoj as also their neighbours Ramvati (PW-2), Durga Bai (PW-6) and Urmila (PW-7).Legality and propriety of the finding of guilt and the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court has been assailed in this appeal on the grounds hereinafter adverted to:As such, the first official statement she made regarding the incident, was in the Court.In this regard, the Investigating officer Assistant Sub Inspector Ramesh Singh (PW-9) has explained in paragraph 4 of his cross-examination that prosecutrix was unable to speak.She was telling as to where she was sitting and where the appellant took her, only by nodding her head.However, the fact remains that the prosecutrix has given statement in the Court about 6 months after the incident and has stated in paragraph 6 of her cross-examination that she could speak as much at the time of incident as she was doing at the time of statement in the Court.She came from a rustic background and must have been under a great deal of mental trauma during the course of investigation.That apart, it has come on record that immediately after the incident, she was scolded and slapped by her mother for accompanying the appellant inside his house.She was subjected to sexual assault and was seen by her mother in that condition.In such circumstances, even an outspoken woman would be tongue tight due to embarrassment.Other than that in this case, the entire prosecution story was based upon the statements of Savita and Bhagwati Bai.Savita was also eyewitness to a part the incident.He has further stated that elder brother Panku lived in one room along with his father.The prosecutrix has admitted in paragraphs 3 & 5 of her statement that when she had gone to appellant Chaitu Singh's house, Aman and Khushi were already there and she has also admitted that when appellant made her lie on the cot; Aman, Khushi and Jagat were also there.On one of them, his father Jagat was sleeping.Moreover, Savita (PW 5) in her paragraph 7 of her deposition has stated that the appellant's father was no inside the room in which the incident took place.He was sleeping in the Parchhi (veranda) outside.It does not sound improbable for man to sexually assault a child of tender age with his father sleeping in the next room and two small children moving around in a mid-summer afternoon.It may be noted that the prosecutrix was a girl barely 5 year old.She could not be expected to be precise with regard to timing of the sequence of events.What she probably meant was that her mother entered after a short while.Therefore, this admission on her part is inconsequential.The next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that mother of prosecutrix, Savita (PW-5) has stated in paragraph 5 of her cross-examination that at the behest of her neighbour Ramvati (PW-2) she had bathed the prosecutrix and had also washed and dried her panty and slacks as they had got soiled.One more point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that grandmother of the prosecutrix, Bhagwati Bai (PW-1), has admitted in paragraph 7 of her statement that after the incident, she had returned back to her Bank and stayed there till 5:30 p.m. but she did not narrate the incident to any of the employees of the Bank nor did she tell it to any customer, though hundreds of customers visited the Bank and some of them were her acquaintances.Though, the prosecutrix is a child witness being only 5 or 6 years of age, she has asserted at more places than one during her cross-examination that she was not tutored by her grandmother or her parents to implicate the accused.Throughout her cross-examination she remained faithful to her version of the incident.Her version has been corroborated by mother Savita, who was eyewitness to a part of the incident.Her grandmother Bhagwati Bai has also supported the prosecution case to the fullest extent.The prosecution story has also got some support from Ramvati (PW-2), Manoj (PW-4) and Durga Bai (PW-6).The appellant had stated in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity.In this regard suggestion had been made to Bhagwati (PW1) 7 that the relations between the two families were inimical due to illicit relations between appellant's wife and her son Manoj.However, it has been suggested to Manoj (PW-4) in his cross-examination that there was no ill-feeling between the two families prior to incident.Manoj has also stated that there were family relations between the two sides.Now we come to the crucial point in this appeal.Prosecutrix (PW-10) has stated in paragraph No.1 of her examination-in-chief that appellant mounted her and was inserting his finger in her vagina.Her mother Savita Bai (PW-5) has deposed that the prosecutrix told her that the appellant had mounted her and was inserting finger in her vagina.Savita has also stated that there was redness on bother of her thighs and her panty was wet.Bhagwati Bai (PW-1) has stated that she was informed both by the prosecutrix and her mother that appellant was inserting finger in the private part of the prosecutrix.Dr. Manglesh Paraste (PW-8) has stated that he had found slight swelling and redness on external examination of the vagina, which was indicative of an attempt at sexual assault.However, it has never been the prosecution case that any penetrative sexual assault was made upon the prosecutrix.This part of the story has been revealed for the first time in the Court.It may be noted that Bhagwati Bai (PW-1) has stated in paragraph No.8 of her deposition that prosecutrix had informed her about insertion of finger at home and she 8 had told the police regarding the same at the time of lodging the report.She specifically denied the suggestion that this fact was disclosed by the prosecutrix for the first time at the time of medical examination, after lodging of the first information report, the next day.On the contrary Savita (PW-5) has stated the fact regarding insertion of finger was to her by the prosecutrix 3 days after the incident at the time of medical examination.Dr. Manglesh Paraste (PW-8) has also stated that there was no bleeding from the vagina.It also appears to be improbable that the accused had actually mounted the prosecutrix.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove only the following facts beyond reasonable doubt:(i) The accused took the prosecutrix inside his house.(ii) He removed her slacks and panty.(iii) He lifted her onto the cot.(iv) At that point of time, Savita made her entry, prompting the appellant to put her down.(v) By virtue of section 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, it may be presumed that the assault was made with a sexual intent.On the foundation of aforesaid facts, no offence punishable either under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code [rape] or under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [Penetrative Sexual Assault] or an attempt at any of those offences is made out.However, the prosecution has been able to prove the offence of sexual assault defined under section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, which is punishable under section 8 thereof, beyond reasonable doubt.Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,054,815 | 29.07.13 Item No. 47 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 47And In the matter of: Sweta Singh Petitioner- versus -The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Howrah Police Station Case No. 193 dated 21.03.2013 under sections 143/149/341/342/186/332/333/353 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Parties.We have seen the case diary and other material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,100,571 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.9 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent Police.Thereafter, the petitioners 1 to 3 demanded the 2nd respondent to give more money in the form of dowry.Due to the same, dispute was arose between them resultantly, the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant, left the matrimonial home.Later, it came to know to the defacto complainant that the first petitioner married the 4th petitioner on 19.11.2018 and after the said marriage, the 4th petitioner gave birth to one baby.Another allegation levelled by the 2nd respondent against the first petitioner is that the first petitioner made a cruelty towards the defacto complainant.For the allegation levelled against the first petitioner and others, the 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate and the same was forwarded to the first 2http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD)No.7509 of 2020 respondent police for registering the case and investigate the same.In the circumstances, the appeal must succeed"...Hence, in the light of the above discussions, I am of the view that the petition filed by the petitioners are devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kanyakumari2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.7http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD)No.7509 of 2020 R.PONGIAPPAN, J. | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,101,171 | ap C.R.M. 4665 of 2016 In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.06.2016 in connection with Tamluk Police Station Case No. 225 of 2016 dated 02.04.2016 under Sections 363A/366A/372/370/370A/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In re: Sk.Abdul Samad @ Abdus Samad Sk....... Petitioner Mr. Navanil De, Mr. Suman De. ...... for the petitioner Mr. Manjit Singh, Ld. P.P.Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.2 (Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,411,109 | Case diary perused.This is the first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in Crime No.214/2019, registered at Police Station- Belkhera, district Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 395, 397 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.The allegation of the prosecution is that on 20.7.2019 at village Jhalon, P.S. Belkhera, district Jabalpur the applicant alongwith other co- accused persons intercepted the complainant- Ashish Jain, who alongwith his servant, Monu Yadav who were travelling on a motor cycle.After threatening and opening fire from the country made pistol, the applicant alongwith other co-accused snatched a beg from the complainant, Ashish Jain, in which Rs.95,000/- were kept and fled away from the spot.The applicant divided the aforesaid money with the co- accused persons.It is also alleged that during investigation, the applicant was interrogated.He admitted the commission of crime and on his information in total Rs. Rs.13,000/- cash and a baseball bat were recovered.He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon him.There is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that during Digitally signed by BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Date: 09/01/2020 13:08:39 2 MCRC-49604-2019 the course of investigation, the complainant Ashish Jain and his servant Monu Yadav have not identified the applicant Dharmendra Singh Lodhi.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts narrated on behalf of the applicant, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail.Consequently, the application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant 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/- (Rs. thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the same 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 Procedure.Accordingly, the aforesaid M.Cr.C. is allowed and disposed of.Certified Copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE bks Digitally signed by BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Date: 09/01/2020 13:08:39 | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,124,746 | 2- Precisely stated facts of the case, as per prosecution, for adjudication are that sister-in-law of Jamna Prasad (wife's sister) i.e. Leelabai (PW-1) was married to accused Phooldas.For one year Leelabai was living with her children with deceased Jamna Prasad (her Jeejajee).On 24- 04-2008 in evening accused Phooldas armed with Gupti visited the home of Jamna Prasad and stabbed the deceased Jamna Prasad at his abdomen.The blows went through and 2 Cr.A.No.633/2009 through over the chest and abdomen and he got injured over left arm.On shouting by Jamna Prasad for help, Leelabai (PW-1) tried to intervene, but received blow in the hands of accused.Guddu Saini and other persons rushed to the spot.Jamna Prasad himself went to Police Station, filed the complaint.Statement was recorded, case was registered and spot map was prepared.The accused was arrested and Gupti was seized, meanwhile Jamna Prasad succumbed to injuries and died in hospital.Post mortem was done, clothes of deceased were seized and Panchnama of dead body was made.(Delivered on 19th day of June, 2018) Per Justice Anand Pathak, Appellant -Phooldas has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 01-09-2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T.No.234/2008 whereby he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine one month additional rigorous imprisonment.On chemical examination, human blood was found over Gupti and statement of witnesses were taken and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.2 Cr.3- The accused abjured his guilt.The trial was conducted in which the question was whether the death of Jamna Prasad was homicidal in nature as well as whether on 24-04-2008 in Darji Mohalla, Raghogarh accused Phooldas caused murder knowing fully well and with intention to cause death of Jamna Prasad and the third question was on the same date and spot accused Phooldas caused injury under the knowledge and intention to Leelabai and under the circumstance that the said injury may cause death to the said victim.5- It is submission of appellant that when the deceased succumbed to injuries immediately after incident then, his statement before the police and FIR lodged by him cannot be admissible as dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs.Chet Ram and others 1989 SC 1543, 3 Cr.A.No.633/2009 Sukhar Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 3883 and Munnu Raja and another Vs.The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2199} and submitted that in the instant case, as per prosecution case on 24-04-2008 at 7:30 pm, FIR has been lodged and statement was made by the deceased while he reached at Police Station in a seriously injured condition.He died at 10:25 pm but during such period of three hours no effort has been made for calling police to take service of Magistrate for recording of dying declaration or for certification of state of mind of deceased, therefore, it cannot be presumed that deceased was in conscious state of mind at the time of lodging of FIR.3 Cr.6- It is further submitted that eye-witness Leelabai (PW-1) and other witnesses were declared hostile and did not support the story of prosecution, therefore, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the appellant.Appellant also served sentence for more than 8 years, therefore, be released under Section 304 Part II of IPC while serving sentence already undergone.8- Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that testimony of deceased and statement of Leelabai under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as medical opinion established implication of accused and further through documents exhibited, pressed for affirmation of judgment and order passed by the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of appeal.9- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.10- Here in the present case, the victim was Jamna Prasad who as per contents of FIR sustained severe blows in the hands of appellant over his chest and abdomen (private 4 Cr.A.No.633/2009 part) and left arm.Medical report Ex-P/21 reflected that the appellant sustained five injuries out of which injuries No.1 and 2 were serious in nature.11- The main ground of attack of learned counsel for the appellant was in respect of FIR and statement made by the deceased, cannot be treated as dying declaration.In this regard FIR and statement made by the deceased are to be seen wherein it appears that FIR Ex-P/17 was lodged by the deceased on his own and in the description, he narrated the course of events in a very categorical terms.He narrated the reason for visit of the appellant to deceased's place and when the deceased did not entertain the demand of appellant, then the gory incident took place wherein the appellant gave blows of Gupti over the person of deceased repeatedly and when Leelabai (PW-1) tried to intervene she also sustained injuries.Her injuries are referred in the medical examination Ex-P/22 where she received two stab wounds.Scriber of FIR was fully in sense and knowledge that he made statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also (vide Ex-P/18) and FIR was also signed by the deceased.Statement contains complete course of events including the reason for such assault.4 Cr.12- According to deceased, the apprehension of appellant was illicit relationship of his wife Leelabai with him i.e. with deceased Jamna Prasad, therefore, enmity was also shown, driven by which appellant visited the place of deceased and tried to get money for his subsistence and denial of the same infuriated the appellant, therefore, not only the deceased Jamna Prasad faced the wrath of appellant but wife of appellant Leelabai also sustained injuries.5 Cr.Khilan Singh 1994 (1) MPWN Note No.128 it was held that FIR containing cause of death of its maker -may be used as dying declaration although FIR is not substantive evidence, it can be used only for corroboration or contradiction of its maker but since the deceased was has given categorical details and the course of events how enmity drove appellant to deceased's place and how he asked money and thereafter on refusal stabbed the deceased Jamna Prasad by giving blows of Gupti.This categorical statement given by maker of the FIR, leaves no iota of doubt that he made correct statement.Even otherwise, it is believed that the person who is at the verge of departure (life) does not make wrong statement.Since FIR was promptly made and statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was given, therefore, any improvement for false implication appears to be remote.14- Another glaring fact arose against the appellant is statement of Leelabai (PW-1) under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex-P/2 in which she narrated the incident as it is.Statement was recorded on 24-04-2008 on the date of incident itself, therefore, this fact also substantiates the case of prosecution.She supported the story of prosecution in his statement under Section 164 of 6 Cr.She also sustained injuries and her injuries corroborated the statement made by her under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. as well as statement made by the deceased Jamna Prasad.Although Leelabai turned hostile in her court statement and she does not support the story of prosecution when she was called upon to appear as prosecution witness but other compelling circumstances persuaded the trial Court to convict the appellant and rightly so because of statement made by Jamna Prasad in FIR as well as under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.6 Cr.15- Expert opinion Dr. Jaiprakash Chaurasiya (PW-12) medically examined the deceased and injuries were as referred as under:"i- stab wound triangle in shape 3x3x3 cm with 3 cm.Depth right side of abdomen below umbilicus, perforating into abdomen small intestine protruding out and faecal matter around the wound bleeding.ii- stab wound bleeding 1x1/2x1/2cm.iii- stab wound bleeding 1/2x1/2x/1/2cm.Left side of chest below left nipple.iv- stab wound 1/2x/12/x/1/2 cm.left side of lower back.sufficient to cause death because blows went through and through.Autopsy report was supported by Dr. Rajendra Singh Bhati (PW-8) and his report indicates that small intestine, abdominal cavity, spleen, liver kidney all were ruptured or damaged and right lung turned pale whereas left lung sustained cut injury.Cause of death was internal hemorrhage 7 Cr.A.No.633/2009 and due to injuries of stomach.Doctor as well as Investigating Officer, Dilip Singh (PW-11) supported the story of prosecution.Dilip Singh mentioned the fact that Jamna Prasad visited Police Station in injured condition along with Leelabai and Yogesh.He narrated the story as recorded in FIR, therefore, no question of after thought comes to rescue the appellant.Adding woes of appellant, weapon was also seized.19- If any culpable homicide is being committed due to sudden provocation or under the heat of passion and the conditions enumerated in Section 300 of IPC then the case of accused falls under Section 304 of IPC (from Section 302 of IPC), but here, in the present case once the appellant visited the place of deceased of his own volition accompanying Gupti and his offer of payment of money was turned down by the deceased then he used that weapon to settle the score with deceased on the ground of keeping accused's wife Leelabai with him, then he showed full of enmity and revenge for deceased.Therefore, the whole incident turned ugly.Appellant gave repeated blows to the deceased which indicates that the appellant was well prepared and he was executing the well thought of conspiracy against the deceased.7 Cr.8 Cr.Resultantly, submission of appellant cannot be allowed to sustain and the case cannot be altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I or II of IPC.20- On the basis of cumulative analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and submission made by learned counsel for the parties, there is no reason to interfere in the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant Phooldas against the judgment of conviction cannot be accepted.21- On the basis of aforesaid discussions, appeal filed by the appellant Phooldas is hereby dismissed.23- Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with record for information. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,126,076 | J, aav Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14228 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.8612 of 2019 14.10.2019 7/7http://www.judis.nic.inThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.2 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14228 of 2019The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of IPC and Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors(in financial establishment) as against the petitioners.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-Criminal complaints 4/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14228 of 2019 cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs.State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14228 of 2019Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.14.10.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav ToThe Inspector of Police Economic Offences Wing Trichy2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14228 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,126,587 | (16.09.2008) This is a suo motu revision under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code').The orders in question are passed by Shri P.L. Dinkar, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Itarsi Distt.Hoshangabad with regard to the complaint made by the noticee Deepak Agrawal against Smt. Soniya Gandhi, President, Sanyukta Pragatisheel Gathbandhan, Shri Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister, Govt. of India, Shri Hansraj Bhardwaj, Minister, Ministry of Law & Justice, Govt. of India, Sushri Ambika Soni, Minister, Culture and Tourism Ministry, Govt. of India, Shri S.T. Raghwan, Additional Secretary to Ministry of Road, Transport Rajmarg & Shipping Corporation and C. Dor.Ji, Director Indian Archeological Survey, New Delhi, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 124-A, 295 and 295A of the IPC.According to the complainant/noticee, all the six accused persons were involved in a conspiracy in pursuance of which, they had managed to submit affidavits sworn in by the accused nos. 5 and 6 before the Supreme Court in respect of the SETHUSAMUDRAM PROJECT, with intent to outrage religious feelings of Hindus who believe that SETHUSAMUDRAM, popularly known as Ramsethu or Rama's bridge was built by Lord Rama.The facts giving rise to this revision may be summed up as under :However, instead of examining the complainant at once as per the mandate of Section 200 of the Code, the learned Magistrate proceeded to fix 06.11.2007 as the date for recording of the preliminary evidence.The matter was further adjourned for the purpose to 27.12.2007 and 28.01.2008 respectively.(b) On 28.01.2008, the learned Magistrate, upon the request :: 2 ::He also directed the SHO to submit report.(d) On 07.02.2008, the SHO reported that he had not received any order to conduct investigation in to the matter.Taking note of the palpable jurisdictional errors committed by the Magistrate, this revision was entertained and notice was issued to the complainant to show cause as to why the order-dated 06.10.2007 and subsequent proceedings initiated upon his complaint should not be quashed.In response, the complainant/noticee, instead of filing a reply, has preferred to submit written arguments.With reference to these arguments, I have also heard learned panel lawyer at length.The corresponding order passed on 28.01.2008, therefore, deserves to be set aside. | ['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,941,319 | (v) chasing of dispersing lawyers inside the lanes and beating them with lathis, not individually but by a group of lathi weilding police crowding on a single victim wherever found, like many blood-hounds after a singly prey;(vi) 200 lawyers got injured including some persons of the public out of which 93 were seriously injured;And to cap it all, as if the abuse of power and authority by the Police was not enough, the Doctors of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where hundreds of injured lawyers had been taken for treatment started making notings on the Medico-Legal Certificate-proceedings that it was an accident and not an assault.That immediately after the savage beatings of the lawyers Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr. Pranab Nanda, spoke to Reauters News Agency, an International News Agency, which reported DCP Nanda saying that "lawyers tried to set the vehicles on fire and damage trucks as they tried to go to the Parliament Building in the heart of Delhi" and consequently, 3-35 lawyers were injured and taken to hospital.That Ms. Sheila Dixit, Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi visited the injured in the hospital and on 5th March, 2000 wrote a letter to Lt. Governor of Delhi with a copy to Union Home Minister stating in unequivocal terms that the Police action on the lawyers was unprecedented in the intensity of the force used on the peaceful march.She confirmed that hundreds of lawyers had received injuries and desired immediate action against the erring police officials.(b) the picture as well as the video tape also shows that there was an attack on a lady photographer from the NDTV.Admittedly, NDTV photographer did not form part of the marchers and is not a lawyer.She could not have provoked any one to be beaten and the incident of beating the photographer is just before the lathi charge.On seeing the photographer being beaten by the Police, some lawyers wanted to reach out to the young lady photographer and save her from the merciless hands of the Police.This created some chaos and the Police immediately reported to lathi charge and horse mounted police was brought into action.That the Police Officers who had ordered the brutal lathi charge or those who were admittedly in the management of the incident having failed to prevent the brutal lathi charge on the peaceful marchers are legally, vicariously and morally responsible and consequently, the Bar has been demanding suspension of these erring police officials, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police etc. who have been identified as under :On enquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, it would be seen and determined who are the others who are responsible for the same and consequently, on the recommendations of the Hon'ble, Enquiry Judge, action shall be proposed against the other erring Police officials.That the MLC Report of the injured persons are with Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Narain Hospital etc. some of the discharge summary made available to the respondent alongwith the list of 135 injured is being annexed hereto and collectively marked as is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R-7 COLLY.The respondent craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to file further list in this regard.Whatever be the merits and demerits of their objections, the lawyers had a right to protest and they decided to hold a Parliament March on 24.2.2000 to lodge their protest.The Government adopted a wrong approach and failed to discharge its obligation to apply its mind to pertinent and proximate matters.From the affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs it can be seen that even during the review on 25.3.2000, after coming to the conclusion that there is no justification to initiate disciplinary action against the police officers or toe suspend them from service, Government did not seriously and properly consider the need and desirability of transferring all the officers whose actions and conduct are the subject matter of the proposed inquiry.ORDER Cyriac Joseph, J.The petitioner Dr. B.L. Wadehra is a practicing advocate.He has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in public interest.The provocation for filing this petition is the situation arising out of the lawyer's strike which has been going on for more than one month demanding an enquiry by a Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court into the circumstances leading to the use of force and the 'lathi-charge' by the police on the lawyers during their 'Parliament March' on 24th February, 2000 and also the immediate suspension of the police officials responsible for the lathi charge.The petitioner states that though he is a part of the lawyers' fraternity and is a participant in the strike, he has approached this Court with a disturbed feeling that the continued stalemate can lead to further unhealthy developments.According to him, in order to avoid further complications and to ensure resolution of the disputes in an orderly, civilised and constitutional manner the problem needs to be tackled at this stage, instead of allowing the parties to continue their fight with hardened and inflexible attitudes.The petitioner feels that the best course to be adopted by the disputing parties is to articulate the disputed issues and to leave them for determination by this Court and that in the meanwhile the Government should be directed by this Court to suspend the police officials responsible for the 'lathi-charge' and simultaneously the lawyers also should be directed by this Court to suspend their strike and agitation.The State (NCT of Delhi); the Commissioner of Police, Delhi; the President, Delhi High Court Bar Association; the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Govt. of India; the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India and the Chairman, Delhi Bar Council are the respondents in this petition.The first prayer in the petition is to pass appropriate writ, direction or order determining and adjudicating in a final and binding manner all the points in dispute between and amongst the respondents.From the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we found that the main hurdles for solving the problem were (i) the delay in appointing a Commission of Inquiry as promised by the Government, (ii) the demand of the striking lawyers for immediate suspension of the police officers who were responsible for the lathi charge and the alleged assaults on lawyers on 24.2.2000 and (iii) the refusal of the Government to concede the said demand.In a Press Release issued by the Home Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi on 15.3.2000 it was stated that the incident of 24.2.2000 in which a number of lawyers and police officials received injuries had been reviewed as recorded on the various video tapes available and that the exact sequence of events, the disputes and the propriety of use of force and every related issue would be determined by the judicial enquiry announced by the Central Government.According to the said Press Release, it was seen from the video tapes that at the dispersal stage some police officials used force against some individual lawyers, including a lady lawyer, which was unwarranted and should have been avoided.It was also stated that the three erring officials had been identified and were being placed under suspension.It was further stated in the Press Release that the two Assistant Commissioners of Police managing the events were being transferred to facilitate a fair enquiry.However, the lawyers were not satisfied with the suspension of three policemen and the transfer of the two Assistant Commissioners of Police.The above mentioned Press Release indicated that the Government itself was satisfied that some police officials had used force which was unwarranted and should have been avoided and that the Government found it necessary to place them under suspension.The senior police officers, including the two Assistant Commissioners of Police, managing the event had allegedly failed to exercise proper control and supervision over the policemen under their charge and to prevent them from using force which admittedly was unwarranted and should have been avoided.But the Government found it necessary only to transfer the two Assistant Commissioners of Police from their respective posts in order to facilitate a fair enquiry.Under such circumstances we asked the learned Solicitor General Mr. Harish Salve whether the transfer of the two Assistant Commissioners to the Traffic Division and the defense Colony Sub-Division would adequately serve the avowed purpose of facilitating a fair enquiry and whether the Government would consider any further action in respect of the senior police officers to facilitate a fair enquiry.We also asked the learned Solicitor General about the fate of the proposed enquiry since Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Saghir Ahmad, Judge, Supreme Court had reportedly refused to preside over the proposed Commission of Inquiry.When the case came up for further consideration on 27.3.2000, the learned Solicitor General informed us that the Government had decided to appoint Mr. Justice N.C. Kochhar, a retired Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, to preside over the proposed Commission of Inquiry and that the notification was being issued.Moreover we also felt that it was not in fact necessary or proper for this Court to embark on such an adjudication when a Commission of Inquiry was being constituted to enquire into all aspects of the incident as demanded by the lawyers.Hence we made it clear to the parties that we would consider only the prayer for a direction to the Government to suspend the Police Officials from service pending the inquiry by the Commission and the prayer for a direction to the striking lawyers to suspend their strike.On request of the parties, the respondents were given time to file reply/written submissions.Respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit explaining the stand of the striking lawyers.Separate affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.(ii) to examine and report whether the force used by the police was excessive and disproportionate and, if so, fix the responsibility on the erring police officials; and(iii) to recommend and measures that need to be taken to avoid occurrence of such incidents in future."In addition to hearing arguments made on behalf of the parties we also saw the video films on the incident of 24-2-2000 in the presence of the parties/counsel.The video films were made available by the lawyers and the police.More than 200 lawyers were injured, 93 of them grivously.Some have lost their vision; many are still lying with multiple fracture etc. Some of the photographs of the incident including the lawyers who had suffered injuries are annexed hereto and collectively marked as ANNEXURE R-1 COLLY.That the following are the admitted facts of the brutal and unwarranted lathi charge on 24th February, 2000:(i) 30-40 minutes long naked display of state aggression on unarmed demonstrating lawyers by mercilessly inflicting lathi blows, sparing none whether women or men, aged or young;(ii) firing of rubber bullets aimed to injure and cause hurt;(iii) use of tear gas shells;Commissioner of Police.2. P. Nanda, Dy.Commissioner of Police.Vijay Mallick, Asstt.Commissioner of Police.T.S. Bhalla, Asstt.Commissioner of Police andMongia, Station House Officer.These officers admittedly are prima facie liable and/or responsible for the incident of 24th February, 2000 as they were in charge of and managing the incident.That on the basis of the admissions made by the Lt. Governor and the Delhi Chief Minister coupled with the visual viewing of the still photographs and the video cassette and the summary discharge report, it is abundantly clear that the lawyers were subjected to grievous injuries by the barbaric act of the Police.Seeing the gravity of the situation, the Government had requested the Police to take appropriate action in the matter.After a careful evaluation it was found that appropriate action under the disciplinary rules was to take immediate action against the officers who ex-facie were seen using force which was perhaps unwarranted.While admitting that some members of the Bar have suffered injury in the incident on 24-2-2000, it is stated that some members of the Police force also suffered injuries during the incident.Respondent No. 2 has denied the use of any fire arms to disperse such an assembly.Tear gas shells had to be used to disperse the assembly prior to ordering the cane charge.As the assembly became unlawful, broke all cordons, threw stones, attacked policemen with sticks, damaged vehicles and showed determination to march to the Parliament House, the use of force was warranted and the same was only used after the persuasion and the warnings failed. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,941,355 | JUDGMENT Desai, J.In the appeal they contended before our brother Chaturvedi that their trial for three offences committed by each of them in each of three different transactions was illegal. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,147,074 | Heard finally.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 merits of the case, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.C.No.19776 of 2014 2 on behalf of applicant deserves to be and is hereby allowed.It is directed that applicant Ravi @ Shani @ Suraj Kol 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) JUDGE SJ/- | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,147,250 | This is the first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 66/2015 registered at Police Station Noorabad, District Morena for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 323, 365, 336, 341 and 506-B of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC.It is alleged that Radheshyam Singh lodged a report on 09.06.2015 that he was coming to his village Jarerua by his motorcycle at about 4.30 PM near Karua Turning his motorcycle was intercepted by Scorpio Jeep having no. MP06CA 2768, in which the applicant Bharat Singh and other accused persons Raghunath Singh, Keshaw Singh, Vijay Singh, Dwarika Singh and Mahendra Singh armed with gun and stopped him.They with common object inflicted injuries and abused him.They took the complainant into the jeep and took him to the Beehad of Karua Village where he was again inflicted by fists and kicks.M.Cr.C. No. 12043/2015 Bharat Singh Vs.State of M.P.When Jai Singh, Banwari Singh and Jaswant Singh came to save him, accused Mahendra Singh fired on the air.Thereafter, they took the complainant in the vehicle and dropped the complainant at village Jarerua and fled from the spot.On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that there was enmity between the complainant party and the accused persons because of the election.The applicant and his associates lodged FIR registered at Crime No.65/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 323 and 506-B of IPC at Police Station Noorabad against the complainant party.The complainant party subsequently lodged the report to counter blast the report of the applicant.It is also submitted that the applicant is innocent.The applicant has no criminal antecedents.The applicant is the resident of Village Jarerua and he is not likely to abscond.Therefore, he be given the benefit of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the application for bail.On perusal of the police diary, it is found that counter case has been lodged against Dilip Singh, Ramveer Singh, complainant Radheshyam Singh, Ramlakhan, Nattha and Gabbar Singh.M.Cr.C. No. 12043/2015 Bharat Singh Vs.State of M.P.Keeping in view the above, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.It is directed that applicant make himself present before the Arresting Officer within 10 days from today and in the event of his arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.The applicant is directed to join the Investigation immediately and to fully co-operate with the investigation.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Palo) JUDGE Sateesh | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,153,274 | .2010 CRR No. 2553 of 2010 In Re:- Monoranjan Bhattacharya petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, Mr. Krishan Roy for the petitioner Heard Mr. Kallol Mondal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.Perused the impugned order. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,153,365 | Having considered the materials in the case diary and bearing in mind the prima facie involvement of the petitioner no.4 in assaulting the victim with an iron rod, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him.In the event of arrest, the petitioner nos.1 to 3 & 5 to 8 shall be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that they 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 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,153,467 | In Re : Sk.Ashadul Islam & Anr. ... Petitioners Re: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10.1.2014 in connection with Uluberia P.S. Case No. 1075of 2013 dated 25.12.2013 under Sections 147/148/149/341/186/353/333/506 of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, we reject this application for anticipatory bail.( Indira Banerjee, J. ) ( Indrajit Chatterjee, J. ) | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,257,247 | (Shyam Mohammad Sk. @ Shyam Mohammad Vs.State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Indranil Roy Mr. Aniket Mitra Ms. R. Bhattacharyya ........For the petitioner Mr. Sakya Sen Mr. Tapas Ballav Mondal ........For the State The petitioner presented this writ petition to the alleging that his son is missing and the police is not active enough to trace his whereabouts.It appears from the instructions received by Mr. Sen, learned advocate for the State from the Inspector-in-Charge, Kaliachak Police Station that on 20th February, 2014 the dead-body of the missing son of the petitioner was recovered from a mustard field whereupon Sections 302/201/109/120B, Indian Penal Code were added to Sections 364/34, Indian Penal Code in connection with Kaliachak P.S. Case No. 123/14 dated 16th February, 2014, which was registered on the complaint of the petitioner.There shall, however, be no order for costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.(Dipankar Datta, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,257,425 | The complaint lodged by the second respondent alleging that when the victim girl was alone in her home on 11.10.2018, her relative namely, the first accused had sought hammer from her.While, the victim girl requested him to adjust T.V channels, the first accused mis-behaved with her and as such, she felt ashamed and poured kerosene on her and set fire to herself.Therefore, she sustained grievous injurious and admitted into the Government Medical College Hospital, Assaripallam.Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners have no overt act in the occurrence.The entire allegations are only as against the first accused, since he only mis-behaved and as such the victim girl herself set fire.On the allegation that when the victim girl was alone in her house on 11.10.2018, the first accused had sought hammer from the victim.While the victim requested him to adjust the T.Vhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 Channel, the first accused mis-behaved with her.Therefore, she felt ashamed and poured kerosene on her and set fire on her.Therefore, she sustained injuries and taken to Government Medical College Hospital, Assaripallam.Thereafter, on 19.10.2018 she was succumbed due to the burnt injuries.They have given shelter to the first accused after the occurrence.There are material to attract the offence under Section 212 of IPC.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.301 of 2018 on the file of the firsthttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 respondent police for the offence under Sections 451, 354 (A) and 309 of IPC.Subsequently, altered into offence under Sections 452, 354 (A), 376, 306 and r/w 34 and 212 of IPC.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are totally three accused.On the confession of the first accused, the petitioners have been implicatedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 as an accused for the reason that they provided shelter to the first accused after the occurrence.Therefore, there is absolutely no prima facie case to attract any of the offence as alleged by the prosecution as against the petitioners.Insofar as the offence under Section 34 IPC is concerned, the petitioners happened to be the relative of the first accused, except that no other intention commonly to do the offence.He further submitted that insofar as the offence under Section 212 of IPC is concerned, the petitioners never gave any shelter to them and never helped him to escape from the scene of crime and as such the entire proceedings are initiated nothing but clear abuse of process of law.He further submitted that the petitioners along with first accused committed serious offence and as such he prayed for dismissal of the petition.Heard, Mr.S.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.301/2018 for the offence under Sections 451, 354 (A) and 309 of IPC.Subsequently, the victim died due to burn injuries onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 19.10.2018 and as such, the offences were altered into Sections 452, 354 (A), 376, 306 and r/w 34 and 212 of IPC.Asfaras the allegations as against the petitioners are concerned they provided shelter to the first accused and also allowed him to escape from the scene of Crime.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.10.2018, when the victim was alone in her house, the first accused requested hammer to adjust the T.V Channels as requested by her.At that juncture, the first accused mis-behaved with her and as such, she felt ashamed and poured kerosene on her.Thereafter, she set fire on her and sustained grievous injuries.Immediately, she was taken to the Government Hospital and given treatment to her.Unfortunately, on 19.10.2018 she succumbed to grievous injuries.According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners happened to be the relatives of the first accused have allowed the first accused to escape from the scene of crime and also given shelter to him after the crime committed by him.To substantiate this charges, the prosecution examined the second respondent and she stated that the petitioners have allowed the first accused to escape from the scene of crime and also they had common intention to give shelter to him after the crime.Except this allegation, no otherhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 allegations are there as against the petitioners to attract the offence as alleged by the prosecution.While pending this petition to quash the FIR, the first respondent completed investigation and filed a final report and the same has been pending for trial in PRC.No.36/2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Kulithurai.In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and another Vs.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/10 Crl.Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR.Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Singly Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made our from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc., or not.”The petitioners happened to be the relatives of the first accused, they have been falsely implicated as an accused with the simple allegation that they provided shelter to the first accused and also allowed him to escape from the scene of crime.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused mis- behaved with the victim girl and as such, she felt ashamed.Thereafter, the victim herself poured kerosene on her and set fire on her own.Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioners and the entire proceedings are nothing but clear abuse of process of law.In view of the above discussion, the proceedings in Crime No.301 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police, Puthukadai Police Station, Kanyakumari District, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners herein.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.10.2019 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No dsshttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J.1.The Inspector of Police, Puthukadai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4146 of 2019 03.10.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,258,584 | December C.R.M. 11859 of 2017 18, 2017 In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on November 27, 2017 in connection with Beldanga Police Station Case No. 93 of 2016 dated February 21, 2016 under Sections 348/323/354A/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act;And In the matter of : Abhijit Mondal ...petitioner.Versus State of West Bengal ...opposite party.Mr. Abul Hassem, ...for the petitioner.Ms. Kakali Chatterjee, ...for the State.The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the State submits that the statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.dns ( Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. ) ( Joymalya Bagchi, J. ) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,267,089 | Thefirst respondent/A2 Surendran was working as Assistant Divisional Manager.(ii)A2 Surendran was the Officer-incharge of Division No.4 of Motorthird party claim section in United India Insurance Company at Madurai.Thenature of the duty of A2 is to prepare Motor T.P.Claim note on the basis ofthe documents.A2 should be assisted for the Divisional Manager to verifyeach and every document.As per the circular issued by the Head Office ofUnited India Insurance company, if the award of the Lok Adalat isreasonable, then he approve the same and put his signature.(iii)A Motor Accidents Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.447 of 1997 wasfiled before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Madurai, claimingcompensation by the claimant, which was taken on file by the InsuranceCompany in file No.394/97, Ex.P1 series.The claim petition has been filedrelating to an accident occurred on 29.02.1996, wherein Pitchaimani sustainedinjuries by the Mini Lorry bearing Reg.In the police report, the registration number of thevehicle has not been mentioned and the case has been closed as 'Un Detected'.But, knowing fully well that the said motor accident claim petition was not afit case to refer the matter before Lok Adalat, to cause wrongful loss to theUnited India Insurance Company in the matter of paying compensation to theclaimant in file No.394/97 in M.C.O.P.No.447/97 on the file of MotorAccidents Claim Tribunal, Madurai, A1 to A3 entered into a criminalconspiracy, referred the matter before the Lok Adalat under Ex.P 10 filed ajoint memo, before the Lok Adalat settlement for Rs.25,000/- and as per thejoint memo, the award has also been passed.A2 has not obtained any opinionfrom the Advocate, who conducted the case.(v)P.W.11, Sankar, the Superintendent of Police took over theinvestigation and after getting proper permission from the Court and as perthe search warrants Ex.P 22 and 24, they prepared search list Ex.P2 23 andrecovered documents from the residence of the accused.After due completionof investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offenceas stated above.3.The learned trial Judge after following the procedure, framednecessary charges against the accused.Since the accused pleaded notguilty, to prove the charges, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and marked Exs.Accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about theincriminating evidence and circumstances.Accused denied the same and statedthat a false case has been foisted against them.No defence witness wasexamined on the side of the accused.5.Challenging the judgment of acquittal, the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, CBI, Chennai has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.6.Challenging the judgment of acquittal, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, thelearned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for C.B.I. wouldsubmit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of theprosecution witnesses.He would further submit that in the first informationreport, the name and registration number of the vehicle has not beenmentioned and there is no evidence to show that the vehicle insured with theUnited India Insurance Company was involved in the accident and withoutconsidering the same, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and it was not afit case for referring the matter before the Lok Adalat, knowing fully wellthe same, the respondents herein along with A1, have referred the matterbefore the Lok Adalat and caused a wrongful loss of Rs.25,000/- to the UnitedIndia Insurance Company and that factum was not considered by the trial Courtand hence, he prayed for setting aside the judgment of acquittal and prayedfor conviction of the respondents.7.Resisting the same, Mr.Thirupathy, learned counsel for the firstrespondent/A2 and Mr.9.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and perusal oftyped set of papers would show that A1 was the Divisional Manager, A2 was theAssistant Divisional Manager and A3 was the Panel Advocate in United IndiaInsurance Company.Relating to the accident occurred on 29.02.1996, a casehas been registered in crime No.75 of 1996 for the offence under Section 279and 337 of I.P.C. on the file of Chekkanoorani Police Station and as per theevidence of P.W.7, Cheriyan, Inspector of Police, the name and registrationnumber of the vehicle have not been mentioned in the First InformationReport.The claimant viz., Pitchaimani has filed a motor accident claimpetition in M.C.O.P.No.447 of 1997 for claiming for compensation.The casehas been entrusted with the panel Advocate Mr.Ramamoorthy, P.W.6.Thereafter, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, where, it was settled fora sum of Rs.25,000/-.Even though it was stated that the claimant takentreatment only in the Government Hospital and he sustained simple injuries,no document has been filed to prove the medical expenses.Admittedly, in the firstinformation report, the name of the vehicle and the registration number ofthe vehicle has not been mentioned, whereas, in the Lok Adalat, the matterhas been settled and award has also been passed for a sum of Rs.25,000/-.11.Admittedly, during the Lok Adalat, the amount has been settled andthereafter only, the claim note has been prepared and the respondents and A1had signed on the same.Theprosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard so far as it satisfiesthe essentials of a complete chain duly supported by appropriate evidence.But, here in this case, it is pertinent to note that the complaint has notbeen given by the Insurance Company for the dereliction of duty of therespondents, whereas, only on the source of information, the case has beenregistered and after the investigation, charge sheet has been levelledagainst the Divisional Manager and Assistant Divisional Manager and the PanelAdvocate.13.In such circumstances, there is no evidence on the side of theprosecution to prove that with a view to cause wrongful loss to the InsuranceCompany, the respondents referred the matter to Lok Adalat.Furthermore, itis well settled that if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of theevidence on records, the appellate should not disturb the finding ofacquittal recorded by the trial Court and and the view favoring the accusedhas to be taken into consideration.Therefore, I am of the view that thereis no iota of evidence before this Court to show that the first respondent/A2have committed the offences under Sections 120(b) read with 420 of I.P.C.and and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the second respondent/A3 has committedthe offence under Sections 120(b) read with 420 of I.P.C. and and Section13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section420 of I.P.C.. The trial Court has also considered the same in a properperspective and came to the correct conclusion and hence, I do not find anymerits in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.12.2009 passed in C.C.No.14 of2004 on the file of the Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai is herebyconfirmed.1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai.2.The Special District and Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,267,171 | A detailed note dated 10.01.2003 made by the Junior Engineer (UC)N, was reviewed by Tribhuvan Singh on 28.01.2003, who added several queries relating to betterment charges and permissible height.After being satisfied, he forwarded a one page note dated Crl.He is on the verge of retirement.There is no apprehension of his absconding or fleeing from justice.Similarly Navinder Kumar Sharma has throughout remained on bail and never misused the concession of bail; he is 65 years of age and is suffering from various diseases; he has deep roots in the society; he is not a previous convict; there are no chances of his absconding or fleeing from Crl.M.B.1585/2013 in CRL.A. 987/2013, Crl.M.B.1711/2013 in CRL.A. 1076/2013, Crl.It was further submitted that both the appellants were on bail throughout the trial and never misused the terms and conditions of the bail.The appellant Subhash Aggarwal has an unblemished career throughout his service.M.B.1712/2013 in CRL.A.1077/2013, Page 7 of 12 justice.M.B.1712/2013 in CRL.A.1077/2013, Page 7 of 12The applications were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor for CBI.Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under:The sentence was suspended and appellants were granted bail. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,267,228 | (J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,281,998 | This FIR was lodged by one Gunjan Sujanani, wife of one RohitSujanani.It is a long document wherein the complainant GunjanSujanani stated about her marriage with Rohit on 08.07.2003 and hebeing a resident of Nigeria.It was claimed that before the marriage,Rohit had introduced Gunjan to one Mr. Sham and Mrs. LavinaDaswani as his foster parents and also said that he had two fostersisters, namely, Vijeta Daswani (Vijeta Gajra-the appellant herein)who is a resident of Indore, Madhya Pradesh and the other being oneMs.Ritika Daswani, who resided with her mother in London.The First Information Report also made someallegations regarding the relations of her husband Rohit Sujanani withMrs.Lavina Daswani and Vijeta Daswani/Gajra, the presentappellant.It was then contended that in December, 2003, when thecomplainant had gone to Sierra Leone, Vijeta Dasawani/Gajra took 3away her diamond encrusted heavy gold pendant and chain andearring set on the pretext that she wanted to wear them once and shewould keep them at a safe place in her father's house.Thecomplainant also stated that she did not return these ornaments.Further, it was stated that in May, 2004, Mr. Rohit Sujanani and Mrs.V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.1. Leave granted.The appellant herein challenges the order passed by the HighCourt whereby the petition filed by her was dismissed.The saidpetition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India readwith Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the 2FIR No. 138/08 dated 07.08.2008 for offences under Section 498Aand 406, Indian Penal Code in the Chitranjan Park Police Station.Thereare allegations made about the demand of dowry against thehusband as also Mrs. Lavina Daswani.The demand includeddiamond neckless for Vijeta Daswani/Gajra.There was reference tosubsequent behaviour of troubling the complainant on account of thedowry demands.Lavina Daswani insisted that the complainant should keep herjewellery in London and claimed that she was slapped by herhusband on her refusal.It was further claimed that in November,2004, the present appellant, Vijeta Gajra got married during which thecomplainant had to beg for her ornaments for attending the marriage.There was a reference in the FIR to the misbehaviour on the part ofMrs.Lavina Daswani towards her and again the name of the presentappellant figured therein.At this time, the complainant claimed thatshe was pregnant for the first time and yet she was given physicaland mental ill treatment because of which she had a mis-carriage.Then there is referenceto the appellant visiting and staying with the complainant's parents forthree days and the allegation that her husband was having sexual 4relations with Vijeta Gajra, the appellant herein and Mrs.LavinaDaswani.There was a reference that during her stay the appellantwas wearing the diamond encrusted pendant and gold chain andearring set which she had taken (practically stolen) in Sierra Leone.In the last part of this lengthy FIR, there was a reference to thedemand of two crores of rupees having been made by Vijeta and hermother over the phone to the complainant as a cost of peace andmarital happiness.There was a reference to a telephonicconversation with Mrs. Lavina Daswani in this regard.There was afurther reference to an ugly scene on account of arguments.However, there was also a reference to the presence of the brother ofthe complainant on account of which further ugly scenes wereavoided.It was complained that, thereafter, the complainant and herparents tried to contact Rohit Sujanani and the Daswanis who wereavoiding them and not returning jewellery which was with VijetaGajra, Lavina Daswani and Rohit Sujanani.This complaint dated 15.04.2008 seems to have beenregistered as an FIR.It seems that on the basis of this FIR, theappellant was sent a summons under Section 160, Cr.P.C. and she 5moved the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi underSection 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Itwas also stated that the allegations made in the FIR were concocted,false and baseless and she had no connection whatsoever with thefamily of the complainant or her parents.She complained that herown marriage was being tried to be destroyed by wild allegations.TheHigh Court had passed the order disposing it of since the State'sCounsel had agreed to provide copy of the complaint and had furtherstated that in the event the FIR was registered, the applicant wouldbe informed of this fact and no coercive action would be takenagainst her till then.In her application there was a statement that she 6did not even belong to the family of the complainant, her husband orany of their relatives and that all the allegations were palpably false.It was then stated that the writ petition was filed which came to bedisposed of by the High Court.It seems that the complainant soughtthe direction to implead herself in the writ petition-cum-Section 482Cr.P.C application filed by the appellant.Following are the prayers in the said writ petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr.P.C.:"a) Quash the FIR NO. 138/2008 dated 07.08.2008 under Sections 498A/406, IPC at Police Station Chitranjan Park registered against the petitioner;b) Direct the police not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in respect of the above said complaint:c) Pass such other and further orders which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."We also desist from going into the correctness or otherwiseof these allegations as they will have to be proved by evidence. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,294,575 | Ct.40 RP 12 CRR 1805 of 2018 In the matter of : Rajesh Chatterjee & Anr.Mr. Amal Kumar Saha Mr. Iresh Paul .... For the Petitioner This is a revisional application in which the impugned order dated 02.07.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is the subject matter of assail.According to the revisionist the instant revisional application has become infructuous by reason of the order dated 21.08.2018 passed in connection with CRR 1575 of 2018 with CRN 2164 of 2018 quashing the Bankura Women Police Station Case No.25/18 dated 05.06.2018 under Sections 354A/376/511/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Advocate-on-Record filing this revisional application is present in Court.A server copy of the revisional application being CRR 1575 of 2018 with CRAN 2164 of 2018 dated 21.08.2018 quashing the aforesaid proceeding is produced and the same be kept on record.The revisional application stands disposed of for the same be coming infructuous by reason of the order allowing quashing of the entire proceeding.With the aforesaid observation, this revisional application stands disposed of.Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, may be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.(SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, J.) 3 | ['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,303,590 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the LearnedPrincipal Sub Judge, Trichy to accept the surrender of the petitioner and toconsider the recall warrant petition in connection with the case inS.C.No.100 of 2011 on his file on the date of his surrender on the same dayon merits.2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.Originally, the case was registered in Cr.No.447 of 2008for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 406 and 420 IPC @ 395 IPC.After the investigation, the offences wee altered into Section 395 IPC.Dueto non appearance of the petitioner, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued.Thepetitioner has come with an acceptable explanation for his non-appearance.The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner willco-operate with the trial.ToThe State represented byThe Inspector of Police,Cantonment Police Station (Crime) Trichy City. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,943,056 | JUDGMENT R.L. Gupta, J.(1) On 27-1-1993 I was shocked to read a news item under the caption, "Mystery shrouds girl's death" in Hindustan Times.The report stated that a young Keralite lady Bina Thomas was working as a Laboratory Technician in a private Nursing Home, Okhla which belonged to one Dr. Akbar.She was alleged to have committed suicide and that Okhla Police had tried to "hush up" the matter.Her sister, Alphonsa thomas was also reported missing for the past few weeks from her Kidwai Nagar house.They hailed from a poor family of Kerala and few years ago had come to Delhi.Alphonsa Thomas worked in a private firm in Kamla Market.In fact, the complete summary of the facts now emerges from a complaint made by her to the Sho, Pp Okhla.She said that on 16-12-92 Bina had left for the Akbar Nusring Home at about 8.00 A.M. She was hale and hearty.Alphonsa Thomas herself left the house at about 8.15 A.M. to The place of her employment in Karala Market.She returned home, by about 6.00 p.m. and she was waiting for the arrival of her sister who normally returned by about 7.00 P.M. When she did not reach by even 7.30 P.M. she telephoned the Akbar Nursing Home from a nearby shop.Dr. Akber came on the line and when she enquired from him about her sister, he informed her that her blood pressure was down and she was resting.He further informed that Bina had vomited also.Then she told the Doctor that.and Bina stay together at their Kidwai Nagar house and so requested, him to send her along with a compounder as an escort.Dr. Akbar stated, it will not be possible to send her in three wheeler and that it would be better if she come over to the Nursing Home.She, therefore, went there along with one Vikram Singh aged about 18 years in a three wheeler scooter.She found a lot of policemen standing inside and outside the Nursing Home.Dr. Akbar was also standing there.The policemen asked her residential address, employment particulars and native place.She requested the police to permit her to see her sister because she was extremely worried about her.All this happened in the presence of Dr. Akbar.Suddenly during the course of that enquiry, one policeman asked her whether she would like to see the dead body of her sister, Bina Thomas.She was taken aback and asked the policeman as to what he was talking.It was about 8.45 P.M. The policeman took her to the opposite room and when he opened the door she could see her sister hanging from a ceiling fan with a white bed sheet tied around her neck and its other end connected to the ceiling fan.Her one leg was resting on the stretcher kept in the room.The policeman immediately tried to whisk her away.But when the requested him to permit her to see her sister.Dr. Akbar told her at that stage that he will look after the funeral expenses.Thereafter she was taken to the residential portion of the building belonging to Dr. Akbar.She called her brother Jose T. Paul residing in Pts Colony near Mehrauli from the telephone at the residence of Dr. Akbar.A policeman took away the receiver from her hand at that point of time and talked to Jose.When the policeman had finished the conversation, she realised that he had not told Mr. Jose the exact place where he was to come and so she enquired from the policeman about this fact.He said that he had asked him to come to Okhla police station.By then it was 9 or 9-15 P.M. She remained there up to about 12.30 A.M. and during that period, she further says, lot of 'activities were going on in the Nursing Home piton of the building.At about 12.30 A.M., some policemen come again and asked her to accompany them to the police station.She and Vikrarn prepared to leave for the police station.She boarded the police van while Vikram came with a policeman on his motor cycle.She was made to sit in the front portion of the large van.They alighted from the police van at some distance from the police station which was covered on foot.Again some enquiries were made from her.She saw Madhusudan, who was fiancee of her sister Bina at the police station and he informed that at about 4.00 P.M. he had called Bina over telephone to discuss about the return of Bina from the Nursing Home to her house.He also informed her that when he had reached the Nursing Home by about 6.00 P.M.. the compounder lqbal, despite repeated requests, did not take him in the Nursing Home and rather said that Bina was with Dr. Akbar discussing some matters.He further informed her that by about 6.30 P.M., Dr. Akbar himself came out and asked him to sit.Thereafter Dr. Akbar came out with two police constables who asked him his name, other particulars and asked him to accompany to the police station and it was since then that Madhusudan had been sitting in the police station.He further told her that from the discussions that were going on amongst the police officials, he came to know that his fiancee Bina had died.It was the same van which had dropped them at some distance from the police station.In the end she said in her complaint that Bina was hale and hearty and she was a perfectly normal person.She was shocked to realise that she had died and she seriously suspected that; there had been some foul play.The Standing counsel (Criminal) Delhi Administration was also requested to personally assist the court.In the meanwhile two Associations, namely, Malayalees Welfare Forum (MWF) and Delhi Keralite Forum (DKF) also intervened in the matter.They were allowed to address this court.The report of the CFSL indicates that six micro slides having whitish smear, one cotton vaginal wool swab having light brownish strains, two cotton.swabs on two small sticks having dirty stains, (all pertaining to the deceased Bina Thomas) whitish viscous liquid kept in three separate vials and described as semen of Raj Kumar, iqbal Ahmed, Dr.M. J. Akbar, three cotton wool swabs with stains described as blood samples of Raj Kumar, Iqbal and Dr. M. J. Akbar respectively were forwarded to CFSL for analysis.The Chemical examiner of CFSL could not detect semen either in the microslides or vaginal swabs of the deceased.The sample semen of Raj Kumar, Iqbal Ahmed and Dr. Akbar also gave no reaction.The Sho has stated in his affidavit that the inquest proceedings were conducted under his supervision and autographs were taken before removing the dead body from its hanging position.On inspection of the dead body, no external mark of injury was found except ligature mark around the neck.He also did not find any sign of struggle.Her clothes were found intact.According to him all the symptoms of hanging were there.(2) By then it was about 2.00 A.M. Jose Paul .had.also reached the police station.They were directed to board the police van to go to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.The dead body of Bina accompanied them in the police van.The notice was returnable on.2-2-1993 and on that date the learned standing counsel filed reply on behalf of Sh, Ram Kishan, Sho of Police Station Siri Niwas Pun.It further increased my suspicion that probably the investigation was not being carried on in a fair manner by the local police.So I directed the Commissioner of Police to hand over the investigation of the case to the Crime Branch.I also directed the local police to file a report in respect of the.investigation taken till date.(4) In fact, the photo copy of the complaint made by Alphonsa to the Sho, Pp Okhla has been appended with the intervention application of Mwf who were allowed to intervene in this matter and address arguments.Thus I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the aforesaid Forum and Mr. P. S. Sharma on behalf of the State.Mr. Francis who appeared on behalf of Dkf has adopted arguments of learned counsel for the other Forum.The occurrence had taken place on 16-12-92 only and from almost 8.30 P.M. to about 2.00 A.M. on the night between 16/17-12-92 she was either in the nursing home or the police station itself.Then she accompanied the dead body of her sister to the hospital and a lot of tune must have been consumed in various formalities.In this complaint, Alphonsa clearly mentioned that she suspected some foul play seriously in the death of her sister and that her sister had been killed and then suspended from the ceiling fan with the aid of the bed sheet.She further mentioned that conduct of Dr. Akbar was highly suspicions.I have examined the case diary of the police and English translation thereof under my direction has been.handed over to me.In the background of the complaint made by Alphonsa to the Sho, it is not possible for me to understand as to how the police mentioned in the statement of Alphonsa that she had no suspicion regarding the death of her sister and that she had committed suicide.In the case diary of 22-3 2-92, it is mentioned by the police that according to the opinion of the Doctor in the post mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia resulting from hanging and that findings were suggestive of recent sexual intercourse before death with no ante mortem injury or sign of struggle.However, there was a ligature mark around the neck.As is apparent from the complaint dated 17-12-92 of Alphonsa she had suspected the conduct of Dr. M. J. Akbar regarding the death of her sister and that there was definitely some foul play.It is not possible for me to believe the statement attributed to Alphas by the Investigating Officer before him on 22-12-92 that she will gave information, if anything came to her knowledge after her return from Kerala after performing last rites of Bina.It is rather strange that in her complaint dated 17-12-92 Alphonsa made definite allegations regarding her suspicion upon Dr: Akbar and the police officer attributing the statement to her that she will supply information, if any, after her return from Kerala.On that date also according to the police she did not suspect any foul play about the suicide of her sister but only wanted to know the reasons, of suicide.In this case neither they recorded the Fir on the day Alphonsa made complaint to them nor investigated the case according to law.Non-registration of the case by the local police gave an initial set back to the discovery of truth during the course of investigation.It rightly infuriated the media and the common man to believe that the police was trying to "hush up" the case.The functionaries of Mwf and Dkf were running from pillar to post' with Alphonsa so that a proper investigation could be carried out in the whole sordid affair and culprits brought to book.(8) The Sho has admitted in his affidavit filed on 20-2-93 that Dr. Akbar had told him that Madhusudan used to come with Bina J Thomas.Raj Kumar, a servant of the Nursing Home 5s also shown in the case diary to have told the police that a telephone call had come from Madhusudan for Bina Thomas at about 4.00 p.m. and also that he used to come to take Bina from the clinic.Thus the 'relationship or the intimacy between Madhusudan and Bina were known to Dr. Akbar as well as his employees but in spite of that when Madhusudan came to the Nursing Home that day, he was not allowed to see the dead body of Bina because in that situation if that fact had come to his knowledge, he would have immediately informed Alphonsa.When at about 7.30 P.M. she rang up in the Nursing Home to find out as to why her sister had not arrived.Dr. Akbar told him that her blood pressure was down and that she was resting and also that she had vomited.At that stage Dr. Akbar did not consider it fit to request her to come immediately.If he was really interested to avoid shock to Alphonsa, at the very first instance he would have told her that her condition was not good and, therefore, she should come to take her.It was only when Alphonsa requested him to send her along with the Compounder that he asked her to come.Even on her reaching the Nursing Home, she found lot of policemen standing inside and outside the Nursing Home as well as Dr. Akbar.Dr. Akbar even then did not inform Alphonsa about the fate of Bina and it was rather the same police official who started interrogating her about her residential address, employment particulars and her native place.She him that she was extremely worried about her sister and that she should be permitted to see her.Even then Dr. Akbar did not tell her anything and it was the police officer, during the course of inquiry.who told her if she would like to see the dead body of her sister.The second possibility was definitely required to be ruled out.The statement put in the mouth of Alphonsa by the local police that she did not suspect foul play, is prima facie not correct when she is shown to be running from pillar to post to seek justice and clearly spelling out her suspicion.By an interim order on 3-2-1993, this Court had transferred the investigation to the crime branch.It is my fervent hope that now during investigation an all out attempt will be made to bring the culprits to book. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,305,687 | lodgment of crime and was studying in 9th Standard in a High School, atBandra.The mother (P.W. No.1) of the prosecutrix was a housemaid andher father was working as a delivery man with one company.They hadmobile phone bearing No.9819418058 at their home.The prosecutrix called back on the said number,whereupon, the person on the other end told his name as 'Aaditya'(Appellant herein).The Appellant introduced himself as a person takingeducation in 12th Standard and working in a private company as Driver.Healso told that, he plays Piano.Thereafter, the prosecutrix and the Appellantused to talk on mobile phone.The Appellant in due course, asked theprosecutrix as to whether she likes him.After some days, the prosecutrixanswered him in affirmative.The father of the prosecutrix noticed hertalking on the mobile phone with somebody and therefore, he removed thesim card from it.The prosecutrix told the said fact to the Appellant.TheAppellant bought a sim card No.9659632383 for the prosecutrix and gave itto her.At that time, the prosecutrix firstly met Appellant personally.Theprosecutrix used to talk with the Appellant from the new sim card.Thereafter, on two occasions, the Appellant met prosecutrix.As theprosecutrix's mother did not allow her to use mobile phone for long time,she got annoyed.On 4th December, 2013, under the pretext of purchasing a 3/21 ssm 4 Appeal367.16.docsports slacks, the prosecutrix left home and went away with the Appellant.Appellant took her to his native village, namely Bhingargaon near Panvel.Appellant introduced prosecutrix to his mother and sister as his friend andtold them that, her uncle had left her at Panvel station and for her safety, hehad brought her home.That, on the next day, he would leave her to herhouse.(ii) On 5th December, 2013, the Appellant took prosecutrix toPen.He booked a room in Kohinoor lodge at Pen and committed sexualintercourse with her.On 6th December, 2013, the Appellant and prosecutrixreturned to Panvel.The Appellant was running short of money, rather hewas not having money, and therefore, he pawned prosecutrix's gold chainwith Mahendra Kothariya, (P.W. No. 8) a Jeweller, through his friend BaluH. Bhopi (P.W. No. 13) and received Rs.4,000/- from him.They thereafter,stayed at Panvel in one lodge where the Appellant committed sexualintercourse with the prosecutrix.There also, theAppellant established physical relations with the prosecutrix.He started initial investigation of the present crime.(iv) From 5th December, 2013 to 7th December, 2013, theAppellant was receiving phone calls on his mobile.He was falselyinforming the persons on the other side that, the prosecutrix was not withhim.On 7th December, 2013, he received a phone call from his sisterinforming him that, police had been to his house.The Appellant therefore,told the prosecutrix to go back to her home.He dropped her at BandraRailway Station.From Bandra Railway Station the prosecutrix went toKhardanda and called her mother at Khardanda bus stop.Mother ofprosecutrix and police came at Khardanda and took her to police station.Her statement was recorded by the police and on the basis of the same,offences punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act and under Section 376of the IPC were added to the present crime.(v) The record indicates that, further investigation washanded over to Police Inspector, Sanjay P. Patil (P.W. No.14).Assistant PoliceInspector, Mr. Vishal V. Mane (P.W. No.15) was assisting Police InspectorSanjay Patil in investigating the present crime.The Investigating Officer gotthe Appellant and prosecutrix examined from the Medical Officers.TheInvestigating Agency also seized clothes of Appellant and prosecutrix.ssm 6 Appeal367.16.docInvestigating Officer visited Kohinoor lodge at Pen and Anand lodge atNagothane and effected necessary seizure of clothes and extracts of LodgeRegisters.Record indicates that, the statement ofprosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short,"Cr.P.C.") was also recorded.That, no stains or any other incriminating material is found onthe clothes of the prosecutrix.He submitted that, the bill of purchase ofgold chain, which was allegedly worn by the prosecutrix, has not beenproduced by the prosecution and therefore, its identity is disputed.Hesubmitted that, the hand-writing of the Appellant in the Registers of thesaid two hotels, is not proved by the prosecution.7 P.W. No.1 is the mother of prosecutrix.She has deposed that,the date of birth of prosecutrix is 9th January, 2000 and has produced onrecord and proved Birth Certificate (Exh.12) of prosecutrix issued by the 8/21 ssm 9 Appeal367.16.docMunicipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.That, on 4 th December, 2013,the prosecutrix went to school as usual and returned at about 2.30 p.m.P.W. No.1 also returned home at about 3.00 p.m.. Prosecutrix wanted topurchase a new slacks for participating in the tournament and therefore,she gave Rs.100/- to her.P.W. No.1 thereafter, went to hospital along withher daughter Savita who was suffering from Toothache.P.W. No.1 returnedhome at about 8.00 p.m.. Prosecutrix did not return home and therefore,P.W. No.1 took her search at all possible places in the vicinity, however,prosecutrix could not be found.She therefor,e lodged First InformationReport (Exh.11 colly).After four days, on Saturday, prosecutrix called her and askedher to take her from Khardanda, Dhanpada bus stop.Police reached at thesaid spot before her reaching.P.W. No.1, prosecutrix and police went toSantacruz police station by Auto-rickshaw.She asked prosecutrix, whethershe had physical relationship to which, prosecutrix answered affirmativelyand told her that, she had physical relations with 'Aaditya' (Appellant).Medical Examination of the prosecutrix was carried out on the same day.On 14th December, 2013, she identified gold chain (Article-1) produced bypolice, which was on the person of prosecutrix at the time of incident.In her cross-examination, minor improvements and fewomissions have been brought on record, which according to this Court, arenot at all beneficial to the Appellant and the testimony of P.W. No.1 with 9/21 ssm 10 Appeal367.16.docrespect to material points remained unshaken.8 Prosecutrix (P.W.No.2) has deposed that, she was residing withfather, mother and one sister.She has taken education in Apostolic CarmelHigh School at Bandra in 9th Standard.She called back the said number and the person on theother end told his name as 'Aaditya'.From that phone call, she gotacquainted with 'Aaditya' (Appellant).He used to talk with her on phoneand subsequently asked her, whether she likes him.After few days, sheanswered him in affirmative.Her father noticed her talking on phone andtherefore, he removed the sim card from it.At that time, she met him for the first time.He told herthat, he was taking education in 12 th Standard and was working with aprivate company as a Driver and used to play Piano.That, on the next day of4th December, 2013 there was sports day in her school and therefore, shewent to market near the Santacruz station for purchasing slacks.Beforethat, the Appellant had called her and told her that, he was coming tomarket near Santacruz Railway station.She met him there and thereafter,they went to Panvel by train and thereafter by a Jeep to the native place of 10/21 ssm 11 Appeal367.16.docAppellant.In the night at around 1.00 a.m., they reached to the nativeplace of the Appellant and stayed at the house of the Appellant.Appellantintroduced her to his mother and sister as his friend and told them that, hermaternal uncle had left her near Panvel Railway station and therefore, hebrought her to house for safety.When the mother and sister of Appellantasked her, whether she was having a phone number of her family members,to which as per the directions of the Appellant, she denied.9 That, on 5th December, 2013, in the morning, the Appellant toldhis mother that, he was going to reach the prosecutrix at Panvel station andthey left house at about 11.30 a.m.. From Panvel station, the Appellanttook prosecutrix to Pen.There he booked one room in Kohinoor lodge.Inthe Register of the said lodge, the Appellant entered his name as 'DeepakSada Parab' and the name of prosecutrix as 'Mrs. _________ Sada Parab'.The prosecutrix has identified signatures of Appellant and herself, whichare marked as Q-1 and Q-2 respectively.The said signatures are appearingfrom the extract of Register entries (Exh.14) of Kohinoor lodge.TheAppellant committed sexual intercourse with her there.On 6 th December,2013, they came to Panvel.As no money was left with them, the Appellanttook her gold chain which was on her person, pawned it and receivedRs.4,000/-.Then, he booked a room at Panvel in one lodge and there alsohe had sexual intercourse with her.Prosecutrix has identified the goldchain (Article-1) in Court.That, on 7th December, 2013, they went to 11/21 ssm 12 Appeal367.16.docNagothane and booked a room in a lodge through the friend of theAppellant on mobile.The Appellant committed sexual intercourse with herat that place also.There were phone calls from her family and police onAppellant's mobile making inquiry about her to which, the Appellantanswered that, he did not know anything about her.On 7 th December,2013, Aaditya received phone call from his sister and she told him that,police had been to their house for inquiry.Both of them got frightened andthe Appellant told her to go back to home.Appellant dropped her atBandra Railway station and went to his house.She engaged rickshaw, cameto Khardanda and gave phone call to her mother.Her mother came atKhardanda bus stop.Police were already there at the spot.The prosecutrixalong with her mother, went to Santacruz police station where, policerecorded her statement and send her for Medical Examination.Policeinformed her that, the Appellant was married.Before that, she was notknowing the fact of his marriage.However, in the cross-examination, certain admissions have beenbrought on record, which are detrimental to the Appellant.Prosecutrix hasadmitted that, the Appellant was calling her and therefore, she used to talk 12/21 ssm 13 Appeal367.16.docwith him and because of it, she developed love affair with the Appellant.The Appellant told her that, he was studying in 12 th Standard and workingin a company.On the date of incident, she received a call from theAppellant two hours prior to going to Santacruz.That, the Appellant haddirected her not to tell anything to his family members at his house atPanvel.She has admitted that, police were calling on the mobile ofAaditya.After meeting her mother at Khardanda bus stop when she sawher mother crying, her fear, for her mother, got reduced and she felt that,she had committed a mistake.In police station, she came to know that, theAppellant is a married man having one daughter.That, after coming toknow that the Appellant was married, she felt that the person for whom sheleft her parents has cheated her.After knowing the fact that, the Appellantwas a married person, she got angry as the Appellant had cheated her andtherefore, she has stated whatever the Appellant had done with her.The prosecutrix has denied all suggestions given by the defencecounsel and has maintained her version as narrated hereinabove in herexamination-in-chief.10 The prosecution has established the fact of stay of Appellantand prosecutrix at Kohinoor lodge at Pen by examining Niket R. Shahane(P.W. No.3), Manager of Kohinoor lodge.He has proved the entry of theAppellant from the Hotel Register (Exh.14) and the signatures of Appellant 13/21 ssm 14 Appeal367.16.docand prosecutrix.He has also identified the Appellant as the same personwho had been to his lodge along with prosecutrix on 5 th December, 2013.Hemant R. Bhoir (P.W. No.4), is the panch witness to the spot and seizurepanchanama (Exh.17) of the Articles from Kohinoor lodge and he hasproved the said document.Irfan Ali Khan Bubere (P.W. No.5) is the panchwitness for seizure of clothes, bedsheet and blankets from Anand lodge,Nagothane under a panchanama (Exh.19) where, the Appellant andprosecutrix had stayed on that day.11 Dr. Baban S. Shinde (P.W. No.6) had examined the Appellant on9th December, 2013 at Police Hospital, Nagpada.From medical examinationof the Appellant nothing was found to him to suggest that, the Appellantwas impotent.Dr. Kiran Kalyankar, (P.W.No.7) was working at Police Hospital,Nagpada as a Medical Officer.On 8 th December, 2013, he examinedprosecutrix, who was brought by Santacruz police station.Beforeexamination, he jotted down history given by the prosecutrix.Theprosecutrix narrated him that, she was having love affair with the Appellantsince last 3 months.She had quarrel with her mother a week ago and in afit of rage, she called the Appellant and they fled away on 4 th December,2013 to Vashi at the house of Appellant.They, thereafter went to Pune, 14/21 ssm 15 Appeal367.16.docPanvel and Nagothane.She had repeated multiple consensual sexualcontacts with the Appellant during the said four days.In her localexamination, he found position of tears at 9, 12, 2, 5 and 6 O'Clock.Largetears at 5 and 6 O'clock position were in healing stage.She got infatuated by the rosy picture depicted by theAppellant and left her parents house.The Appellant by suppressing the factthat, he was a married man, lured the prosecutrix to join him and hasfurther exploited her.The Appellant has questioned correctness of Judgment andOrder dated 5th March, 2016, passed in Sessions Case No.49 of 2014 by thelearned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Greater Mumbai, convicting theAppellant under Section 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual 1/21 ssm 2 Appeal367.16.docOffences Act, 2012 (for short, "the POCSO Act") and is sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for Ten years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, indefault of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for Onemonth and under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short,"IPC") and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for One year and topay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further suffersimple imprisonment for One month.As the Appellant has been convictedunder Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the Trial Court has not punished himseparately for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, as perthe provision of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court has directedthat, the substantive sentences imposed upon the Appellant to runconcurrently.2 Heard Mr. Rajput learned counsel for the Appellant and Smt.Ambekar, learned APP for the State.Perused entire record.3 The prosecutrix (P.W. No.2) was aged about 13 years on thedate of commission of the alleged offence and with a view to protect heridentity and in consonance with the provisions of Section 228(A) of the IPCand Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act, the names of material witnesses anddetailed narration of facts mentioned in the statement of the prosecutrixand relevant witnesses is hereby avoided.After completion of investigation, policesubmitted charge-sheet before the Trial Court.(vi) Trial Court framed charge below Exh.4 for the offencespunishable under Sections 376 and 366(A) of the IPC and under Section 4of the POCSO Act. The said charge was read over and explained to theAppellant in Marathi vernacular.Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimedto be tried.The Trial Court after recording evidence and hearing thelearned Advocates for the respective parties was pleased to convictAppellant by its impugned Judgment and Order dated 5 th March, 2016 asnoted earlier.5 Mr. Rajput, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that,the prosecutrix at the time of her medical examination by Dr.That, she had quarrel with her mothera week ago and in a fit of rage, she called the Appellant and thereafter, theyfled away on 4th December, 2013 to Vashi/Panvel at his house.That, the 6/21 ssm 7 Appeal367.16.docprosecutrix has admitted that, she had multiple consensual sexual contactswith the Appellant in the said four days.He submitted that, theprosecutrix had voluntarily left the house and had joined the company ofthe Appellant.The Manager of Kohinoor lodge (PW. No.3), has admittedthat, the prosecutrix disclosed her age as 24 years to him and also told himthat, she was wife of Appellant.The said witness noticed the prosecutrix asa happily married person.He submitted that, it is therefore clear that, theprosecutrix willingly joined the Appellant and was a consenting party to thealleged crime.He submitted that, the statement of Ratnamala SadanandParab (Maiden name Ratnamala Gajanan Bhoir) the wife of Appellant (P.W.No.16), under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was not recorded by police and shewas directly examined in the Court by the prosecution and therefore, herevidence cannot be relied upon.He further submitted that, the prosecutionhas not produced on record Chemical Analyser's Report of the clothes of theprosecutrix.While canvassing the point of quantum of sentence imposedupon the Appellant by the Trial Court, he submitted that, the Appellant has 7/21 ssm 8 Appeal367.16.docalready undergone imprisonment of 6 years and 9 months out of the totalsentence of 10 years and taking into consideration his age on the date ofalleged commission of offence, minimum sentence of 7 years, prescribedunder section 4 of the POCSO Act may be imposed upon him.He therefore, prayed that, the present Appeal may be allowedby acquitting the Appellant from the charges levelled against him.6 Per contra, the learned APP vehemently opposed the presentappeal and submitted that, the prosecution has proved through PW.No.1,the date of birth of prosecutrix as 9 th January, 2000 by producing BirthCertificate (Exh.12) on record.That, P.W. No.7 i.e. the Medical Officer, whoexamined the prosecutrix has stated that, the age of prosecutrix wasbetween 13 to 14 years.She submitted that, the Appellant is a marriedperson and father of a child and by suppressing the said fact, he lured theprosecutrix and has committed the offence under Section 4 of the POCSOAct.She further submitted that, the omissions pointed out by the learnedcounsel for the Appellant are not material and are minor in nature.Shesubmitted that, the Appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced bythe Trial Court.She therefore, prayed that, the present Appeal may bedismissed.Aaditya used to haveconversation with her on the said mobile number.That, the injurieswere consistent with the history given by the prosecutrix i.e. 4 to 5 daysprior to Medical Examination she had sexual contracts.He has furtherstated that, ossification test of prosecutrix was carried out to determine herage and thereafter, he concluded her age between 13 to 14 years.12 Mahendra P. Kothariya (P.W. No.8), was a Jeweller byprofession and was running his business under the name and style 'PukhrajJewellers', at old Panvel.The Appellant through his friend Balu H. Bhopi(P.W. No.13), had pawned one gold chain of the prosecutrix with P.W. No.8and had received Rs.5,000/- for it.Kuppuswami M. Harijan (P.W. No.10) and Mangal R. Tiwari(P.W. No.12) are the panch witnesses to the seizure panchanamas at Exhs.32and 35 of the clothes of prosecutrix and Appellant respectively.13 Ratnamala Sadanand Parab, nee Ratnamala Gajanan Bhoir(P.W. No.16) is the wife of the Appellant.After marriage she was residing withthe Appellant, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law at her matrimonial 15/21 ssm 16 Appeal367.16.dochouse.Appellant had obtained hand-loan at Vashi from some persons.Those persons were demanding money back and therefore, the Appellantshifted his family to Bhingargaon, Panvel.They have a daughter from thewedlock.When shewas carrying 7 months, the Appellant had kicked in her abdomen andtherefore, her mother took her to hospital.She has further deposed that,her marriage with the Appellant is still subsisting.This witness hasproduced on record Birth Certificate Exh.46 and two photographs which aremarked as Exhs.47 and 48 respectively.The defence has taken hersearching cross-examination, however, nothing beneficial to it has beenelicited from it.Suggestions given to this witness by defence counsel havebeen denied by her.14 P.W. No.11, P.W. No.14, P.W. No.15 and P.W. No.17 are thevarious Police Officers, who have conducted investigation of the presentcrime at different stages and their evidence is formal in nature.Noomission or improvement has been brought on record by the defence fromtheir cross-examinations.15 The School Leaving Certificate produced by P.W. No.1 (Exh.12)coupled with the testimony of P.W. No.7 Dr. Kiran Kalyankar clearlyestablishes the fact that, the prosecutrix's age on the date of commission ofcrime i.e. on or about 5th December, 2013 was 13 to 14 years.Even if anerror of margin of two years in calculating her age is taken into 16/21 ssm 17 Appeal367.16.docconsideration, then also, on the date of commission of crime, her age wasbelow 16 years.Thus, the prosecutrix was a 'child' as contemplated underSection 2(d) of the POCSO Act. The evidence of Mrs. Ratnamala S. Parab(P.W. No.16), establishes the fact that, the Appellant was married to her andwas father of a daughter born out of their wedlock.Exhs.47 and 48 produced by her are two photographs.Exh.47is of P.W. No.16 and Appellant as a couple and Exh.48 is a photograph offour persons i.e. one male and 3 ladies.The Appellant in his statementrecorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.c. has admitted that, in the photographat Exh.47, he is the same person in it.As far as photograph at Exh.48 isconcerned, the Appellant has identified the other two ladies as his motherand sister and has denied to identify P.W. No.16 as unknown person.Fromthe photographs it clearly appear that, the Appellant was married with P.W.No.16 Ratnamala S. Parab, prior to the incident in question.Thereis more than sufficient material available on record in the form of CallDetail Record (CDR) including Tower locations of the mobile phone of theAppellant to establish the fact that, from 4th December, 2013 to 7thDecember, 2013, the Appellant was present at different places mentionedin the foregoing paragraphs.developed intimacy with the prosecutrix on mobile phone, lured her andenticed her to leave her parents house on 4th December, 2013 though theAppellant was married with P.W. No.16, much prior to it.The prosecutrixwas infatuated with the rosy picture of love affair presented before her bythe Appellant.The Trial Court has awardedsentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment to the Appellant underSection 4 of the POCSO Act. In view of Section 42 of the said Act, the TrialCourt has not awarded separate sentence/punishment under Section 376 ofthe IPC.As noted hereinabove earlier, the Appellant in a plannedmanner, lured and enticed the prosecutrix, who was of adolescent age atthe time of offence. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,943,154 | The contents of the said complaint, in brief, are as follows:The complainant B. Suresh used to attend Chathurvedi's spiritual discourses at the Mission along with his wife Sivagamasundari and daughters Priyamvadha and Manasa.The said Chathurvedi, exploiting their faith in God, collected donations, gold, jewels, silver items etc. from Suresh and developed a sexual intercourse with his elder daughter Priyamvadha and also with his wife Sivagamasundari.On being questioned by Suresh after coming to know of the same, Chathurvedi assaulted him and threatened that he would spoil his entire family.Chathurvedi also began to torture second minor daughter Manasa and the same was also questioned.Then, Chathurvedi sent his associate one Sripathi to Suresh house, who forcibly kept Suresh, his wife and daughter in a locked room and confined them for four days.Their Signatures were also obtained in blank papers.On 17.09.2004, Sivagamasundari and her first daughter Priyamvadha were taken to Hyderabad by force by Chathurvedi.Thereafter, he was produced before XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.In the meantime, on the confession of Chathurvedi, the whereabouts of Sivagamasundari and her daughter Priyamvadha were found out and they were rescued."The second incident would relate to the complaint, given on 12.11.2004 by Vijayalakshmi, which was registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 384, 109 r/w. 34 and 506-II IPC.According to her, she used to attend the spiritual discourses of Chathurvedi.Since her daughter left her house and married one Saravanan without her consent, she requested Chathurvedi to help her daughter to come back and join her; for which, he demanded a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh and she offered the same.Later when she met Chathurvedi to get his blessings, he told her that she was having cancer and it could be cured by him, provided she paid a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs.Accordingly, she offered jewels worth about Rs. 6.00 lakhs.Subsequently, she came to know that she had no cancer and was cheated.So, she approached Chaturvedi and asked for return of the amount.Then, Chathurvedi threatened and told her to get out of his place.He also asked his associates to throw her out on the road side, which was, accordingly, done.As per the said complaint, after his lodging the complaint on 04.11.2004, he was invariably receiving threatening phone calls from a purported devotee of Chathurvedi, insisting on him to withdraw the complaint against Chathurvedi, and if he did not yield to his directions, he would resort to spoil the image of the family members, by publishing all unwanted allegations.Then, he harassed Sivagamasundari @ Geetha, wife of Suresh, and, ultimately, succeeded to have sexual intercourse with her.Thereafter, under threat and cruelty, the petitioner also began to have sexual intercourse with his minor daughter Priyamvadha, aged about 16 years.When this was known to other family members, including Suresh, the same was questioned.Then, the petitioner threatened Suresh, Sivagamasundari and their daughter Priyamvadha and made them to be detained in a locked room and confined for four days.During that time, with the help of his associates, the petitioner obtained signatures of Suresh, Sivagamasundari and their daughter Priyamvadha in blank white papers.They were also threatened that he would disclose the matter and tarnish the image of the family, if they approach police.On 17.09.2004, both Sivagamasundari and her daughter Priyamvadha were forcibly taken to Hyderabad by the petitioner and both of them were sexually harassed in Hyderabad.At this stage, a complaint was given by Suresh.The petitioner was arrested on 05.11.2004 and his confession was recorded.Thereafter, both Sivagmasundari and Priyamvadha were rescued on 06.11.2004 and produced before XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, and were sent for medical examination.In the meantime, the petitioner was taken to police custody and, on his confession, various documents of properties, including silver articles, obscene C.Ds., Computer, Bank Pass Book, and blank papers, signed by Suresh, Sivagamasundari and their daughter, were recovered from his house.The 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of Sivagamasundari and Priyamvadha, made to the Judicial Magistrate, would shock one's conscience, as the details given in the statements would indicate that mother and daughter were subjected to torture and sexual harassment, at the hands of the petitioner/detenu.According to Vijayalakshmi, the petitioner/detenu told her that she was having cancer and he would cure the same; for which he demanded Rs. 5.00 lakhs and, accordingly, she offered gold, diamonds and jewels worth about Rs. 6.00 lakhs to him.Later, she developed suspicion and checked her health with Dr. Siddha, who tested her and told that she had no cancer and she was cheated.Then, she approached the petitioner asking for return of money, who threatened and told her to get out of his Mission.He also instigated his associates, asking them to take her and throw out on the road side.His associates, numbering about six, surrounded her; dragged and pushed her on the road and threatened by uttering that they would kill her, if she came to the Ashramam any more.The public, who were at the spot, noticed the incident and a huge crowd gathered there.Noticing the public, the associates of the petitioner threatened and chased them.In panic, the public left the spot.Vijayalakshmi apprehended danger to her life by the associates of the petitioner.Therefore, he went to the petitioner's Ashramam and demanded repayment of the amount.Then, the petitioner threatened him by uttering that he would not pay money and he could do whatever he wanted.ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.Venkata Saravanan @ S.A.R. Prasanna Venkatachariar Chathurvedi, petitioner herein, has been detained by the order of the detaining authority, dated 15.12.2004, branding him as a "Goonda".The said order is the subject matter of challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition, filed by the detenu himself.According to him, there was a property dispute between himself and his brother Palanichamy, who is a devotee of Chathurvedi.He met Chathurvedi and asked him to settle the dispute, for which Chathurvedi asked a sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs, stating, if it is given, he would ask Palanichamy to withdraw the cases against him in the Court.Accordingly, he paid said amount to Chathurvedi.On coming to know that he was cheated, when he went to Chathurvedi's house and requested him to return the amount, Chathurvedi threatened him and asked their associates to attack and kill him, who, in turn, picked up iron pipes and logs and began to chase and attack him.The fifth case would relate to the complaint given by one V. Ramanathan on 20.11.2004, with regard to the offences under Sections 420 and 506-I IPC.According to Ramanathan, since his real estate business was dull, Chathurvedi induced him that he would do special pooja and collected Rs. 1.00 lakh.Since there was no improvement in the business, when Ramanathan asked Chathurvedi for return of money, Chathurvedi threatened him, saying that he would convert him into a goat or make him dumb.Then, Ramanathan feared danger to his life and escaped from the spot.On 20.11.2004, yet another complaint was given by N. Ramakrishnan.As per this complaint, Chathurvedi induced Ramakrishnan that he would do special pooja for getting good business and demanded Rs. 1.00 lakh.Accordingly, Ramakrishnan handed over Rs. 45,000/- and later came to know that he was cheated.The next complaint is given by S. Jayachandran on 20.11.2004, for the offence under Section 420 IPC.According to Jayachandran, he used to visit Chathurvedi's Ashramam and get his blessings.Since his sister-in-law was suffering from a heart disease, he approached Chathurvedi, for which he demanded a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for doing pooja.However, no treatment was given to her and later she died.Then, he came to know that he was cheated.Challenging the said order of detention, dated 15.12.2004, the detenu himself has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition, seeking for quashing of the same and for his consequent release, as indicated above.Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as stated above, though raised several grounds in the petition as well as his submissions, would strongly harp on the main point, namely, that the incidents quoted in the grounds of detention would not attract the public order and, at the most, it would be said that the alleged acts of the detenu were detrimental to the maintenance of law and order, relating to the crimes against the individuals and, hence, the detention order cannot be clamped against the petitioner, especially when there are no materials to brand him as a 'Goonda'.Therefore, she did not choose to give a complaint.Later, she was emboldened to give a complaint, only after she came to know that the petitioner was arrested, in respect of another case.The above details of the incident would clearly indicate the offences committed by the associates, at the instigation of the petitioner, against the lone woman, on a public road, affecting the public traffic and also creating a panic situation, which resulted in the public fearing danger to their lives and leaving the spot.The other incident relates to the complaint, given by M.Thirugnanam.According to him, there is a property dispute between himself and his brother Palanichamy, who is a devotee of the petitioner.There were several cases filed against Thirugnanam by Palanichamy.Hence, Thirugnanam approached the petitioner to find a solution to it.Then, the petitioner demanded several lakhs of rupees from him to settle the matter and to get a share in the disputed property.Accordingly, Thirugnanam collected a sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs and handed over the same to the petitioner.Then, an agreement was entered into between Thirugnanam and Palanichamy, thereby Palanichamy agreed to withdraw all the cases against Thirugnanam.Subsequently, he came to know that he was cheated, as no steps were taken to withdraw the cases.When Thirugnanam replied by stating that he would report the matter to police, the petitioner threatened him that he would finish him once for all and he asked his associates to attack and kill him.On such an instigation, the associates picked up iron pipes and began to chase Thirugnanam and attack him.The said Thirugnam and others, who came to the Ashramam, escaped danger to their lives. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,319,814 | None appears for the complainant / objector.After arguing for some time on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the criminal appeal for releasing the appellant on bail, with liberty to renew his prayer after recording Court statement of the victim / prosecutrix. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,324,564 | With consent heard finally.He submits that the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him as well as the fact that at the time of selection he was not facing any criminal case, therefore, impugned order is arbitrary and illegal.She prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.Respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the same within time frame manner, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Petition is disposed of accordingly.(Anand Pathak) Judge LJ* | ['Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,332,347 | (i) The applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount in respect of the C.R.No.55 of 2018 registered with DCB-CID, Unit - XI, Kandivali, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.(ii) The applicant to co-operate with the investigation and to attend the police station as and when called.The Application is disposed of.Parties to act on the basis of authenticated copy of thisorder.(M. S. KARNIK, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2018 01:31:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2018 01:31:24 ::: | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,943,736 | ORDER K.N. Ojha, J.Heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA on admission of the revision.The Criminal Revision is being decided finally at the admission stage.Instant revision has been preferred by Nafe alias Ashutosh son of Mahendra Singh, resident of village Rajpur Khampur, District Meerut, against order dated 23-8-2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Baghpat, in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2000, State v. Shailendra, pending under Section 376, 506, IPC police station Baraut, District Baghpat, by which the application 14C moved by the prosecution under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the revisionist has been summoned through warrant to appear in the Court and face trial in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2000, under Sections 376, 506, IPC.Prosecution case is that FIR was lodged by Smt. Rajo, resident of village Rajpur Khampur, District Meerut, which was registered under Sections 376, 506, IPC at police station Baraut, District Baghpat, on 23-3-1996 at 7.30 p.m. against Shailendra accused, who is already facing sessions trial and Nafe alias Ashutosh, The FIR was registered at the police station on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat, on the application of the informant Smt. Rajo.She had moved application to the Superintendent of Police that she belongs to a poor family.Her daughter Kumari Sunita had gone to the door of Shailendra and Nafe alias Ashutosh both sons of Mahendra, who are residents of her village on 21-3-1998 at 6 p.m. as her fodder was to be cut into pieces at the grass cutting machine of Shailendra and Nafe.Both these persons were present there.They asked Kumari Sunita to go inside the Kothari to make the electric current on so that the machine could start.When she entered inside the room both of them committed rape on her one by one.On her alarm she, Kamal Singh, Ramphal, etc. reached there.The accused persons ran away.The age of Kumari Sunita was mentioned as 14 years in the FIR.She was medically examined.The doctor opined that no opinion could be given about the rape as no external or internal injury was found on any part of Kumari Sunita.In the opinion of the doctor her hymen was old torn and was checked with help of two fingers.After investigation charge sheet was submitted only against Shailendra.When the case was committed to the Court of Session, charge was framed only against Shailendra.Statements' of P.W. 1 Smt. Rajo, mother of the prosecutrix and informant of the case and P.W. 2 Kumari Sunita were recorded in which they supported the prosecution story.Since both these witnesses had stated that Nafe alias Ashutosh had also committed rape on Kumari Sunita, therefore, when application was moved by the prosecution to summon the revisionist Nafe alias.P.C., the application was allowed by the impugned order, hence instant revision has been preferred.The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that when the statement was made by Kumari Sunita before the learned Judge, he opined that even though Sunita had stated that she does not know about her age, but her age appeared to be about 20-21 years. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,437,543 | Heard on bail application.Case has been perused.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Apart that, for the same offence on the basis of FIR lodged by applicant/accused party crime No.83/2015 was registered against the complainant party in which they have already enlarged on anticipatory bail.For that purpose, attention of this Court has been drawn towards bail order dated 21-04-2015 and 06-05-2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No.3506/2015 and 2 M.Cr.Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each to the satisfaction of concerning Investigating Officer then they be released on bail, subject to compliance of the conditions enumerated under section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. | ['Section 452 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 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,381,146 | [JUDGMENT of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J] The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.150 of 2013, on the fileof the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni.There was yet another accused, byname, Mrs.Murugeshwari, who is the mother of the first accused.The TrialCourt framed as many as three charges as against both the accused, as detailed below.Charge Accused Penal Provisions11 and 2498(A) IPC 22302 IPC 31 and 2406The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mrs.Kalaiselvei @ Ramya, aged about 25 years.The first accused is the husband of the deceased.After the marriage, the appellant and the deceased wereliving as husband and wife in a house at Karuppasamy Temple Street, Bodi.Thefather of the first accused and the second accused, the mother of the firstaccused, were also living with them.For about one month, the marital lifewas joyful and very smooth.Thereafter, it is alleged that these two accusedand the father of the first accused started demanding money from the deceasedfor the first accused to start a shop, dealing with Steel.For the saidpurpose, the first accused had pledged 3/12 sovereigns of gold jewelsbelonging to the deceased.Just before the Deepavali festival of that year, PW-1 had gone tothe house of the accused and as per the custom in the community, he took thefirst accused and the deceased to his house to celebrate Deepavali.On thenext day of Deepavali, it is alleged that the first accused had taken fivesovereigns of gold jewels from the deceased.In the meanwhile, the deceasedhad become pregnant, out of the above wedlock.When PW-1 questioned the first accused as to why he had taken the jewels from the deceased, when she was pregnant, the first accused, without giving any reply, simply went to Bodi.On 18.11.2012, according to the case of the prosecution, the firstaccused came to the house of PW-1 and wanted to take back the deceased.As per the custom in the community, the deceased was decorated with flowers.The said function was celebrated in a local marriage hall.The family members ofthe first accused had brought the jewels back and returned the same to thedeceased.After the function was over, the second accused and her husband had again taken back the jewels from the hall, where the function was celebrated.The first accused and the deceased were taken to the house of PW-1, as perthe custom in the community.Thus, from 18.11.2012 and 19.11.2012, the deceased and the first accused were staying at the house of PW-1. On19.11.2012, the wife of PW-1, namely, the mother of the deceased, had gone toParamakudi.PW-1 had gone to the Hotel, where he was working.Around 08.00 AM, the first accused called PW-1 over phone andinformed that the deceased was in a serious condition.Therefore, PW-1,immediately, rushed to the house.The first accused informed him that he hadalready taken the deceased to the Hospital at Nattathi.Therefore, PW-1 wentto Hospital at Nattathi.But, the deceased was found dead in the hospital.He forwarded a copy of the FirstInformation Report to the Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officerto hold inquest, since the deceased had died within seven years of themarriage.7.Red Coloured abrasion of size 2cm x 1cm seen over the below the right lowereyelid.8.Red Coloured abrasion of size 1cm x 0.25cm seen over the lateral end ofright eye.Multiple superficial surface incisions made all over the body revealsnil other injuries".He gave opinion that the death of the deceased would have occurred due tosmothering by pushing a blanket against her face.According to him, theexternal injuries, numbering nine, would have been caused, when the deceasedwas so smothered.At 12.15 PM, on 20.11.2012, PW-18 arrested the first accused.PW-11, Dr.Renuga Devi, has stated that at 08.00 AM, on 19.11.2012, the deceased was brought to the Nattathi Hospital, Theni.Shefound her dead.It is their evidence that as per the custom prevailing in theircommunity, the bride and the bridegroom were taken to the house of PW-1 forcelebrating Deepavali.They accordingly celebrated Deepavali in a happy mood.By Judgment dated 19.08.2015, the Trial Court acquitted the secondaccused from all the charges and acquitted the first accused from the chargeunder Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, however, convicted the firstaccused and sentenced him, as detailed below:-Section of LawSentence Fine amount 498(A) IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.To undergo imprisonment for life.Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.Challenging the saidconviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.When he enquired the doctor, the doctor told him that the deceased would havedied two hours prior.PW-1 found external injury on the body of the deceased.Taking up the case for investigation, at 1215 PM, on 19.11.2012,PW-18 proceeded to the place of occurrence.Then, PW-18 prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch.The Revenue Divisional Officer [PW-14] held inquest on the body of the deceasedand submitted a report.The dead body of the deceased was sent forpostmortem.PW-13 - Dr.EX-P11 is the postmortem certificate.EX-P12 is his final opinion regarding the cause of death.He noticed thefollowing injuries:-"Red coloured crescentric nail mark of size .5cm x 0.25cm seen over theright side middle part of nose.1.Red coloured linear abrasion of size 3cm x 0.25 cm seen over the rightlower eyelid.2.Red coloured linear abrasion of size 3cm x 0.25 cm seen over the right sideupper part of the nose.3.Contusion of size 2cms x 1 cm seen over the chin.4.Contusion of size 3cms x 2 cms seen over the right cheek.5.Contusion of size 2cms x 1.5 cm seen over the left cheek.6.Contusion of size 1cm x 0.5 cm seen over the right side lower lip.PW-18recovered the same under a mahazer.On returning to the Police Station, PW-18forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand.He also handed overthe material objects to the Court.He examined few more witnesses, recordedtheir statements and on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheetagainst the accused.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriatecharges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment.When theaccused were questioned in respect of the charges, they pleaded innocence.Inorder to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 18 witnesses wereexamined, 21 documents and two material objects were marked.Out of the said 18 witnesses, PW-1, the father of the deceased, has spoken about the marriageheld between the first accused and the deceased, the presentation made at thetime of marriage and the fact that the first accused had taken away 81/2sovereigns of gold jewels from the deceased.He has further spoken about theflower decoration function held on 18.11.2012 for the deceased and the factthat he left the house at 04.20 AM, on 19.11.2012 to the hotel and his wifealready left for Paramakudi.He has further stated that the first accused andthe deceased alone were in the house.He has further stated that around 08.00AM, the first accused informed him over phone that the deceased was soserious and therefore, he had taken the deceased to the Hospital at Nattathi.Therefore, PW-1 went to the Hospital at Nattathi.But, the deceased was founddead in the hospital.Since there were external injuries, PW-1 went thePolice Station and made a complaint.PW-3 is a neighbour of the deceased.He has stated that on 19.11.2012, around 05.00 AM, he heard the alarm raised from the houseof the deceased.Believing that there was some domestic quarrel, he left hishouse.Later on, he came to know that the deceased had died.PW-4 is yet another neighbour.PW-5 has spoken about the preparation of Observation Mahazer and the Rough Sketch and the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence.When he went to the house of PW-1, along with his wife, they found the deceased lying on a coir cot.She wasunconscious.At that time, the first accused told that the deceased hadfainted.But, PW-6 found that there was no pulse.Then, he, along with thefirst accused, took the deceased to the hospital.PW-7 is the wife of PW-6.She has also spoken about the same facts.PW-8, the Village Administrative Officer, has stated that on20.11.2012, at 10.00 AM, when he was at his office, the first accusedappeared before him on his own and voluntarily made a confession.In the saidconfession, according to him, the first accused confessed that he smotheredthe deceased to death by pushing a blanket against her face.Then, he produced theaccused, along with EX-P5 to the police.PW-9 is a neighbour of the deceased.She has stated that on hearing the commotion, he went to the house of PW-1 and found the deceased unconscious.PW-10, yet another neighbour, has spoken about the same facts.PW-12 has stated that at 11.00 AM, on 19.11.2012, the dead body of the deceased was brought to the Government Medical College Hospital at Theni and she kept the dead body in the mortuary.PW-13 has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause ofdeath.PW-14, the Revenue Divisional Officer, has spoken about the inquestheld by him on the body of the deceased.PW-15, a Head Constable, has spoken about the handing over of the internal organs to the Forensic Lab forchemical examination.PW-16, the then Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, hasspoken about the recording of the statements from some of the witnesses underSection 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.PW-17 has spoken about the registration of the case, on the complaint made by PW-1. PW-18 has spoken about the investigation conducted by him and the filing of final report.When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidencesavailable against them, they denied the same as false.However, they did notchoose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Courtacquitted the second accused from all the charges, however, convicted thefirst accused, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment andpunished him accordingly.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and alsoperused the records carefully.Thus, hardly within a period of three monthsof the marriage, the deceased had died.There is also no denial of the factthat at the time of her death, the deceased was pregnant.From the evidenceof PW-1 and PW-2, the prosecution tries to prove that the first accused hadcommitted an offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.They havestated that at the time of marriage, 20 sovereigns of gold jewels, cash ofRs.1,00,000/- and other household articles were presented.It is not theirevidence that these properties were demanded by the accused.They have admitted that it is the custom in the community to make presentation at thetime of marriage.Such presentation made out of love at the time of marriagecannot be stated to be dowry.It is the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that forthe purpose of starting business, the first accused had taken 3/12 sovereignsof gold jewels from the deceased and pledged the same.Again, he had takenanother five sovereigns of gold jewels.They have stated that for about onemonth, the marital life between the deceased and the first accused was verysmooth and joyful.There is no evidence at all that the first accused everharassed the deceased demanding any property.After Deepavali was over, since the deceased was then pregnant, as per thecustom prevailing, flower decoration function for the deceased was alsocelebrated.This was done in a marriage hall.For the said function, theparents of the first accused had agreed to give the rest of the jewels andaccordingly, they handed over the same to the deceased to wear.After thefunction was over, they have taken the jewels.Absolutely, there is no evidence that there was any quarrelbetween the first accused and the deceased and the first accused had harassedthe deceased in any manner.Thus, we do not find any reason even to remotelyinfer that the first accused had committed an offence under Section 498(A) ofthe Indian Penal Code.Thus, we hold that the conviction of the first accusedunder Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable.Now, turning to the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian PenalCode, it is the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that on 18.11.2012, the firstaccused and the deceased stayed at their house.On 19.11.2012, early in the morning, around 03.50 AM,PW-2, namely, the mother of the deceased, left for Paramakudi to attend afunction.PW-1 also left for the hotel, where he was working at 04.20 AM.Thus, lastly in the house of PW-1, the first accused and the deceased alonewere left.Around 05.30 AM, on 19.11.2012, the neighbours have heard commotion from the house of the deceased.As a matter of fact, PW-6 and his wife - PW-7, residing in the first floor of the same building, heard commotion andrushed to the house of the deceased.They found the deceased lying on a coircot.She was unconscious.The first accused alone was there.He informed them that the deceased had fainted.Since the deceased and the accused alone were in the house of PW-1 and since they were staying together as newly marriedcouple, it must have been within the knowledge of the first accused as to howthe deceased sustained injuries and fainted.The doctor, who conductedautopsy on the body of the deceased, had found number of external injuries.The doctor had further opined that the death of the deceased was out ofsmothering.Certainly, the death of the deceased was not due to any naturalcause.When the deceased had died of smothering, the earliest explanationoffered by the first accused to PW-6 and PW-7 that the deceased had faintedis absolutely false.Thus, the false statement given by the first accused toPW-6 and PW-7 is a very strong circumstance to give rise to a presumptionthat it was this accused, who smothered the deceased to death.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the firstaccused appeared before the Village Administrative Officer [PW-8], on20.11.2012 and made a voluntary confession.In the said confession, the firstaccused had allegedly confessed that around 05.15 PM, on 19.11.2012, with an intention to cause the death of the deceased, he smothered her to death,since the deceased had complained to her parents that the first accused hadsnatched away the jewels belonging to her.In our considered view, the said extra judicial confession allegedlymade by the first accused cannot be believed.It is the admitted case that the first accused only took the deceasedto the hospital along with the others.Thus, the first accused was all alongat the place of occurrence and then, he was with her parents in the hospital.When that be so, it is difficult to believe that suddenly the first accusedwould have gone to the Village Administrative Officer to make the saidconfession.Further, it is not as though PW-8 was already known to the firstaccused.It is unbelievable that the first accused would have chosen a totalstranger to give such a confession.Therefore, we reject the evidence of PW-As we have already narrated, from the fact that the deceased andthe first accused alone were in the house of PW-1, the fact that at theearliest point of time, the first accused made a false explanation that thedeceased had fainted and the fact that the doctor, who conducted autopsy onthe body of the deceased, has stated that the death of the deceased was dueto smothering, would all go to prove that it was this accused, who caused thedeath of the deceased.Having come to the said conclusion, now, the next immediatequestion is as to what was the offence, that the accused had committed by hisact.As we have already narrated, absolutely, there is no evidence that thefirst accused had ever harassed the deceased.It is the positive evidence ofPW-1 and PW-2 that the first accused and the deceased were happily living forone month.On 18.11.2012, as a matter of fact, there was a flower decorationfunction for the deceased, in which the first accused also participatedhappily.Thus, it is crystal clear that there was no reason for the firstaccused to cause the death of the deceased.Going by the natural human conduct, it is inferable that when the deceased and the first accused alonewere in the house of PW-1, there would have been some quarrel, in which thedeceased would have provoked the first accused.It is further inferable thatthe first accused in the sudden quarrel, having lost his mental balance, hadpushed some material object, like, cloth against the face of the deceased,which, unfortunately, resulted in the death of the deceased.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the first accused, atthe time of occurrence, was hardly aged about 26 years.Either prior to theoccurrence or subsequent to the occurrence, he was not involved in any crime.The occurrence was not a premeditated one.Having regard to all themitigating and the aggravating circumstances, we are of the considered viewthat sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten yearsand to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor four weeks would meet the ends of justice.Insofar as the conviction andsentence imposed on the first accused for the offences under Section 498(A)of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is liable to be set aside.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in thefollowing terms:-The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court on theaccused/appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside andinstead, the accused/appellant is convicted under Section 304(ii) of theIndian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for tenyears and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand only], in defaultto undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.1.The Inspector of Police, Theni Police Station, Theni District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.. | ['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,389,199 | In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04/06/2018 in connection with Bhupatinagar P.S. Case No. 43 of 2018 dated 14/03/2018 under Sections 363/366/376of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.And In the matter of: Rajendra Jana ....petitioner.In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount 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 he shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,943,945 | The following facts are now no more in dispute.Laxmipat, Punamchand, Balchand and Kundanmal are brothers, Punamchand being the oldest of all of them.Sanchitlal Daga was their employee.Laxmipat and Punamchand, at the material time, resided at 144, Cotton Street, Calcutta and did business there.At the material time, accused No. 3, Balchand, was in charge of the Bombay branch of the business, and was residing at the top floor of Shalimar Building situate opposite Marine Lines Station.The business premises were situated on the third floor of Banuman Buildings, Tambakanta Road, Bombay.The telephone numbers and telegraph addresses of these persons as well as the Global Agencies, which were at one time in dispute, are now admitted.Yau Monkchi resides in Hong Kong and is doing business at his office located at 910 Yu To Sang building, Queens Road, Hong Kong.Yau is referred to in the correspondence as Yau or Yasmin.He is a Chinese citizen.Sophia Wong P.W. 3, was an Air Hostess on the B.O.A.C. Air Lines, till the end of October 1959 and in course of her duties had to fly on the Hong Kong Calcutta route.In Calcutta, she used to stay at the Great Eastern Hotel.In her first trip to Calcutta, she met Yau Monkchi on being introduced by another Air Hostess Miss Tina Yup.Yau told her that he was in a tea business.During her stay in Calcutta, she met Yau three or four times and they exchanged cards as appears to be the custom among the Chinese.Sometime in September 1959, Yiau rang her up and told her that he would like to come to see her at her house.She was not inclined to receive him at her house, and therefore she fixed up an appointment with him at the Grand Hotel Restaurant in Hong Kong.He kept the appointment and met her there.During the course of the conversation, he told her that he was purchasing a boat and invited her to join the cruise.She asked him what was the purpose of his meeting her and he replied that he wanted to do some business with her.She inquired as regards the nature of the business, and he told her that he wanted her to carry gold from Hong Kong to India and hand it over to somebody in Calcutta.He further informed her that she would be carrying gold concealed in a suit case He also told her that he would pay her 1500 Hong Kong dollars for every trip she carried gold for him to India and further stated that before she carried the gold, he would tell her the name of the person in Calcutta and he would show the photograph of the person to whom the gold was to be delivered in Calcutta and also his telephone number, so that she would be in a position to contact and recognise him.He further promised to provide a suit ease in which the gold would be carried.She considered the proposal to be a dangerous one, but Yau assured her that there was no risk involved therein and there was nothing to worry.He further warned her that she should not speak about it to anybody and if she divulged the secret he would get her anywhere.Feeling uneasy in her mind about the talk which she had with Yau, she spoke about it to Miss Curtin, P.W. 10, who was the Supervisor of the Air Hostesses in the B.O.A.C. office in Hong Kong, and told her that in these circumstances she would resign her job as an Air Hostess as she was frightened.Later she also told about the talk she had with Yau to one Olson whom she knew, and who at the material time was the service manager of B.O.A.C. She further told the same story to Mr. Harris, Police Officer in Hong Kong.As a result of her conversation with Mr. Olson and Mr. Harris, she agreed to meet Yau again, and on September 24, 1959, she met him at the Grand Hotel Restaurant by previous arrangement.He asked her to take gold from Hong Kong to Calcutta and to bring American Travellers' cheques from Calcutta.He stated that he had his men at Calcutta as well as at Bombay.Her next trip was to Delhi.He, therefore, proposed that she should carry gold on her next flight to Delhi and from Delhi she should send the gold by postal parcel to Calcutta.Thereafter he put in a telephone call and told her to forget about it and stated that he would contact her again and she should carry gold to Calcutta on her next trip.I should have stated earlier that Sophia at that time was not married, but was engaged to one Shielts, Police Sub-Inspector, whom she married by the time she gave evidence in Court.After the aforesaid conversation with.Yau, she straight way went to her fiancee Shielts and told him in detail about the conversation she had with Yau.Shielts recorded on the typewriter what she had told him.She read the typed copy and satisfied herself that Shielts had correctly recorded what she told him.Shielts then called Mr. Harris on telephone and on his arrival at Shielt's flat handed over the statement to him.It bears Sophia's signature.It appears that a false roster was prepared for her showing that she was to fly to Calcutta on her next flight.On meeting Yiau on October 29, she told him that she was prepared to carry gold and showed him the roster.Yau then told her that he would meet her at her flat that evening and bring the suit case and gold with him at that time.It was arranged between Mr. Yu and her that when Yau showed her gold, she should give him a signal by going into the bath room and slamming its door twice.Yau came to her flat at about 8p.m. that night with a grey suit ease.They sat in the sitting room and she asked him to show gold.He stated that he would not show her gold in the sitting room as they might be seen by others.Both of them then went into the bedroom and she drew up the curtain of the bed-room but did not close the bedroom door, telling that there was nobody in the house.It appears that at the bottom of the bed-room doors both of hers as well as her mother's bed-room there was a small opening in which bars were fixed and by kneeling down one could see through the bars what was happening in the other bed-room.After going into her bed-room, he put the suit case on the bed and showed her where the gold was hidden.He unscrewed the right hand bottom metal corner with a specially made key and when the corner was opened two small pieces of thread became visible.He then removed the corner and pulled two strips of gold from each side of the suit case meeting at that corner.He then similarly took out two more strips of gold from the diagonally opposite corner by removing the metal corner with the same key.He then put back the gold strips and refastened the metal corners and locked it.He then handed over the key to her and asked her to take out the gold.By following the method shown, she then took out the strips and put them back again.They then left the suit case in the bed-room and came back in the sitting room.There he showed her the photograph and gave the visiting card and told her that the photograph was of the man to whom gold was to be handed over and on the visiting card was his name and the address and telephone number.He did not hand over either the photograph or the visiting card, but asked her to copy the name, address and telephone number appearing on the visiting card.She then copied the same and went to the bath-room and gave the agreed signal and locked herself in the bath-room.On getting the signal, Sub-Inspector Yu and the two detectives came out of the other bed-room and on being asked to come out by Mr. Yu she came out of the bath-room after five minutes, She saw Sub-Inspector Yu, two detectives, Police Officers, Mr. Harris and Mr. Buchanan along with Yau standing in the lounge.She then told them where the suit case was and also the place where the gold was concealed in the suit case.She also gave to the police officer a slip of paper on which she had copied the name, address and the telephone number from the visiting card.She then showed how gold was to be taken out of the suit case and actually took out of the gold in their presence.Sub-Inspector Yu then searched Yau and took out from his pockets some money, a leather wallet and some papers.and one of Sophia.Mr. Yu also seized the suit case, the gold strips in the suit ease on being taken out by Sophia, the key by which Sophia had opened the bottom corners of the suit case, and the paper exh."Q" on which she had copied the name, address and telephone number of accused No. 1 from the visiting card shown to her, by Yau.Yu then arrested Yau.Mr. Buchanan thereafter went and met the Indian High Commissioner at Hong Kong and asked him to intimate Mr. Shriwastava, P.W. 27, Deputy Director of Revenue Intelligence at Delhi.Information was given to him of the names, addresses and telephone numbers which had come out of the search of Yau.Mr. Yu also on receiving further instructions, took Yau to his office at No. 910 Yu To Sank Building and carried out the search of the premises and there seized some cables, visiting cards, goldsmith bills and a paper-slip containing addresses.He also seized the account books of Yau.Amongst the papers seized included one visiting card of accused No, 6, and five cables including one from Ethyl "Wong saying "Happy" Birthday Everlyn" dated September 14, 1959, sent to Hong Kong from Bombay.In due course, Yau was put up for trial and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment in connection with the gold seized from Sophia's house for attempting to employ Sophia to get the gold out of Hong Kong.On October 30, 1959, on receiving instructions, Detective Inspector Williams of the Hong Kong Police, P.W. 6, executed a search warrant in the premises of Global Agencies situate at 28 Hollywood Road, Hong Kong.He entered the premises at 3.30 p. m. At that time, only an office boy and a servant were present.At 4 o'clock, accused No. 6, Sanchitlal came in the premises.Williams disclosed' to him the identity and showed him his search warrant and his identity card.Accused No. 6 then told him that he was the person in charge of the premises and a search was then taken of the premises.A large number of documents which consisted of letters, cables, accounts, cheque counter-foils, cheque books, files of gold and documents and other documents were seized and were taken to the police headquarters and kept secured for the night.On the next day, on a request being made by accused No. 6, the current cheque books were returned to him.. Accused No. 6 in return passed a receipt in token of having received-those cheque books.This receipt is on record and is admitted by [accused No. 6 to be the receipt executed by him.The other documents remained in the office of Williams under his lock and key.On November 1, 1959, Mr. Shriwastava, Deputy Director of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, came to Hong Kong and examined the documents which had been seized from the premises of Global Agencies.Mr. Shriwastava then asked that some of the documents be photo-stated.Accordingly, those documents were taken in batches to a room and photo-stated by the clerk of the Police Department in charge of photo-stating.After each batch was photo-stated, the originals were compared with the photo-stated copies by Williams as well as the Indian Embassy Official, and a special stamp paper for the purpose was affixed on each document showing that it was correct photo-stat of the original.Out of the cables seized, only 8 have been photo-stated, and of the rest copies were prepared as the photo-stat paper ran out.On the copies made by hand also, the aforesaid seal has been affixed as they being correct copies of the originals.After this was done, the originals of all the documents were taken back by Williams and kept in office till February 17, 1960, on which date they were returned to accused No. 6 on his request, under instructions of Superintendent Hanais.At the time of returning the documents to him, Mr. Williams took an undertaking from accused No. 6 that he would produce the documents when required and also obtained from him a receipt for having received the documents back.The undertaking exetuted by accused No. 6 is on record and is exh.The photo-stats and other copies of these documents were given to Mr. Shriwastava.On receiving further instructions, Williams went to the premises of Global Agencies on April 29, 1960, and reminding accused No. 6 of his undertaking asked him to produce the documents.Accused No. 6 then handed back the original documents which had been seized from the premises of the Global Agencies to Williams, Later, however, in consequence of the order made by the Supreme Court of Hong Kong, these documents were returned by Mr. Williams to the clerk of the solicitors representing accused No. 6, on obtaining a receipt from him.It may be stated that those documents contained letters written by the accused persons and in particular by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and certain cables which form the material evidence in the case connecting the accused with the commission of the offence.Now, on receiving the information from the Indian High Commissioner in Hong Kong about the seizure of photographs of accused Nos. 1 and 3, the visiting card of accused No. 1, and slips of paper containing the address of accused No. 3 from the person of Yau, the Director of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi, ordered searches to be carried out at various places both at Bombay and at Calcutta.Accordingly on October 31, 1959, P.W. 31, Basu, a Customs Officer at Calcutta, searched the residence of accused No. 1 at 144, Cotton Street, of which the telephone number was mentioned on the visiting card of accused No. 1 found with Yau.The flat was on the third floor, and consisted of three rooms, an open space, a kitchen, bath-room and a lavatory.Accused No. 2 and the wife and children of accused No. 1 were present in the house.Accused No. 1 also returned to the flat sometime after Basu had entered the fiat.Shirur took charge of certain documents including a letter addressed to accused No. 3 from Assam.On February 22, 1960, Chaudhary, an officer of the Calcutta Customs, again searched the premises of Bhuramal at 4, Doyahatta Street, and seized a number of documents including letters addressed to accused Nos. 1 and 2, a dissolution deed of B.L. Choraria & Co., Calcutta, between accused Nos. 1 and 5 and their brother Girdharilal.On the same day, Preventive Officer Shirur of Bombay Customs searched the flat of accused No. 3 in the Shalimar Building, opposite Marine Lines Station, and took charge of a number of documents including an agreement for the purchase of that flat.At this time also, accused No. 3 was present at the premises.Accused No. 1 was not present then.In the search, 34 visiting cards of accused No. 1 were seized from his cupboard.We should have mentioned earlier that on November 4, 1959, Preventive Offieer Mitter of Calcutta Customs searched the premises of the firm of Balchand in room No. 27' at 4, Doyahatta Street and recovered therefrom a number of letters addressed to accused No. 1, including one from the Ordnance Club, Calcutta.On June 15, 1960, Pande, Inspector of the Central Excise of Rajasthan, searched at Village Bidsar in Rajasthan the ancestral house of accused Lasmipat, Punamchand, Balchand, Kundanmal and Begraj.On January 13, 1961, Preventive Officer Advani of Bombay Customs again searched the premises of Balchand at Tambakanta Street, Bombay.In September 1959, Williams took charge of a number of cheques from Clm Tai Bank and the Wing Lang Bank of Hong Kong, and they had also been seized and photo-stated.Similarly, in November 1959, under the instructions of Deputy Director Shriwastava, Williams made inquiries from cable and Wireless Hong Kong about the telegraphic addresses "Daga Co." and "Bomcal" to which various cables seized from the Global Agencies appeared to be addressed, and also about another telephonic address "Chorpken".He found that "Bomcal" was the-address of Global Agencies, 28 Hollywood Road, Hong Kong, and "Daga Co." the address of S.L. Daga for the same premises, and "Chorpken" the telegraphic address of Yaii Mok Chi's office premises.The Calcutta Customs had also taken charge of the originals of some of the cables found at Global Agencies, Hong Kong, and Inspector Sampat took charge of them, from Calcutta Customs along with two letters and a receipt admittedly to be of accused No. 1 seized by the Calcutta Customs and lying with them.A number of all.these documents seized from the various premises along with the originals of the cables and diaries were sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison.So also various letters seized from the office of Global Agencies, Hong Kong, were sent to the Handwriting Expert.The letters seized from the Global Agencies were divided into different series.Those purporting to be written by Laxmipat were marked as LC series; those purporting to be written by Punamchand were marked as PC series; those written by Balchand, BC series; those written by Kundanmal as KC series; and that by Han-mantlal Kothari, as UK series.In March 1960, Mr. Shriwastava left the Directory, and thereafter he was not directly responsible for the investigation and the investigation appears to have been taken over by Mishra.But before he retired, it appears that Shriwastava had already been making inquiries in Hong Kong about the whereabouts of Ethyl Wong, Air Hostess, a wire "Happy Birthday Everlyn" from whom was seized from the premises of Yau, but he was unable to locate her.That information appears to have been placed by him on record and the investigation in that matter was taken over by Mishra.On April 6, 1960, a complaint was filed in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate by K.S. Dulipsinghji, Assistant Collector of Customs Preventive Department, Bombay, against the accused Laxmipat, Punamehand, Balchand, Bhuramal, Kundanmal,, Sanchitlal Daga, Bhegraj, Hanmantlal Kothari, Ganeshmal, Bhivraj, and Yau Mok Chi, and in this complaint, accused No. 12 was shown as an unknown carrier.Bhegraj, Ganeshmal and Bhivraj were discharged.The trial did not proceed against Bhuramal and Yau Mok Chi, they being outside India, and not being brought into India, The trial, therefore, proceeded only against Laxmipat, Punamchand, Balchand, Kundanmal, Hanmantlal Kothari and Sanchitlal Daga, of whom Hanmantlal Kothari has been acquitted.The prosecution case in brief was that during the period commencing from about the beginning of March 1959 and extending upto October 31, 1959, the aforesaid accused and others unknown, conspired at Calcutta, Bombay and other places, for acquiring and/or causing to be acquired possession of and/or carrying and/or causing to be carried, and/or removing and/or causing to be removed, and/or harbouring and/or causing to be harboured, and/or depositing and/or causing to be deposited, and/or keeping and/or causing to be kept, and/or concealing and/or causing to be concealed and/or otherwise dealing with and/or for being concerned with one or more of the aforesaid operations connected with contraband gold and precious stones and semi precious stones in large quantities of the total value of Rs. 3,00,000 knowingly and with intent to defraud the Government of the duty payable thereon and to evade the restrictions for the time being in force in respect of the importation of these articles.The said conspiracy between the above mentioned persons was a continuing conspiracy throughout the period March 1959 to October 31, 1959, at various centres including Bombay and Calcutta.The prosecution further alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy the aforesaid persons and others unknown from time to time on various occasions during, the period mentioned above, acquired and/or caused to be acquired possession of diverse quantities of contraband gold weighing not less than 2900 tolas and contraband precious and semi-precious stones at Bombay, Calcutta and other places, and/or carried and/or caused to be carried in and to Bombay and Calcutta and other places, and/or harboured or deposited the same in Bombay and Calcutta and other places and/or removed and/or caused to be removed the same in or to Bombay and Calcutta and other places, and/or kept and concealed and/or caused to be kept and concealed the same in Bombay, Calcutta and other places, and/or otherwise dealt with, and/or concerned themselves with one or more of the said operations connected with the said contraband gold and precious and semiprecious stones in Bombay, Calcutta and other places.Accused No. 1 admitted that the firm of Global Agencies is his and.He further admitted that accused No. 5, his brother Kundanmal, was the manager of Global Agencies from February 1959 to September 27, 1959, and accused No. 6 who had gone to Hong Kong on August 19, 1959, took charge from his brother Kundanmal.He, however, denied that the Global Agencies had anything to do with gold smuggling business or with Yau Mok Chi.According to him, his business was export and import business with foreign: countries.He denied having any acquiantance with Yau.He denied that he knew Ethyl Wong or had at any time met her or received gold from her.Accused No. 2 similarly denied that the letters and cables found in the office of Global Agencies and which purported to have been written by him were either written or sent by him.According to him, he had nothing to do with that business, as he was doing business in Mymensingh, Pakistan, and was in India for the last two years merely because he was unable to get a visa on his passport.He denied any connection with the firm of Bhuramal at 4, Doyahatta Street, Calcutta.Tie also denied any connection with B.L. Choraria & Co. at Bombay except that he holds a power-of-attorney for that firm from Kundanmal.Accused No. 3, Balchand, also denied that he received any gold from Ethyl Wong- or that he knew her.According to him, he has been falsely implicated.He also-denied his connection with the company of B.L. Choraria in Bombay except that he holds a power-of-attorney from Kundanmal, who is the proprietor of that firm.According to him, he has never operated that power-of-attorney.He admits that he was staying at 9.1, Shalimar.He also denied that the letters found in the office of the Global Agencies and purported to have been written by him were written by him.Accused No. 5 admitted that he was in Hong Kong in charge of Global Agencies and had issued cheques in exhs.Z-12 and Z-13, but, according to him, Daga was doing separate business while at Hong Kong, and before he had left he had told him to do the work of his; business and also to make payments to the parties producing slips bearing his code words which he had given.According to him, it was Daga who had opened accounts in his own name in the two banks and he was making payments by cheques only as per the instructions given by Daga.He admits that he was in charge of the Global Agencies upto February 1959 and also after Kundanmal, accused No. 5, had returned to India.He, however, denies that he was a member of the conspiracy.According to him, he had no inkling of what kind of business was being conducted by the Global Agencies when he went back to Hong Kong.When he was asked about cheques, issued by him on September 28, 1959, he stated that Kundanmal before leaving had instructed him that in case any instructions about payments regarding Yasmin or 'Lali' were received from Balchiand, he was to send the cheque to Yau whose telephone number had been given to him by Kundanmal before leaving.According to him, he had issued that cheque for a foreign exchange transaction at the rate of 971 as the counterfoil shows.When asked about the entries in the account books for his period in respect of Yasmin and Yau, he explained that these entries were made on the basis of instructions given to him by accused No. 5 before leaving.He admits that the documents, letters, cables, account books, and counter-foils etc., seized from the office of the Global Agencies were of the Global Agencies and he also admits photo-stat copies produced by the prosecution as copies of the documents so seized.He admits all the letters of the period of his stay received by the Global Agencies as having been received by him from the respective accused.He admits that they are in the handwriting of the respective accused as proved by the Handwriting Expert's evidence, except those purporting to have been written by Hanmantlal Kothari.At that time, the prosecution had not been able to know" the whereabouts of Ethyl Wong, and the material evidence in possession of the prosecution at the time consisted of the photo-stat copies of various letters purported to be written by the accused, and seized from the office of Global Agencies, the account-books of Global Agencies, the counter-foils of cheques, cables and cheques obtained from the bank of Hong Kong and the evidence of Sophia Shielts and the Police Officers of Hong Kong.On receiving this information that she was due to arrive in Bombay on December 27, 1960, by Air India International Plane from Hong Kong, he met her at the Air Port when the plane arrived there at about 4 a.m. He then questioned her about her activities in Bombay.She first gave vague answers, but after some time when Mishra confronted her with her visiting card which was found in possession of Yau Mok Chi, exh.A in the case, and the cable sent by her to Yau "Happy Birth Day Everlyn" exh.B in the case, she came out with her story and made a statement admitting her part in the affair, though in that statement she mentioned her Bombay visits as having taken place before the Calcutta visits.She was asked to describe the man to whom she had delivered gold.She actually gave the name of the man as accused No. 1 as the person to whom she had delivered gold at Calcutta.JUDGMENT Tambe, J.All the aforesaid appeals and revision applications could be disposed of together as they arise out of the same trial held by the Special Judicial Magistrate and Presidency Magistrate, II Court, Esplanade, Bombay.The first five appeals are by the accused-Laxmipat, accused.The other appeal is by the State of Maharashtra against the order of the Special Magistrate acquitting the accused Banmantlal Kothari, accused No. 8 at the trial.The revision application is by the State of Maharashtra, praying that the sentences passed against the aforesaid convicted accused be adequately enhanced.The aforesaid six accused were being prosecuted for an offence under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, for being parties to a criminal conspiracy along with one Yau Mokchi Ethyl Wong and others, between February 1, 1959 and February 31, 1959, to acquire possession of and to be concerned in carrying, removing, harbouring, keeping, concealing and dealing with gold and precious and semi-precious stones chargeable with duty knowingly and with intent to defraud Government of duty payable thereon, and with intent to evade the prohibitory restriction for the time being in force with respect to gold and thereby having committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, The accused were further charged on four specific counts for having committed an offence under Section 167(81) in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy.It is not necessary to refer to all the details.All the aforesaid appellants-accused are convicted under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code.Further, accused No. 1, Laxmipat, accused No. 2, Punamchand and accused No. 6, Sanchitlal Daga, are convicted imder Section 167(81) on all the four counts, and accused No. 3, Balchand, has been convicted under Section 167(81) on three counts and accused No. 5 has been convicted under Section 167(57) on two counts.Accused No. 1, Laxmipat, also has business in Hong Kong and is doing business there under the name and style of Global Agencies at 28 Hollywood Road, Hong Kong.Accused No. 5, Kundanmal, went to Hong Kong on February 25, 1959, to relieve accused No. 6, Sanchitlal Daga.Accused No. 6 again went back to Hong Kong on or about August 19, 1959, and was its sole manager at any rate after September 27, 1959, to the end of the period of conspiracy.At the trial, a notice was issued to all the accused to produce the original documents.All the accused except accused No. 6 stated that they did not receive the documents while accused No. 6 stated that the documents were not with him.The learned Magistrate has therefore allowed the prosecution to file the photo-stat copies made of these documents as secondary evidence of the contents of these documents.Accused No. 2 also confirmed this information.At Bombay also on the same day, i.e. October 31, 1959, Preventive Officer Shirur of Bombay Customs searched the premises of B.L. Choraria & Co., Hanuman Building, third floor, Tambakanta Street, the address of accused No. 3, found in the papers seized from the person of Yau.At the premises, accused No. 3 was present.The prosecution further alleged that all the aforesaid contraband gold was illegally imported into India in contravention of the various notifications referred to in the complaint.When asked as regards the person to whom she had delivered gold in Bombay, she could not give his full name, but stated that she had delivered gold to one Choraria.She was then asked to describe the two persons to whom she had delivered gold one at Calcutta and one at Bombay, and after she had given the description of these two persons, she was shown two photographs, exhs.T and U, which admittedly are of accused Nos. 1 and 3, respectively, and which had been found with Yau at Hong-Kong.After seeing the photos, she identified the photo of accused No. 1 as the person to whom she had delivered gold in Calcutta and the photo of accused No. 3 as the person to whom she had delivered gold in Bombay.When asked about the visiting card of accused No. 1, she gave description of the visiting card as a light blue with red design, and identified exh.It may be mentioned that exh.V is the visiting card of accused No. 1 which was found with Yau and seized from his person.She also told Mishra that she would be able to point out the place where accused No. 1 resides.After she had completed her statement, she was allowed to go to the Air Lines Hotel in which accommodation is usually reserved for the Air Hostesses of Air India International.Subsequently, on going through the statement, Mishra P.W. 69, found a number of discrepancies.She corrected some misstatements which had crept in her first statement, the material correction being that her Calcutta visits were prior to Bombay visits, and not Bombay visits first and Calcutta visits later, as stated by her in her first statement.Kazi then told her to point out the house where she had delivered gold.She then took Kazi to the Marine Lines Station and pointed, out the Shalimar Building opposite Marino Lines Station.She further stated that accused No. 3 was residing on the top floor of Shalimar Building".It appears that the case was fixed for evidence on, January 2, 1961 and on that day Ethyl Wong was put in the witness box as the first prosecution witness.At the trial, however, was not made an accused, nor was pardon granted to him under Section 337, Criminal Procedure Code.On the other hand, S was examined at the trial as a witness against the appellants-accused, and on the strength of his evidence, they were convicted and sentenced.Two other persons, against whom there was evidence but who were meant to be used as witnesses against the accused persons, were mentioned in the column headed: "names and addresses of accused persons not sent up for trial", and also in the list of witnesses.At the trial of the accused, these two persons were examined as witnesses for the prosecution.A contention was raised on behalf of the accused who were sent for trial that the evidence of these witnesses was inadmissible.The material facts in Beg v. Hanmanta, were that a number of accused were sent up to stand their trial before a Magistrate for having committed certain frauds.Now, the search was held on October 30, 1959, in Hong Kong.Nothing has been shown to us to hold that any formal accusation was made against either Laxmipat or Daga at the time the search was made.A reference was made to two applications made by the Customs Officer for issue of a search warrant of the premises of accused No. 1 in Calcutta and accused No. 3 in Bombay, presumably to show that a formal accusation was made against Laxmipat Choraria. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,405,222 | consent of parties.Vakalatnama of applicant No.6 is taken on record.2] The proceeding is filed for quashing the RCC No. 183 of 2016arising out of Crime No. 22 of 2016 registered with Pimpalgaon (Hare) PoliceStation, Taluka Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon for the offence punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 507, 447 r/w. 34 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 22/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 10:12:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 10:12:37 :::Copy of HMP CaseNo.Copy of application filed by partiesunder Section 13B and decree is also produced on record and it shows that thewife had agreed to withdraw all the proceedings including the proceedingunder Section 498-A of IPC as there is settlement of dispute.The presentapplicants are husband and his relatives.4] Even after service of notice as nobody turned up on behalf of thefirst informant, one Advocate was given through legal aid to the firstinformant and he has appeared on her behalf.No orders as to costs.Fees of the appointed counsel arequantified at Rs. 3,000/- to be paid through the High Court Legal Services,Sub-committee, Aurangabad.::: Uploaded on - 22/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 10:12:37 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,944,121 | Nuruddin Ahmed and D. Goburdhun, for the appellant.H.R. Khanna, O. P. Sharma and R. N.Sachthey, for therespondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byBEG.J.-This is an appeal by special leave filed by KesarSingh, aged 23 years, who was convicted under Section 302Indian Penal Code on three counts and sentenced to lifeimprisonment by an Additional Sessions' Judge of Patiala forhaving committed the murders of three persons, namely,Gurbachan Singh, Karnail Singh and Dewan Singh, one afteranother, during the night between 20th and 21st June, 1970,in village Dhablan.On appeal against the conviction and arevision application by the State against the lesser penaltyfor murder, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed theappeal of Kesar Singh, but it allowed the revisionapplication of the State of Punjab enhancing the sentence ofKesar Singh to one of death.The grounds given by the High Court for enhancing thesentence were: the motive was to avenge the murder of theappellant's brother in-law Gurnam Singh committed about 7 or8 years prior to the occurrence so that there could,be noimmediate provocation; the three murders were committed "ina very cold blooded and brutal manner when the deceased weresleeping on their cots"; two shots from a 1 2 bore, gun hadbeen fired at each of the three murdered men "indicating thedetermination to give no chance of survival to anyone"; "thetime selected for the murder was such that no possible helpcould be rendered to prevent the death of any of the threedeceased and no obstruction could be possible to carry outthe design of committing these murders".Before givingthese reasons, quoted mostly in the words of the High Courtitself, the High Court had relied on observations of thisCourt in Apren Joseph & Ors.The State of Kerala:(1) "The determination of sentence in a given case depends on a variety of considerations, the more, important being, the nature of the crime, the manner of its commission, the motive which impelled it and the character and antecedents of accuseds".Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken us through theevidence of the two eye witnesses Gurdev Singh, P. W. 3, andNachhattar Singh, P. W. 4, whose testimony had been acceptedwholly by the Trial Court and the High Court about themurder of three men by the appellant singly, although theTrial Court had disbelieved the very reason given for GurdevSingh to wake up in time to see the murder of GurbachanSingh, and, therefore,had acquitted the co-accused Kishori.It may be mentioned here that Gurdev Singh, P. W. 3, wasshown to be sleeping on the roof of the house of his uncleDewan Singh, from where he could see his cousin, GurbachanSingh, and brother Gurmel Singh, P. W. 5, sleeping on theroof of the next house where Gurbachan Singh was murdered ona full moon night.The prosecution version was that, whenKesar Singh and the acquitted accused, Kishori, went up thestairs to the roof, Gurmel Singh, P. W. 5, who was totallyblind from birth, woke up and heard Kesar Singh, whom herecognised by voice, telling Kishori to catch hold of theblind man who was awake.He alleged that Kishori gave him two blows whereupon hecried out: "Mar Ditta Mar Ditta".It is these cries whichare said to have awakened Gurdev Singh.There were twoabrasions on the body of Gurmel Singh, one on the foreheadand another on his wrist, indicating that he had fallen downand hurt himself.The Trial Court had, very rightly, heldthat he must have got up and shouted only after the twoshots had been fired at Gurbachan Singh.There was no pointin assaulting him merely because he was awake.If that wasdone he was sure to raise a hue and cry and wake up others.Therefore, the prosecution version that Gurdev Singh, P. W.3, had got up because of Gurmel Singh's cries and had seenthe appellant firing twice at Gurbachan Singh had to bediscarded as too transparent an embellishment with anobvious purpose behind it.The High Court, however, had notanalysed the evidence of any of the witnesses.It hadobserved rather mechanically:"Both Gurdev Singh and Nachhattar Singh have given consistent version of the incident and their statements are wholly free from inaccuracies or discrepancies, even though both the witnesses were cross-examined at considerable length.Apart from the fact that the High Court had not even noticedthe very good reasons given by the Trial Court fordiscarding the evidence of Gurmel Singh, P. W. 5, includingthe fact that this witness , who claimed to have identifiedKesar Singh by voice, could not recognise Kesar Singh'svoice when the Presiding Judge spoke to Kessar Singh, duringthe trial, to test the correctness of the claim of thewitness, the High Court had overlooked a number of featuresbrought out by cross-examination of the two eye witnesseswhich made the version given out by them very difficult tobelieve totally.Gurdev Singh had described Kesar Singh as wearing a blueturban whereas Nachhattar Singh had described it as a creamcoloured ("Badami") turban.While Gurdev Singh had saidthat Kesar Singh Awe a white shirt, Nachhattar Singh hadsaid that he was draped in a with stripes on it and wore ashirt of several colours.Considering that Nachhattar Singhwas said to be sleeping in a remote corner of the enclosurearound the house on the roof of which Gurbachan Singh wasmurdered and Dewan Singh and Karnail Singh were asleep atsome distance from him in this enclosure, it is difficult tobelieve that Nachhattar could have made out not only thecolour of the turban but also the stripes on the chadar andshirt of Kesar Singh even on a full moon night.Thesevarying descriptions could indicate that perhaps twodifferent but similar men with guns had been seen shootingbut only Kesar Singh-was identified as the murderer with agun.Another broad feature, brought out from the cross-examination of the witnesses, may be pointed out here.Kesar Singh was shown to 3-M45 Sup CI/75490have first climbed to the roof of the house where GurbachanSingh was asleep and then to have come down the stairs toshoot at Karnail Singh on his cot, and, thereafter, to haveshot Dewan Singh on his cot It does appear rather unlikelythat, while even a blind man had got up, and Gurdev Singh,P. W. 3, sleeping on the roof of the next house, andNachhattar Singh, P. W. 4, Purran Singh, P. W. 6, declaredhostile, who were also sleeping near Karnail Singh and D.-wait Singh, had got up, neither Karnail Singh nor DewanSingh could got up from their cots and try to either grapplewith or run away from the assailant who was permitted toquietly reload his double barrelled gun to shoot at each ofthe three men twice each time.Dewan Singh was, however,said to be awake and sitting up in his bed when shot.But,no empty cartridges were recovered from the scene ofoccurrence.The witnesses, who claimed to have observedeverything so closely, did not depose that Kesar Singh tookout and put the spent cartridges into a pocket.Another difficulty in accepting the prosecution versiontotally, as put forward by the two eye witnesses, is thatGurdev Singh, P. W. 3, was shown to have rushed out of thehouse on the roof of which he was sleeping and to have takenup his stand at the bottom of the stairs down which themurderer and his companion are shown to have descendedalthough Gurdev Singh was empty handed and admitted that hewas afraid of Kesar Singh who had a gun in his possession.find it very difficult to believe that Gurdev Singhwould have rushed and taken up his stand here to see themurders of Karnail Singh and Dewan Singh if he had actuallyseen Kesar Singh shoot twice at Gurbachan Singh on the roof.We think that it is very likely that Gurdev Singh woke up,like the others nearby.at hearing the gun shots and took uphis stand near the stairs from where he could have seenKesar Singh murdering Karnail Singh and Dewan Singh It isonly because he had not seen the murder of Gurbachan Singhthat he could be expected, to act like this and.come andstand at the bottom of the stairs, without apprehendingdanger to himself, down which the murderer descended.If hehad rushed at once to this spot in this fashion he was, morelikely, than not, to have virtually intercepted themurderer.The broad probabilities which we have mentioned abovecertainly make it difficult to accept unhesitatingly, as theHigh Court had done, the version that Kesar Singh alone shotat each of the three men and killed them.We have, however,no doubt that Kessar Singh was seen by the witnesses runningaway with a double barrelled gun and had actually killed atleast one of the three men murdered on the night between20th and 21st June, 1970, and could have been seen doing so.It is likely that more than that is due to the not uncommonpropensity of witnesses to speculate, imagine, andexaggerate.Evidence shows that the appellant had two brothers at leastone of whom was a resident of village Dhablan at the time ofthe shooting, if implication was only due to a desire totake revenge for three murders, the appellant would not havebeen the only one who would have491been alleged to have used a gun to shoot when there wasopportunity to implicate others too in the same position asthe appellant so far as any enmity goes.It is difficult tohold that either Gurdev Singh or Nachhattar Singh, who hadboth been prosecuted for the murder of' their step brotherGurnam Singh but acquitted about seven years before theoccurrence, could have any grudge for this reason onlyeither against Kesar Singh or his brother Bhajan Singh bothof whom were residing with and looking after the land of TejKaur the widow of Gurnam Singh.If the witnesses hadimplicated Kesar Singh merely out of suspicion they wouldhave involved Bhajan Singh also for the same reason.The statements of the two eye witnesses find corroborationfrom the fairly detailed account of the occurrence of about3 a.m. in the F.I.R. lodged at Police Station Sadar Patialaabout 10 miles away at 8 25 a.m. on 21-6-1970.It appears that Lal Singh Sarpanch and Jag Singh Panch, hadalso come to the scene of occurrence after it had takenplace and had gone to the Police Station so that the F.I.R.was lodged in their presence although they did not sign itbecause there was no need for that.It was contended thatthey ought to have been produced by the prosecution becausethe eye witnesses gave their accounts to them first.Theywere neither eye witneesses nor essential for unfolding ofthe prosecution version.If the eye witnesses had saidanything before them which could help the accused, theycould have been produced in defence, or in any case, theaccused could have applied for their examination underSection 540 Criminal Procedure Code.We do not think thatthe failure to examine these witnesses either by theprosecution or by the Court, suo moto, can cast a doubt onthe prosecution case.Apart from the motive to murder, we think that theprosecution case against the appellant finds corroborationfrom the statement of the Investigating Officer, KuldevSingh, P. W. 12, who deposed that when he went to the houseof Tej Kaur, looking for the appellant, he found it locked.The appellant could be arrested only on 27-6-(97t) after a"Nakabandi" at the canal bridge of village Dhakraba and wasfound in illegal possession of the gun No. 60780 loaded withlive cartridges and with powder lining inside the barrel sothat it must have been used.At the trial, the appellantfalsely denied this recovery and circumstances of hisarrest.His conduct was certainly very suspicious.The manner in which the witnesses describe the infliction ofthe injuries is also corroborated, according to the HighCourt, by the medical evidence.On the whole we agree withthis view.Although we are not impressed by the rather ready and facileacceptance by the High Court of the whole prosecutionversion, which suffers from the improbabilities mentionedabove, we find the evidence to be enough to establish beyondreasonable doubt that Kesar Singh was at least one of thepossibly several murderers.Nothing was disclosed about the antecedents ofthe appellant.If it was more likely, as we think it was,that the appellant was one of the several murderers and thathe had caused the death of only one man with his gun, theothers having been killed by others who were probably notrecognised, the real basis adopted for awarding a deathsentence to him would disappear. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,412,290 | (i) ADMIT.(ii) Pending the present appeal, appellant No.1-Shaikh Arif s/o Shaikh Kabul; appellant No.2-Shaikh Wasim s/o .....3/-::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 02:13:26 :::apeal43.19 7 3 Sk.Nawab, and appellant No.3-Irshad Khan s/o Sanaullah Khan, be released on bail on their executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount.(iii) The appellants are directed to visit Barshitakli Police Station, District Akola and mark their presence once in a month and shall maintain case diary showing their presence in the police station.(iv) The appellants shall not try to intimidate any of prosecution witnesses.(v) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on merit on behalf respondent No.1/State.(vi) Respondent No.2 should be served notice of admission of the appeal also through the Superintendent of Police, Akola.(vii) Since this Court has granted bail to the appellants pending this appeal, Criminal Application (APPA) No.65/2019 has rendered infructuous.JUDGE !! BRW !! ...../-::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2019 02:13:26 ::: | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,414,100 | As both the cases are against the same judgment and involve common issues, they are heard and decided concomitantly.The appellant has been found guilty of offences punishable under section 302 and 201 IPC, for committing the murder of his wife Sundariya Bai and has been sentenced to death.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was having a very strained relationship with his wife deceased Sundariya Bai on account of the fact that she had gone and deposited her gold and silver ornaments with her sister Jaimatiya Bai, (PW-8), and on that account the appellant used to frequently fight with her and beat her.On 1.2.2010 at around 2.00 P.M the appellant went to the house of Kamla, (PW-2) and fought with Jaimatiya Bai, (PW-8) and told her that he would kill Sundariya Bai and set the house on fire and this incident was told to 3 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 & Cr.A No.1292/2015 Madhuri, (PW-4) daughter of the appellant by Jaimatiya Bai (P.W-8) upon which Madhuri (PW-4), rushed to her house.At around 4.00 P.M. the appellant again started an altercation with his wife Sundariya Bai in the presence of his daughter Madhuri (PW-4), and thereafter told his daughter Madhuri (PW-4), that he would murder her mother and thereafter set the house on fire and when his daughter Madhuri (PW-4) tried to intervene, the appellant threatened to physically assault her and thereafter told the deceased Sundariya Bai that he will forcefully take her to the field and would murder her.3 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 &According to the prosecution, at around 7.00 P.M in the evening the appellant forcibly took his wife on the cycle to the agricultural field and while taking her, he told his daughter Madhuri, (PW-4), that he would murder his wife today.Madhuri, (PW-4), pursued the appellant and her mother upto the tank but the appellant forced her to go back.While the appellant was taking deceased Sundariya Bai to the field, Ganga Bai, (P.W-1), saw them and at that time the appellant was telling his wife deceased Sundariya Bai that he would murder her.Madhuri (PW-4) also met Ganga Bai (P.W-1) and Sushila Bai (P.W-12) near the tank and narrated the entire incident to them.4 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 &A No.1292/2015 The prosecution story is that Madhuri (PW-4), on returning home telephoned her maternal uncle Kamla (PW-2) and narrated the entire incident.Kamla (PW-2) and Mathura Prasad (PW-3), thereafter came to the house of the accused appellant but did not find him and, therefore, both of them went in search of the appellant and the deceased Sundariya Bai whereupon they found Sundariya Bai lying between the railway tracks in an extremely injured state.They thereafter took her to the hospital but she died enroute.Kamla (P.W-2) lodged a Marg intimation at Police Station Jaithari pursuant to which Marg No.7/2010 was registered and the body was sent for postmortem.On 2.2.2010 the appellant was arrested and several incriminating items like blood stained clothes and 3 blood stained stones were seized from him and the criminal law was set in motion.The prosecution, in support of its case, produced Exhibit P-1 Police Case Diary Statement of Ganga Bai (PW-1), Exhibit P-2 Morgue intimation, Exhibit P-3 First Information Report lodged by P.W-2 Kamla, Exhibit P-6 Spot Map, Exhibit P-7 Seizure Memo, Exhibit P-8 Postmortem Report, Exhibit P-9 Memo of the accused, Exhibit P-10 Seizure Memo, Exhibit P-11 Arrest Memo, 5 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 & Cr.A No.1292/2015 Exhibit P-12 Property Seizure Memo, Exhibits P-22 to 31 Photographs of the deceased, Exhibit P-32 Police Case Diary Statement of Kamal Singh Rathore (PW-2), Exhibit P-35 FSL Report and Exhibit P-38 Police Case Diary Statement of Ku.Madhuri Rathore (PW-4) amongst other documents.A perusal of the statement of Madhuri (PW-4) indicates that she has clearly stated that her parents used to fight regularly on account of the fact that her mother had kept her jewellery with her maternal aunt Jaimataiya Bai (PW-8).She has stated that on the fateful day she had gone to give an examination for which she had gone to her maternal uncle's house.She has stated that while she was at her maternal uncle's house her aunt Jaimataiya Bai (PW-8) told her that her father had come in the afternoon and had said that he would murder her mother, the deceased Sundariya Bai, and would burn the house.She has stated that when she went back at about 4.00 P.M to her house she found her parents fighting and when she tried to intervene her father, the accused appellant, threatened to beat her up.She has stated that thereafter her mother went towards the 'baadi' (irrigation pond) but was followed by her father who brought her back and forced her to accompany him to the field.. She has stated that her mother protested but her father forced her to accompany him and thereafter forcibly made her sit on the cycle and took her to the field.She has stated that she ran after her mother and father but the accused appellant forced her to go back.She stated that she 41 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 & Cr.A No.1292/2015 again went to the tank which is on the way to the field where she met her paternal aunt Sushila (PW-12) and narrated the entire incident to her.She has thereafter stated that she returned home and phoned her maternal uncle Kamal (PW-2) who came to their house and went to search for her mother.She has stated that her father thereafter returned and told her that he had murdered her mother and had left her body on the railway track.She has stated that thereafter her maternal uncle, his servant Mathura (PW-3) and his son Ashok (PW-10) went to search for Sundariya Bai who was found lying between the railway track in an extremely injured state.She has stated that her maternal uncle Kamal (PW-2) thereafter called the police and took her mother to the hospital but she succumbed to her injuries enroute.She has stated that thereafter when her father returned home she had asked him what he had done with her mother to which he stated that he had murdered her.41 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 &In her cross-examination this witness has stated that the jewellery that her mother had kept with her aunt Jaimatiya Bai (PW-8) had been returned eight days prior to the incident.She has stated that she had seen that her aunt Jaimataiya Bai and her husband had gone back home without having food at their house though her mother had insisted for the same and that as a result of the fight between her maternal aunt Jaimataiya Bai (PW-8) and her father, her mother was very unhappy and was crying.She has stated that her father was asking her mother to bring money from her parents house.In the last line of para-5 43 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 & Cr.A No.1292/2015 of her cross-examination she has stated that she felt that her maternal aunt Jaimataiya Bai had returned the jewellery 8 days before the incident.In para-6 of her cross-examination she has clarified that she had gone to her maternal uncle's house because her mother had told her to do so which message has been delivered to her by her younger sister.In para-7 of her cross-examination she has stated that her father used to stay in the hut made in the field while her mother and other members of the family used to reside in the house in the village.In para-8 of her cross-examination examination she has stated that while she was running after her parents, she met her aunt Sushila (PW-12) and had narrated the entire incident to her.She has also stated that she met Ganga Bai (PW-1) who is the mother of her friend Sandhya and narrated the same incident to her also.A No.1292/2015 mother Sundariya Bai and her father, her father had returned home in their absence and had told her that he had already murdered Sundariya Bai her mother.She has gone on to state that her maternal uncle accompanied by his servant Mathura Prasad (PW-3) and his son Ashok (PW-10), whom he had also called, found Sundariya Bai lying in an injured state between the railway track and the three had thereafter taken her to the hospital but she died on the way to the hospital.However, in the same paragraph she has contradicted her own statement by stating that prior to the fact that her father told her that he had murdered his mother, her maternal uncle had already told her about the same inspite of which she asked her father what he had done with her mother.She has thereafter stated that her father went into the cattle shed to change his clothes which were blood stained but as it was dark she could not see as to where her father had hidden the clothes.She has stated that she saw the blood stains on her father's clothes in torch light.She has stated that her father thereafter came out of the cattle shed and went away.In the last line of para-10 she has stated that her father washed his bloodstained clothes on the next morning and spread them to dry on the roof of the cattle 45 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 & Cr.A No.1292/2015 shed.In para-10 she has again come up with a third version of the incident by stating that at 7.30 P.M she rang up her maternal uncle and told him that her father, the accused appellant had told her that he had murdered his wife Sundariya Bai and had left her at the railway track at 7.30 P.M but did not tell him any other fact regarding return of her father, change of clothes, etc. In para-11 she again contradicted her own statement that her father had washed the clothes in the morning on the next day by stating that her father had already been arrested by the police in the night of the incident itself from the 'nala' with an axe in his hand.42 Cr.This Criminal Reference No.2/2015 is before this Court against the death penalty dated 7.5.2015 imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Anuppur in Sessions 2 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 & Cr.A No.1292/2015 Trial No.72/2010 by recording a finding of guilt against the appellant for offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC').2 Cr.Criminal Appeal No.1292/2015 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment.The prosecution also examined as many as 12 witnesses.Dr. Sunil Khanna (PW-5) was examined by the prosecution in respect of the postmortem report, Exhibit P-8, according to which deceased Sundariya Bai had suffered 9 injuries on the face and head, all of which were lacerated wounds and were flesh deep, that is, there was no fracture or injury to the underlying bones.The first three injuries were on the cheek while the fourth injury was on the upper lip and the fifth injury was on the chin.A No.1292/2015 leading to excessive haemorrage causing shock and cardio respiratory failure.6 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 &Surprisingly, no opinion as to whether the death was homicidal or otherwise was expressed or given by Dr. Sunil Khanna (PW-5).The trial court has made the statement of Madhuri (PW-4) the main basis of its conclusion as is apparent from a perusal of para 30 of its judgment.By relying upon the statement of Madhuri (PW-4) the trial court has recorded a finding to the effect that the appellant was extremely angry and agitated on account of the fact that his wife deceased Sundariya Bai had kept her jewellery with her sister Jaimatiya Bai (PW-8) and for that reason he used to repeatedly fight with her, beat her and threaten her.Again on the basis of the statement of Madhuri (PW-4) the trial court in para-41 has recorded a finding to the 7 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 & Cr.A No.1292/2015 effect that Madhuri (PW-4) had seen the accused appellant abusing her mother deceased Sundariya Bai and thereafter beating her and forcibly taking her on his cycle and that the deceased Sundariya Bai did not return back and was last seen alive with the appellant while he was taking her on the cycle to his field.The trial court had also recorded a finding that thereafter the deceased Sundariya Bai was found in a nearly lifeless state between the railway tracks two hours thereafter with several injuries on her face and head.The trial court has also recorded a finding that the accused appellant made an extra-judicial confession before his daughter Madhuri (PW-4) regarding the commission of the crime and that he was thereafter arrested and blood stains were found on his clothes for which no explanation has been furnished.The trial court, in para-42 of its judgment, has held that the accused appellant with an intent to commit the murder of the deceased 8 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 & Cr.A No.1292/2015 Sundariya Bai forcible took her on the cycle to the railway tracks and thereafter struck her head repeatedly against the gravels/metal stones (gitti) lying between the railway tracks and continued to do so till she became lifeless and that on account of the aforesaid injuries sustained by the deceased Sundariya Bai, she died.7 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 & Cr.A No.1292/2015 to her maternal uncle's house.She has stated that inspite of the fact that her mother had been murdered and her father had been arrested she did not attend her mother's funeral the next day as she had gone to give her examination as her teacher had told her that she would be treated as a private student in case she did not appear in the examination.She has, however, gone on to state that she had not informed the school authority about the incident of her mother and that she did participate in the subsequent examinations.In para-4 of her cross-examination she has clarified that she does not know as to whether the jewellery had already been returned by Jaimataiya Bai (PW-8) to her mother.She has also admitted that she had not heard the fight between her aunt Jaimataiya Bai (PW-8) and her father when her aunt came to return the jewellery.In para-9 of her statement she has stated that her father on returning had informed her that he had murdered his mother and had left her lying between the railway track at 8.00 P.M in the night.In the same paragraph she has stated that prior to that her maternal uncle Kamal (PW-2) had already come to their house and had gone to search for the accused appellant and deceased Sundariya Bai and after her maternal uncle had gone to search for her 44 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 & Cr.A No.1292/2015 maternal uncle's house to give her examination whereas in her own statement she has stated that her mother told her to go to her maternal uncle's house.(5) Her statement is also quite unnatural inasmuch as she has stated the fact that she rang her maternal uncle Kamal (PW-2) informing him about the incident but did not inform her paternal uncle or any of her neighbours or persons residing nearby.Ref No.2/2015 & Cr.A No.1292/2015 that her statement is full of embellishments, exaggerations and material discrepancies and, therefore, we find ourselves unable to pick out the grain of truth from the falsehood of her statement.4), the brother of the deceased Kamal (PW-2) and the statement of the sister of the deceased Jaimatiya Bai (PW-8) to record a finding against the appellant in this regard.A No.1292/2015 Jaimataiya Bai (PW-8) and her and husband.Thereafter they had gone away.She has clarified that she only knew about the fact that her aunt Jaimataiya Bai (PW-8) had come to return the jewellery but she did not know as to whether her mother deceased Sundariya Bai had actually taken back the jewellery or not.52 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 &In view of the statement of Madhuri (PW-4) and Kamal (PW-2) the statement of Jaimataiya Bai (PW-8) assumes great importance as she is the one who had gone to the house of the accused to return the jewellery.A No.1292/2015 1.2.2010 itself.We are of the considered opinion that the court below should have refrained from making any such recommendation or comment in respect of any witness as has been made by the court below in para-44 of its judgment regarding the statement of Madhuri (PW-4).60 Cr.Ref No.2/2015 &In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussion, we reject the reference for the confirmation of death penalty and allow the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment dated 7.5.2015 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Anuppur in Sessions Trial No.72/2010 convicting the appellant under sections 302 and 201 IPC. | ['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. |
194,415 | On 9th February, 1961, the petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Officer in Grade III in the respondent-Bank.With effect from 1st April, 1968, the petitioner was promoted to Grade D Officer in the Foreign Exchange Department in the Head Office of the respondent-Bank.At that time, the petitioner was the Chief Promoter and Secretary of Manoj Co-operative Housing Society (referred to hereafter as "the Society"), the purpose whereof was to construct residential quarters for the employees of the respondent-Bank and also for outsiders.JUDGMENT B. Lentin, J.In reply to the Bank's show-cause notice dated 17th December, 1969, the petitioner gave his reply dated 18th/22nd.January, 1970 wherein in the very forefront the petitioner denied "all the ill-founded findings of the equiry officer which are based on premises which are obviously improper, pervert and with pre-conceived notions" adding that "the enquiry had not been conducted in conformity with the law for the purpose and the procedure adopted at the enquiry are basically militating against natural justice, equity and good conscience".The petitioner thereafter proceeded to deal point with the aspects on which he had been asked to submit his explanation.On 3rd September, 1970, charges were framed by the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate against the petitioner and two other officers of the Society, viz., Kulkarni and Pandya, under Ss. 409 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to the amounts of Rs. 51,000 and Rs. 80,000, respectively.On 3rd November, 1970, the respondent-Bank addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that the petitioner's explanation given in his letter dated 18th/22nd January, 1970 was found by the Bank to be unsatisfactory but that further steps were not taken in the matter in view of the complaints filed by M. S. Navalkar in the Court of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate.The petitioner then proceeded to narrate in that letter the various proceedings and the nature thereof and ended with a request that the Bank consider the entire situation.Regarding his suspension, the petitioner made a grievance;"...... that it was necessary to give me an opportunity to submit my say before a suspension order was passed against me.The order was made effective with immediate effect, making it effective until the case is finally disposed off, without even giving me a show cause notice ......"On 21st December, 1970, the petitioner's revision application was rejected by Government.On 29th June, 1971 the petitioner filed special civil application in the High Court for quashing the enquiry report under S. 83 and the appointment of the authorised officer under S. 88 of the Societies Act. That special civil application was summarily rejected.The petitioner's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused, and his special leave application to the Supreme Court was also rejected.On 9th October, 1971, Godbole passed an order under S. 88 of the Societies Act holding the petitioner liable to pay Rs. 2,36,000 to the Society, and another amount of Rs. 2,03,000 with the other two officers of the Society, viz., Kulkarni and Pujar.Against that order, the petitioner filed an Appeal No. 28 of 1972 before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal.With that letter was enclosed a pay slip for Rs. 5,089.24 being the amount of the petitioner's net salary for the current month and three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice of termination of his service.The petitioner was asked to send his receipt in full and final settlement of his salary and notice pay.It was further stated that the petitioner's claim for gratuity and provident fund dues would be considered on his making the requisite application.This letter was delivered to the petitioner at his residence the same night.The petitioner accepted the letter and signed the receipt as desired by the Bank.However, before doing so, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 1st December, 1971, to the Bank expressing his surprise and pain at his services being terminated and strongly protesting in no uncertain terms that the termination of his services was not termination simpliciter and that action had been taken against him without giving him any opportunity to show cause and that the termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice.The petitioner stated that a detailed reply would follow.taken "entirely independent of any expectations as to the outcome of any legal proceedings pending against you".The letter concluded :"You are hereby informed that the said decision to so terminate your services was prompted by the Bank's loss of confidence in you as an employee for any further service in a highly sensitive credit institution like the Bank, arising from your conduct in the matter of the affairs of the Manoj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., considered as a whole."and a fine of Rs. 2,000 The petitioner thereupon filed Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 1972 and Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 1972 in the Bombay High Court.The Tribunal, however, reduced by Rs. 72,000 the amount mentioned in Godbole's order.The petitioner's conviction and sentence was set aside, and he was acquitted with strictures in a detailed judgment that his conviction under S. 409 of the Indian Penal Code was totally misconceived.A person may well arrive at a settlement for many reasons including peace of mind and freedom from constant litigation and so forth.Merely because the petitioner gave the receipt in the from demanded by the Bank, viz., in full and final settlement, cannot spell out acquiescence on the part of the petitioner.The Bank's letter dated 29th November, 1971, was delivered to the petitioner that very night at his residence.The petitioner has expressed in his affidavit and across the Bar through his learned advocate, his willingness to adjust these amounts earned by him against his claim of back wages from the respondent - Bank.The defence of abandonment of service taken up is worthless and unworthy. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,416,297 | Thirdly, that if the applicants had engaged the co-accused Sunil to kill the deceased persons then, there was no need for them to visit the spot personally at the time of incident.(Passed on the 22nd day of February, 2013) These two revision applications are connected with the same case and same crime, therefore, decided by the present common order.The applicants have preferred the criminal revision No.1933/2012 against the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the learned 19th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.362/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable :: 2 ::Criminal Revision No.1146 of 2012 Criminal Revision No.1933 of 2012 under sections 460 and 302/34 (2 counts) of IPC were framed against the applicants, whereas criminal revision No.1146/2012 is preferred by the applicants against the order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur in criminal case related to crime No.285/2012, whereby the report under section 169 of the Cr.P.C. was refused and cognizance was taken against the applicants.The prosecution's case, relating to disposal of these revisions, in short, is that, on 12.4.2012 at about 4.25 a.m. in the morning, the complainant Abhishek Gupta informed the Sub Inspector Kartar Singh of Police Station Lordganj, District Jabalpur that his parents were sleeping on the ground floor of his house, whereas, the complainant and his family were sleeping at the first floor.At about 2.45 a.m. in the morning, he heard the cries of his mother and therefore, he ran to the spot and found that his father Narbada Prasad and mother Sushila Keshari were badly injured and blood was oozing from various parts of their bodies and ultimately, they expired on the spot.He saw that the applicants Manohar Soni and Vinod Soni were running away from the room.They left the house by opening the main gate of the house.After lodging the FIR, the police started the investigation and found that the complainant and :: 3 ::Criminal Revision No.1146 of 2012 Criminal Revision No.1933 of 2012 his parents engaged the co-accused Sunil Patel and he was permitted to reside in a portion of their newly constructed house, which was adjacent to the place of incident and it was Sunil who killed both of the deceased persons.Blood stained weapon was also seized from Sunil and two stolen mobiles of the deceased persons were also found with the co- accused Sunil.After due investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused Sunil but, a report under section 169 of the Cr.P.C. against the present applicants no case was made out against them.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to accept the report under section 169 of the Cr.P.C. and he took the cognizance against the applicants.The case was committed for the trial and the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the applicants for the offences as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.Criminal Revision No.1146 of 2012 Criminal Revision No.1933 of 2012 Dubey Vs.State of M.P." [(2012) (2) SCC 731] and "Nupur Talwar Vs.CBI Delhi and another [(2012) (2) SCC 188].Similarly, it is submitted that there was no sufficient evidence against the applicants, so that charges could be framed and therefore, it is prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside.The learned counsel for the objector has submitted that it is a case of double murder and the applicants are the culprits, because they had a family dispute with the deceased persons.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be proper to consider the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur at first stage because if that order is maintained or reversed then, there will be no necessity in discussing the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by which he took the cognizance.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed the charges of offence punishable under sections 460 and 302/34 (2 counts) of IPC against the applicants.In the present case, if prosecution documents are perused then, it would be clear from the report dated 30.4.2012 given by Special Scientist Officer, scene of crime unit, Jabalpur that there was no house breaking found in the house.Foot prints of only single accused were found and it was observed that he ran away by jumping the wall of the corridor and both the deceased persons were found injured on their bed only.For offence punishable under section 460 of IPC, it is necessary that assault be caused at the time of house breaking or lurking house trespass.In the present case, no house breaking was found.The injured persons were found on their bed only and therefore, they did not try to stop any house breaking or lurking house trespass.Under such circumstances, no offence punishable under section 460 of IPC is made out against any of the accused persons.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in framing of the charge under section 460 of IPC against the applicants.There are two circumstances against the applicants.Firstly, that they had a motive to kill the deceased persons.Secondly, that they were found at the :: 6 ::The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not frame the charge of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC against the applicants.Secondly, the witnesses who saw the applicants at the spot did not allege that they saw the co- accused Sunil at that time and hence, the allegation appended by the witnesses appears to be unnatural because the actual culprit could not leave the spot prior to the spectators of the incident.No blood stained clothes of the applicants were seized.No weapon or robbed property was seized from the applicants.If house was closed from inside then, a person who was present in the adjacent newly constructed house could go inside the house by jumping a wall but, the applicants could not enter in the house without any house breaking, whereas no house breaking was found by the police or by the senior scientist officer, scene of crime branch.Under such circumstances, chain of circumstantial evidence is broken :: 7 ::Criminal Revision No.1146 of 2012 Criminal Revision No.1933 of 2012 against the applicants.They cannot be convicted for offence punishable under section 302 of IPC with help of evidence collected by the prosecution.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has appended the charges of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC with help of section 34 of IPC against the applicants and therefore, it was to be seen as to whether the common intention of the applicants was established with the co-accused Sunil or not.Common intention may be examined by the overt-acts of the accused persons done by them at the spot or it can be proved by the transaction took place between them, prior to the incident.There is no iota of evidence that any talk took place between the applicants and the co-accused Sunil, prior to the incident.The police has recorded a memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-accused Sunil but, he did not state that he was engaged by the applicants to kill the deceased persons.There is no evidence with the prosecution that there was any contact of the applicants with the co-accused Sunil, prior to the incident.Therefore, there is no evidence to establish the common intention of the applicants with the co-accused Sunil, prior to the incident.The complainant has alleged that he saw the applicants at the spot but, he did not claim that he saw the :: 8 ::Criminal Revision No.1146 of 2012 Criminal Revision No.1933 of 2012 accused Sunil, who was kept by him in the adjacent house.He did not claim that any talk took place with the accused Sunil and the applicants at the spot and therefore, by mere presence of the applicants at the spot, their common intention with the accused Sunil cannot be presumed.The testimony of the complainant cannot be examined at this stage and therefore, for consideration of the order relating to framing of charges, it is presumed that the complainant is telling a truth.However, by statements of the complainant, no common intention of the applicants can be presumed with the co-accused Sunil.Under such circumstances, by availability of the circumstantial evidence that the applicants had a motive to kill the deceased or they were found at the spot, soon after the incident, their common intention is not established with the co-accused Sunil.Hence, if the evidence of the prosecution is considered as it is, a doubt is created in favour of the applicants and they cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC either directly or with the help of section 34 of IPC.Hence, two count charges of offence punishable under section 302/34 of IPC could not be framed.There is no allegation against the applicants that they killed or they participated in killing the deceased :: 9 ::Criminal Revision No.1146 of 2012 Criminal Revision No.1933 of 2012 persons on their own and also their common intention with the co-accused Sunil is not at all established by the evidence collected by the prosecution.Under such circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in framing two counts charge of offence punishable under section 302/34 of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the prosecution evidence as collected by the investigation officer is considered as it is then, still the applicants cannot be convicted either for the offence punishable under section 460 of IPC on two count charges of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC either directly or with the help of section 34 of IPC and therefore, such charges could not be framed against the applicants.It is a good case, in which interference is required from the side of this Court, by way of a revision, in the order relating to framing of charges.Hence, the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur is required to be set aside.When the applicants are to be discharged from all the charges appended against them then, the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 190 of the Cr.P.C., automatically turns infructuous and therefore, there is no need to discuss the :: 10 ::Criminal Revision No.1146 of 2012 Criminal Revision No.1933 of 2012 validity of that order.Hence, the revision relating to that order also turns infructuous.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the criminal revision No.1933/2012 filed by the applicants is hereby allowed.The order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the learned 19th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 22/2/2013 Pushpendra | ['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. |
194,417,176 | It is alleged that these accused had planned to do away with Rajini @ Rajinikanth as he was the hindrance for A1 to grab the said property.It is further alleged that on 23.11.2007 around 10.00 p.m. all these five accused along with one juvenile by name - Narayanan joined together, went to the house of the deceased killed him by attacking him with knife and also by strangulating him to neck and then dumped the dead body into the drinking water sump and closed it.The occurrence was not witnessed by anyone.It is further alleged that, thereafter, all the five accused and the juvenile had stolen away the movable properties, including the motor cycle of the deceased.That was also not witnessed by anyone.It is the further case of the prosecution that Mr.Rajaram returned to Puducherry on 20.04.2008 from France.Therefore, before the arrival of Mr.Rajaram, he wanted to remove the dead body from the water sump and to dispose of the same.Therefore, with the help of the other accused, he removed the dead body of the deceased - Rajini @ Rajinikanth from the water sump and cut into two pieces, put them in two nylon bags, carried the same and threw them in the river near Uppanar River Bridge at Vanarapet.This was also not witnessed by anyone.Rajaram, on returning to Puducherry on 20.04.2008, found the deceased absent in his house.While he opened the house, he found that the motor cycle of the deceased was also not seen.He went in search of the deceased to various places, but, he could not find him anywhere.Therefore, he went to Muthialpet Police Station on 20.04.2008 and made a complaint at 09.05 a.m. P.W.12, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, commenced inquiry into the said allegations.He sent the police personnel in search of the deceased.S.NAGAMUTHU, J.The appellant is Accused No.1 in S.C.No.22 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry.Totally, there were five accused in the above said case including the appellant herein.The rank of the accused was, however, not altered.Thus, A1 and A3 to A5 faced the trial.The trial court, by judgement dated 07.04.2016, acquitted A3 to A5, however, convicted A1, the appellant alone for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- [no default sentence was imposed] and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- [no default sentence was imposed] for the offence under Section 302 of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 201 of IPC.Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A1 has come up with this criminal appeal.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Rajini @ Rajinikanth.His father was one Mr.Rajaram.Rajini @ Rajinikanth was residing at Chinna Vaikkal Street, Puducherry.His father-Mr.Rajaram, had gone abroad and settled there for many years.The house in which the deceased was residing was in the name of Mr.Rajaram.Rajaram was closely related to A1-Mr.Perumal Raja @ Perumal.The accused wanted to grab the house property owned by Mr.Rajaram and Rajini @ Rajinikanth.But, the deceased could not be traced out anywhere.While so, on 21.04.2008, Mr.Rajaram was murdered by a gang of six people and in connection with the same, a case was registered in Crime No.204 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 of IPC on the file of Grand Bazaar Police Station.The said case was under investigation.While so, one Mr.Arumugham, the father of Mr.Rajaram made yet another complaint at Odiansalai Police Station on 24.04.2008 at 09.00 a.m. in respect of the missing of his son Mr.Rajini @ Rajinikanth.P.W.27, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Odiansalai Police Station, on receipt of the said complaint registered a case in Crime No.80 of 2008 for "Man Missing".P.20 is the complaint and Ex.P.21 is the FIR.Then, he forwarded both the complaint and the FIR to the jurisdictional court and commenced the investigation.The investigation in Crime No.204 of 2008 relating to the murder of Mr.Rajaram was taken up by P.W.30, the then Inspector of Police, Grand Bazaar Police Station.In connection with the said case, on 25.04.2008 at 06.45 p.m., P.W.30 arrested A1, the appellant herein, in the presence of witnesses.On such arrest, A1 made a voluntary confession and from out of the voluntary confession of A1, it came to light that Mr.Rajini @ Rajinikanth had also been done to death already.In the said confession, A1 disclosed that the dead body of the deceased - Rajini @ Rajinikanth was concealed in the water sump at the house of the deceased for some time and, thereafter, it was removed, cut into two pieces, put into two nylon bags and then they were thrown into the river near Uppanar River Bridge at Vanarapet.He also disclosed the place where he had hidden the other properties stolen from the house of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place and identified the place where he had thrown the nylon bags.Accordingly, the police went to the said place and took out the nylon bags.On request made by the investigating officer, the postmortem was conducted on the spot itself.The dead body was beyond recognition.Thereafter, he forwarded A1 to the court for judicial remand.In that case, he arrested the other accused also, produced them for judicial remand.Thereafter, the relevant papers relating to Crime No.204 of 2008 were transferred to the file of Odiansalai Police Station and based on the same, P.W.27 altered the case in Crime No.80 of 2008 on the file of Odiansalai Police Station into one under Sections 302, 201 and 380 r/w 34 of IPC.He was present at the time when the dead body of Rajini @ Rajinikanth was recovered from the river channel and when the postmortem conducted.Then, on the confession of A4, the other properties stolen from the house of the deceased-Rajini @ Rajinikanth were recovered.In order to ascertain the identity of the dead body, superimposition test was conducted using the photograph of the deceased-Rajini @Rajinikanth which proved that the dead body was that of the deceased.On completing the investigation, P.W.33 laid charge sheet against the accused.The case as against the juvenile accused has been dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board separately.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.The accused denied the same.P.W.10 has spoken about the fact that one Mrs.Punitha, a relative of the deceased had tried to sell out the property.Her evidence is not incriminating to the accused in any manner.P.W.12 has spoken about the complaint made by Mr.Rajaram on 20.04.2008 about the missing of the deceased-Rajini @ Rajinikanth.P.W.21 has spoken about the arrest of A4, confession made by him and the consequential recovery made out of the same.He has also spoken about the arrest of A1, his confession and the consequential recovery and the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the Uppanar River channel.P.W.24 has spoken about the postmortem and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.25, the photographer has spoken about the photographs taken at the house of the deceased including the water sump.P.W.26 has spoken about the photographs taken at the channel where from the dead body of the deceased-Rajini @ Rajinikanth was recovered.P.W.27 has spoken about the registration of the case in Crime No.80 of 2008 on the file of the Odiansalai Police Station for Man Missing on the complaint of one Mr.Arumugham.He has further stated that on 27.04.2008, he altered the case into one under Section 302, 201 and 380 r/w 34 of IPC on coming to know from out of investigation in Crime No.204 of 2008 on the file of Grand Bazaar Police Station that Mr.Rajini @ Rajinikanth had been killed.P.22 is the alteration report.P.W.28 has spoken about the formal arrest of these accused made on 02.05.2008 in the prison as directed by the investigating officer.P.W.29 has spoken about the superimposition test conducted for the skull with the photograph of the deceased.The superimposition test proved that the dead body was that of the deceased.P.W.30 said that when he was the Inspector of Police of Grand Bazaar Police Station, he took up the case in Crime No.204 of 2008 on 21.04.2008 registered under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 r/w 149 of IPC for investigation.He has further stated that in connection with the said case, he arrested A1, the appellant herein on 25.04.2008 at 6.45 p.m. in the presence of P.W.21 and another witness.While in custody, it is alleged that A1 made a voluntary confession in which he disclosed that the dead body of the deceased-Rajini @ Rajinikanth was initially concealed by him along with other accused in the water sump and thereafter, it was removed, cut into two pieces, put in nylon bags and was thrown into the channel near the bridge on the Uppanar River.He has further stated that in pursuance of the said disclosure statement, the dead body was recovered.He has further stated that on the confession of A4, the properties stolen from the house of the deceased-Rajini @ Rajinikanth were recovered.He has further stated about the investigation done in the other case.P.W.31 has spoken about the statement made by the juvenile accused under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. P.Ws.32 and 33 have spoken about the further investigation done by them and P.W.33 has further spoken about the filing of charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor did they mark any document on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted the appellant/A1 alone as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.As we have already pointed out, most of the witnesses, who were examined to speak about the vital circumstances, have turned hostile.The death was, according to the medical evidence, a homicide.Now the only question is that from out of the only circumstance that the dead body of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth was recovered on the disclosure statement of the appellant/A1, whether he could be convicted.The learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the disclosure statement would not have been made by the accused on 25.04.2008 as it is alleged.He would submit that P.W.12 has stated that on 22.04.2008 itself, he came to know that the culprits who murdered Mr.Rajaram had murdered the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth also.The learned senior counsel has further pointed out that he has further stated that on 24.04.2008 itself when the Inspector of Police examined him he told the same.This argument does not at all persuade us.When that be so, it is not possible that the death of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth came to the knowledge of P.W.12 on 21.04.2008 itself.When that be so, the evidence of P.W.12 wherein he has given a contrary statement cannot carry any weightage of.From the evidence of the Village Administrative Officer and from the evidence of P.W.30 were are fully convinced that the appellant was arrested only on 25.04.2008 and on his disclosure statement only the dead body of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth was recovered from the river channel.The appellant/A1 has got no explanation to offer in respect of his exclusive knowledge that the dead body was lying in the channel.Thus, the appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 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. |
194,427,714 | Since the point agitated in these appeals is identical and arising out of the same judgment, a common judgment is delivered as under:Before joining into service, he was living with his parents and carrying a Finance Business in the name of Baskaran & Company and also assisting his father D.S.Rajamanickam of Mannargudi Village in Tanjore District.The CBI, after registering a case in Crime No.Several incriminating documents were seized from the residence of the accused persons, which revealed huge investment in movables, besides cash deposits and loan advanced to third parties.Particularly, during the search of bank locker of first accused [S.R.Baskaran] at TNSC Bank, Santhome Branch, Chennai, 80 numbers of gold bars were found and seized.After completion of investigation, the prosecution laid final report alleging that S.R.Baskaran, Public Servant had acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs.1,68,54,305/-, which stands in his name or in the name of his wife Tmt.B.Sreedaladevi (A2).The statements of assets annexed in the Final Report is extracted below for easy appreciation of the facts.ANNEXURE - 1STATEMENT -A Statement showing the details of assets in possession of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran, Clerk/Coin Note Examiner Grade II, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai before the check period.Statement showing details of assets in possession of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran Clerk/Coin Note Examiner Grade II, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai and his wife Smt.Description of PropertyValue Rs.1.400 sq.ft land with building in ground floor at Door No.11, Krishnapuram, Street, Royapettah, Chenna 14, purchased in the name of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran, S/o Shri D.S.Rajamanickam vide Sale Deed No.2328/92 (value include stamp duty, Regn.fees etc.)1,83,040-002.3570 sq.ft land with building at Door No.5/33 Venkatesapuram, Kottivakkam, Chennai-41 in S.No.259/19, purchased in the name of Shri.S.R.Bhasgeran, S/o Shri D.S.Rajamanickam, vide Sale Deed No.2304/96 (Value includes stamp duty and fees etc.)5,53,800-003.1190 sq.ft.,land with building at Door No.5/33 Venkatesapuram, Kottivakkam, Chennai-41 in S.No.259/33 purchased in the name of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran, S/o Shri D.S.Rajamanickam vide Sale Deed No.2305/963,50,370-004.1144 sq.ft. land with building at 280, Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14 purchased in favour of M/s Vigneswaran Builders, represented by Mrs.B.Sreedala Devi, W/o Shri S.R.Bhasgeran vide Sale Deed No.765/1996(value includes stamp duty, fees etc.)14,49,650-005.Plot No.19 at Kottivakkam Chennai in S.No.239/2B and 2-C vide G.O.Ms.No.782, dated 14.09.1993 of Housing and Urban Development HB5(1) and Department letter No.B6/7694/B/93, dated 15.06.1994 in the name of Smt.3,18,763-0015.Himalaya Benefit Funds Limited, No.69, Panchavarnasamy Koil Street, Woriyur, Tiruchirapalli-620 003, vide cash receipt S.No.022, PMM-280 Fixed Deposit dated 21.02.94 in favour of Mrs.B.Sreedhaladevi, W/o S.R.Bhasgeran.1,00,000-00S.R.Bhasgeran,Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4,(Articles of alleged gift including gold jewellery of 270 gms and silver of 1kg are excluded)1,44,576-0021.Movables such as furniture and other house hold articles at the rented house of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran, Kottivakkam House.(Articles of alleged gift like VCR, Steel Almirah, Silk Sarees etc. are included)3,03,300-0022.The cost of the 80 Nos. of foreign made gold bars seized from the locker No.D 305 of TNSC Bank, Santhome Branch, belongs to Shri S.R.Bhasgeran43,68,312-0023The cost of the gold jeweller of 78 gms noticed at the locker No.25, Corporation Bank, Kellys Branch belongs to Shri S.R.Bhasgeran29,640-0024.The cost of the gold jewellery and silver articles belongs to Smt.Sreedala Devi seized by Income Tax Department from the residence of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran on 18.10.199622,31,170-0025.The cost of the Contessa Car No.4,15,923-0026.The cost of the Maruthi 800 car Registration No.TN-09-J-2345 purchased during September 19932,00,000-0027.The cost of the Revolver and Cartridges75,700-0029.Loan given to Shri C.K.Ramjee, Wings Garments, No.5, Dr.Radhakrishna Salai, Chennai-412,00,000-0030.Loan given to Shri N.Anandan, Sivasakthi, Riksha Industries, Mannadi Street, Koyambedu, Chennai 10718,000-0031.Investment in shares 30,000-0032.Loan given to Shri S.Rajaram, Proprietor, Shri Vigneswaran Enterprises, No.29, Balaji Nagar, 1st Street, Royapettah.5,00,000-0033.Loan given to Shri A.Anbaruvi, Meth Flow Engineering private Limited, No.23, Mathaji Shopping Complex, No.1, Ballers Lanes, Mount Road, Chennai.10,00,000-0034.Loan given to Shri Salam35,000-0035.Loan given to Shri P.Anand Raj16,00,000-00Grand Total1,40,95,171-00Total of immovable and movable assets2,28,91,994-00(Shri.S.R.Bhasgeran's name is found to have been spelt differently in some of the documents/Bank accounts mentioned above)Thus, Shri S.R.Bhasgeran and his wife have acquired assets to the extent of Rs.2,25,95,178/-(Rs.2,28,91,994 Rs.2,96,816)Whereas during the period from December 1988 to 31st July 1998 Shri S.R.Bhasgeran and his wife have received income from the following sources.1.Salary Income from December 1988 to 31.07.19982,81,118-952.Bank interest accrued from SB A/c No.15/01/12317 from Standard Chartered Bank, No.40, Royapettah High Road, Chennai-14 in favour of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran1,30,976-003.Bank interest accrued from Corporation bank, Kelleys Branch, No.12, Ormers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 in A/c No.01/008531 in favour of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran95-004.Bank interest accrued from Corporation Bank, Kellys Branch, Chennai-10 in A/c No.KCC/01/970317 in favour of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran11,323-555.Bank interest from Corporation Bank, Kellys Branch, Chennai-10 in A/c No.6492 in favour of Mrs.B.Sreedala Devi67,445-006.Bank interest from Corporation Bank, Kellys Branch, Chennai-10 in A/c No.6881 in favour of Mrs.B.Sreedala Devi.92,883-007.Bank interest accrued from SB A/c No.7839 at Indian Bank, Peters Road, Chennai-86 in favour of Mrs.B.Sreedala Devi4,536-008.Bank interest accrued from the SB A/c No.12469, Indian Bank, Radhakrishna Salai, Chennai-4 in favour of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran15,748-009.Bank interest accrued from Indian Bank, Dr.Radhakrishna Salai in SB A/c No.12414 in favour of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran1,02,404-0010.Bank interest accrued from TNSC Bank, No.44, Santhome High Road, Chennai-4, in SB A.c No.13704 in favour of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran44-0011.Bank interest accrued from IOB, Chennai in SB A/c No.10525 in favour of Mrs.B.Sreedala Devi, W/o Shri S.R.Bhasgeran9804-3012.Loan received from the Corporation Bank, Kellys Branch, by Shri S.R.Bhasgeran80,000-0075,000-001,76,500-0015.Rental income from the building at No.280, Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai-141,28,700-0016.Loan from his father 51,98,481-0017.Loan from Smt.N.Sasikala7,20,000-0018.Loan from Shri Sathiyamoorthy12,00,000-00Grand Total82,95,058-80Whereas for the period from December 1988 to 31st July 1998, Shri S.R.Bhasgeran and his wife incurred expenditure as per the following details:1.Family consumption estimate for the family of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran as estimated by the Director, Economics and Statistics, Chennai.1,51,446-002.House Rent paid to Shri Jambukeswaran for the house at 16(A), Landans Road, Kilpauk, Fabruary 1993 to October 199463,000-003.House Rent Paid to Shri P.Sathyanarayana for the house at N.124-A, Peters Road, Chennai 1-2-95 to 31-12-962,07,000-00What he earned and had in his possession are his own hard earning money and contributed by his family members.When there is no allegation about receipt of illegal gratification, it is to be presumed that the property in possession of the appellant has been acquired through proper legal source and not otherwise.Further, by way of the written statement, the appellant has given a specific explanation in respect of the properties listed in the statements A to D extracted above.Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI Cases, after running through the evidence for prosecution both oral and documents, submitted that A1 [S.R.Baskaran] being a Public Servant expected to exhibit devotion and propriety, had in violation of the law and had amassed wealth in his name and his wife name.As a Public Servant he is bound to disclose the source of his income to make the investment listed in the statement.The said source should be legal and not otherwise.The first accused [S.R.Bhaskaran] is the appellant in Crl.The second accused Tmt.B.Sreedala Devi is the appellant in Crl.It is contented by the counsel appearing for the appellant that A-1 [S.R.Bhaskaran], during the course of his tenure as Coin Note Examiner, has acquired only few properties listed under Statement-B, which totally contains 10 items of immovable properties and 35 items of movable properties.Rest of the items found in the said statement belong to his wife, which she has acquired through her own independent source.However, the prosecution has wantonly clubbed both the properties under one head as if A-1[S.R.Bhaskaran] transferred his fund to A-2[B.Sreedaladevi] and had acquired property in her name.A1[S.R.Baskaran] admits the acquisition of immovable properties mentioned against Serial Nos. 1 to 3 and the balance in his bank accounts and deposits, which stands in his name, except a sum of Rs.58,330/- in the Corporation Bank , Kellys Branch, which he claims to be the interest accrued for his investment of Rs.1,00,000/-.Regarding furniture and other household articles found in his room during search, it is valued at Rs.1,44,576/-.It is contented that the premises at Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai ,Mylapore is a joint family property owned by his father and mother, who were living with him along with his other two brothers namely, Natarajan and Sridaran.The furnitures and household articles listed in Ex.P-80 Mahazar belongs to his father, which he acquired before the check period.Except 3 watches worth of Rs.3,500/-, non-other articles found in his bed room belongs to him.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contented that, 80 gold bars with foreign markings seized from the locker at TNSC Bank, Santhome Branch belong to A-1's father D.S.Rajamanickam, who was a Financier and carrying on lucrative business till his life.The said D.S.Rajamanikam purchased those gold bars from Thiyagarajan[DW-2], Sheik Dawood and Ibrahim.The customs duty receipts were produced to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligent Officials.Though the said fact was made known to the Investigation Officer and the duty clearance receipts were produced to him, besides examining DW-2[Thiyagarajan] to prove those gold bars do not belong to him, the trial Court has erroneously held that those gold bars belong to A-1[S.R.Baskaran] and valued it at Rs.43,68,312/- and added it to the list of A-1[S.R.Baskaran] assets.In so far as the loans of Rs.12 lakhs advanced to C.K.Ramjee of Wings Garments against blank cheques, (Sl.No.29 under the head of movable properties in the Statement-B ), the loan of Rs.18,000/- to N.Anandan,(Sl.No.30 under the head of Movable Properties in the Statement-B ), the Loan of Rs.5lakhs to Shri.S.Rajaram, Proprietor of Shri Vigneswaran Enterprises (Sl.No.32 under the head of Movable Properties in the Statement-B), the loan of Rs.35,000/- to Shri.All the properties are shown against her name but, clubbed to the assets of her husband has to be excluded.She has been assessed to income tax.When she has her own source of income and having disclosed the income and paid tax, it is illegal to show her properties as assets of her husband and prosecute her for abetment.Further, the learned Senior Counsel representing the 2nd accused [B.Sreedaladevi] contented that the valuation certificate issued by PW-10[Thiru.S.R.Murali] in respect of property shown in Serial No.9 in Statement-B under the head of Immovable Property is not worthy of consideration.On the date, he alleged to have inspected the building, there was no second floor at all.It was demolished much prior to the alleged date of inspection, pursuant to CMDA order.The building valued at Rs.41,95,700/- is without any basis.In respect of Rs.3,50,000/- shown under Serial No.10 of Statement-B under the head of Immovable Property, there is no evidence to prove the second accused paid Rs.3,50,000/- as advance to purchase of 13 grounds of land at A.N.Kandigai Village from P.Varadarajulu.She had not been assessed to income tax so far.She claims to have filed Wealth Tax Returns for the assessment year 1993-1994 before ITO City Ward II (6) as new case admitting gross wealth of Rs.8,44,230/-.The real source of her investment is not known and as such, the amounts admitted and those brought to tax are to be assessed under the head Income from other Sources. (emphasis added ) The Block Assessment Order indicates the Income Tax Authorities have found that B.Sreedaladevi had undisclosed income of Rs.92,99,100/- and liable to pay tax of Rs.55,79,460/-.Likewise, the investment in Mahasubbulakshmi Kalyana Mandabam a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, investment in Himalaya Benefit Fund a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-, investment in Ruby International a sum of Rs.25,000/-, deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.85,300/- in Corporation Bank, Kilpauk Branch and the investment of Rs.46,775/- in Corporation Bank, Kellys Branch for the assessment year 1994 1995 are admitted.Vivek Sudaharan is a Politician.Apart from his pension, he derive rental income from five [5] houses at Mannargudi and 40 to 50 acres of agricultural land at Thirvarur.Mr.D.S.Rajamanikam, the fatherinlaw of A-2[B.Sreedaladevi] as a Financier, had annual turn over of more than Rs.4 to 5 crores.Whereas, Ex.P-124 the property statement given by A-1[S.R.Baskaran] to Reserve Bank of India does not disclose most of the assets, which are in his name and his wife name.Further, A-2[B.Sreedaladevi] was not an Income Tax Assessee till launching of prosecution, nor she claims to have any source of income of her own.Even in her bank accounts, she has mentioned her occupation as Housewife.But, periodically, she had been investing a substantial amount under Monthly Investment Deposit (MID). A-1[S.R.Bakaran] or his wife[B.Sreedaladevi] has not disclosed these income to the Taxing Authorities till they caught during the search operation.Therefore, there is no factual or legal error in clubbing the assets found in the name of the A-2[B.Sreedaladevi] with that of A-1[S.R.Baskaran] and holding her guilty for abetting the Public Servant for acquiring wealth disproportionate to his known source of income.Ex.P-2 is the salary particulars of A-1[S.R.Baskaran].During the check period, he has purchased (1) 400 sq.ft of land and building at Door No.11, Krishnapuram Street, Royapettah under Ex.P-3 investing Rs.1,83,040/- inclusive of stamp duty and registration fees; (2) 3570 sq.ft. of land and building at Door No.5/33, Venkatesapuram, Kottivakkam, Chennai 41 under Ex.P-11 investing Rs.5,53,800/- inclusive of stamp duty and registration fees; (3) 1190 sq.ft. of land and building at the above address under Ex.Besides these investments, during the search of his locker, 80 gold biscuits with foreign marking worth Rs.43,68,312/- had been seized under Ex.He has paid the required custom duty for importing it.Within few days, he sold the gold to D.S.Rajamanickam through brokers and gave the custom receipt to him.The Locker Register maintained by the TNSC Bank is marked as Ex.P-28 and spoken by PW-17[Thiru.S.Padmanaban] shows that the locker was opened by A-1[S.R.Baskaran] on 28.01.1994 and an agreement was entered by the Bank with A-1[S.R.Baskaran] on the same day.The copy of the agreement is Ex.Thiyagarajan] from Singapore and sold to D.S.Rajamanickam, the gold bars found in the Locker of A-1[S.R.Baskaran] is not probablised by the accused for the following reason.A-1[S.R.Baskaran], when asked for the locker key, he did not give the key but, had informed the Income Tax Officials that, it got lost.So, the locker was broke open.When he was asked about the small box found inside the locker, he did not say anything about its content or its ownership.Only after break open of the box, he had pleaded that the gold bars belong to his father.S.Padmanaban]Official of TNSC Bank has deposed that, it was A-1[S.R.Baskaran], who came to Bank and operated the locker on the earlier 3 occasions.So, A-1[S.R.Basakaran] alone had knowledge about the locker content and he cannot escape liability by shifting the ownership to his father, who is no more.More so, when the Income Tax Returns of D.S.Rajamanickam till his death has not been disclosed the purchase of gold bars worth around Rs.45 lakhs.In fact, his Income Tax Returns, during the relevant period, discloses purchase of gold jewellery worth only Rs.1,67,808/-.P18 discloses that on 27/01/1995, he has opened the account with deposit of one lakh rupees.Thereafter, high value cheques were periodically deposited into that account.COMMON JUDGMENT Crl.A.No.647 of 2008: The appellant R.Baskaran @ S.R.Baskaran is a Public Servant.He along with his wife B.Sreedaladevi were prosecuted in C.C.No.32 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 IPC and r/w 13(2) r/w13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 respectively.Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred by the first accused [S.R.Baskaran].A.No.646 of 2006: This appeal is filed by B.Sreedaladevi [A2], W/o S.R.Baskaran in C.C.No.32/99 on the file of the Principal Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai.B.Sreedaladevi at the end of check period (as on 31st July 1998).IMMOVABLE PROPERTYSl.6.The land with ground floor and 2nd floor at Door No.8, Old No.9, Saradapuram, 1st Street, Mylapore, Chennai-4, in R.S.No.3556/1 purchased in the form of Power of Attorney in favour of Mrs.B.Sreedhala Devi from A.D.Vasudevan.7,00,000-007.The land with first floor building at Door No.8, Old No.9, Saradapuram, 1st Street, Mylapore, Chennai-4 in R.S.No.3556/1 purchased in the form of Power of Attorney in favour of Mrs.B.Sreedala Devi from Smt.Swathy Ramkumar.5,00,000-008.Newly constructed 12 flats at Door No.8 Saradapuram 1st Street, Mylapore, Chennai-4, evaluated by the CPWD Civil Engineer.41,95,700-009.12flats at Door No.8, Saradapuram 1st Street, Mylapore, Chennai-4 evaluated by CPWD Electrical Engineer1,95,500-00The above property was executed to Mrs.B.Sreedala Devi in the form of power of attorney by Shri P.Varadarajulu.FD 01/970213 in favour of Mrs.B.Sreedhaladevi as on 31.07.19981,21,895-007.Bank Balance in Indian Bank, 93 Peters Road, Chennai-86 in SB A/c No.7839 in favour of Mrs.B.SreedhalaDevi as on 31.07.199852,571-00Radhakrishna Salai, Chennai-4, in SB A/c No.12469 in favour of S.R.Bhasgeran as on 31.07.199819,951-0010.Bank Balance in Indian Bank No.116, Dr.Radhakrishna Salai, Chennai-4 in SB A/c No.12414 in favour of Mrs.B.Sreedhaladevi as on 31.07.199824,523-0011.Bank Balance in Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai Saving Bank A/c No.10525 in favour of Mrs.B.Sreedala Devi 51,305-0012.Deposit in TNSC Bank, 44, Santhome High Road, Chennai-4, cash certificate No.031986 in favour of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran deposited on 13.07.1998 as on 13.07.199875,000-0013.Deposit in TNSC Bank, 44, Santhome High Road, Chennai-4 FD No.0279569 in favour of ShriS.R.Bhasgeran deposited on 21.05.1998 10,000-0014.Bank Balance in TNSC Bank, Santhome High Road in SB A/c No.13704 in favour of Shri S.R.Bhasgeran on 30.06.98138-50Sreedaladevi3,50,000-0020.Movables such as furniture and other house hold articles at the room of Shri.4.House Rent paid to Shri C.K.Ramji for the house at Kottivakkam from November 1997 to May 199828,000-005.Expenses incurred for the air ticket for travelling charges by Shri S.R.Bhasgeran and Sreedala Devi1,70,331-006.Expenses incurred for purchasing the foreign exchange by Shri S.R.Bhasgeran and Sreedala Devi68,108-007.Demolition charges for the second floor of the building at No.8, Saradapuram, Mylapore, Chennai.14,300-008.Amount deposited at Telephone Exchange, GR Complex, Saidapet for the telephone connection29,000-00Sreedala Devi15,00,000-0010.Income Tax paid by Shri S.R.Bhasgeran2,63,000-0011.Amount paid to Shri Seetharaman, Advocate for his service60,000-00Total25,54,185-00Thus, Shri S.R.Bhasgeran has been found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income as per the following details:Computation of disproportionate assets:Thus, Shri.S.R.Bhasgeran and his wife Smt.He married the second accused Smt.She is a House Wife and she had no income on her own.However, he and his wife were able to acquire wealth as listed above.Though the appellants have given their version about the source of acquiring the properties scheduled above, the trial Court, after appreciating the evidence let in by the prosecution as well as the defence, had held that the evidence of DW2 [Thiyagarajan] is unbelievable, since he could not identify the gold bars which was sold to D.S.Rajamanickam, the father of A1 [S.R.Baskaran].She has identified most of the property found in her possession and investments made in her name as gift from her relatives or investments made from loan received by them, which was held to be false explanation by the trial Court.The appellants herein question the legality of the trial Court judgment on the ground that A1[S.R.Baskaran] even before joining the service, was as Income Tax Assessee and had income of his own and continued to carry on his Finance Business besides his Job as Coin Note Examiner Grade II in Reserve Bank of India, Chennai.While so, having failed to account for his assets, he and his wife had been rightly held guilty and no substance in their appeals.The submission made by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellants and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (for CBI Cases) appearing for the respondents heard and records perused.Point for determination in this appeal is whether, the trial Court has given due consideration of the facts placed by the accused explaining their legal source for acquiring the properties listed in the Statement-B and the explanation regarding the charges imputed against them.Hence, S.R.Bhaskaran[A1] being a Public Servant was convicted for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and for abetting S.R.Baskaran [A1], his wife Tmt.Had the prosecution properly segregated the properties of A-2[B.Sreedaladevi].Out from the Statement-B, A-1[S.R.Bhaskaran] will have to account only for Rs.43,49,866.50 instead of Rs.2,25,95,178/-.Salam (Sl.No.34 under the head of Movable Properties in the Statement-B ), the loan of Rs.16,00,000/- to Shri.P.Anand Raj (Sl.No.35 under the head of Movable Properties in the Statement-B ) and the investment of Rs.30,000/- in shares (Sl.No.31 under the head of Movable Properties in the Statement-B), the defence taken by the first accused [S.R.Bhaskaran] is that he did not advance any loan to S.Rajaram, Shri.Salam and P.Anand Raj as alleged.Mere recovery of blank pro-notes and cheques does not prove the amount found in the documents, which were actually lend to the said persons.Further, he has not invested in any shares and no original documents were recovered from him.The loan availed by the first accused [S.R.Bhaskaran] from his father D.S.Rajamanickam, as per the prosecution case is Rs.51,98,481/- whereas, the Income Tax Returns Ex.P-102 will go to show that, the total loan is Rs.66,00,000/-.The learned Senior counsel representing the 2nd accused [B.Sreedala Devi] contented that, the second accused hails from a wealthy family.She had been bestowed with high value gifts by her parents and siblings before and after her marriage, none of the properties stood in her name were purchased from the fund of her husband.She is not a name-lender for A-1 [S.R.Baskaran].The learned Special Public Prosecutor [CBI Cases] appearing for the respondent would submit that the shallowness in the appellants' argument could be exposed from their own evidence DW-2 [Thiru.Thiyagarajan], who could not even able to identify the gold bars, which he alleged to have sold to D.S.Rajamanickam.The accused could not prove the source from whom it was purchased, when it was purchased and by whom it was purchased.It is admitted fact by the accused that he was in money lending business along with his father.The pro-notes, blank cheques and bonds found in possession of A-1[S.R.Basakaran] executed in the name of the above persons are not denied.The bank accounts of the accused also show transactions with Rajaram Proprietor, Sri Vigneshwara Enterprises, Ramjee of Win's Garments and others.The person in possession of incriminating documents is responsible to explain the possession.Having failed to explain the same, the value as shown in the documents is taken as assets of the accused.Nothing illegal in such conclusion and it is in accordance with law.The prime contention made in this two appeals is clubbing of assets.It is submitted that though A-1 and A-2 are husband and wife, they are different legal entity and have individual source of income.Hence, clubbing the properties in the name of his wife with that of A-1 is factually and legally wrong.Under such circumstances, clubbing of wife's assets with her husband's assets, who happen to be a Public Servant, was found fault by the Court.Whereas in this case, the second accused, B.Sreedaladevi, W/o S.R.Baskaran was an housewife and admittedly, she had no other independent source of income, except to say that the movable properties are gifted to her by her parents and brothers.Immovable properties were purchased from loan advanced by them.She was not an Income Tax Assessee till search operation by Income Tax Authorities conducted at her premises on 18.03.1998, resulting in unearthing undisclosed income and assets.In the Block Assessment Order dated 31.10.1997 marked as Ex.Likewise, the investment in house 19, Kottivakkam, Chennai, deposits in Indian Bank, R.K.Salai Branch and Peters Road, Indian Overseas Bank, Edward Elliots Road, Corporation Bank, Kilpauk Branch and Kelly's Branch, a total sum of Rs.9,63,832/- during the assessment year 1995-1996 are admitted.The investments in commercial complex at Lloyds Road, Mylapore a sum of Rs.24,30,400/-, deposits in Indian Bank, R.K.Salai Branch a sum of Rs.3,85,269/-, Indian Bank, Peters Road and deposits in other banks to a total sum of Rs.18,60,849/- during the assessment year 1996-1997 are admitted.The investments in gold and silver articles besides bank deposits totally for a sum of Rs.21,50,597/- for the assessment year 1997-1998 has been admitted by her.The admission of these undisclosed incomes for other sources, strongly proves the case of the prosecution that A-2[B.Sreedaladevi] has lend her name to A-1[S.R.Baskaran] for accumulate the wealth disproportionate to his known source of income.It is also relevant to point that, after the above said admission, the Block Assessment Order for the period (01-04-1992 to 03-10.1996)Ex.P-95 has been revised vide, assessment order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax dated 31-03-2003, wherein the Income Tax Department has reduced the total undisclosed income of A2[B.Sreedala devi] during the Block Assessment period to Rs.56,37,040/-.This order is relied on by the defence during the trial and the same is marked as Ex.P-99 and her own evidence as spoken by DW-3 [Mr.T.Vivekananthan] father of A-2[B.Sreedaladevi].26. DW-3[Mr.T.Vivekananthan] has deposed that, he retired on 30.09.1994 as Joint Director, Rural Development Department.His eldest son Mr.T.T.V.Dinakaran is a Member of Parliament, the Second son Mr. Baskaran was Former Director of JJ TV and presently in Granite Business and the third son Mr.Before joining service as Clerk in Reserve Bank of India, A-1[S.R.Baskaran] was carrying on business and his income was assessed to Tax.P-125 is the Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 1989 -1990 filed by A-1[S.R.Baskaran].29. A-1[S.R.Baskaran] claims that the gold bars found in his locker belongs to his father D.S.Rajamanickam.To prove, he has examined DW-2[Thiru.Thiyagarajan].The reading of DW-2[Thiru.Thiyagarajan] evidence and scrutiny of his passport does not give any credence to the defence version.Thiyagarajan] has come back to India from Singapore during 1993 to settle in India permanently.He has brought with him 5 kgs of gold and some silver articles with him.The first date is the day on which the locker was allotted to A-1[S.R.Baskaran] and the late date is the day on which the locker was broke open in the presence of the accused and the Bank Officials to take inventory of it.P-124 is the letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB from Reserve Bank of India in response to the information sought by the Former regarding property statement furnished by A-1 [S.R.Baskaran].From this exhibit, it could be seen that, A-1[S.R.Baskaran] has declared in his property statement furnished to his employer that he has advanced Rs.3,50,000/- to purchase agricultural land at Arakkonam and the same has been intimated to Income Tax Authorities.This nullifies the submission made by the learned Senior Counsels for the appellants that the advance of Rs.3,50,000/- paid for purchase of land at A.N.Kandigai, Arakkonam, is not proved by the prosecution.The very admission of A-1[S.R.Baskaran] in his property statement furnished to his employer, as seen from Ex.P-124, besides the deposition of PW-13[Thiru.Varadarajulu] well fortifies the prosecution case.The defence has examined 4 witnesses and marked 3 documents in D series.This Court finds the documents and witnesses relied on by the defence itself lends ample support to the case of the prosecution.D2 is the Block Assessment Order dated 28.03.2003 passed against A2[B.Sreedaladevi], after revising the earlier Assessment Order dated 31.10.1997 marked as Ex.In spite of giving liberal concession in respect of value of the assets, source of income, the Income Tax Authority has assessed the undisclosed income of A-2[B.Sreedaladevi] as Rs.56,37,040/-.On perusal of Ex.P-87, Block Assessment Order passed against A-1[S.R.Baskaran], the Assessing Authority has in fact found the worth of the investment made by A-1[S.R.Baskaran] during the Block Assessment period as Rs.1,77,04,893/- but, Income Tax Return filed only for Rs.62,90,412/. Thus, even without referring to the other prosecution documents, from the documents relied on and accepted by the appellants itself, the assets acquired by A-1 and A-2 through undisclosed income exceeds one crore rupees.Whereas, the prosecution through their witnesses and documents have clinchingly proved that, A-1[S.R.Baskaran] and A-2[B.Sreedaladevi], after marriage, have been living in the house of Thiru.N.Jambuheswaran [PW-21] for a rent till 1993, thereafter, have purchased several properties as listed under Statement-B and marked as Exs.The Statement of Bank accounts opened by the appellants mostly after 1993 reveals heavy flow of fund in their accounts.To demonstrate though A-1 was a Public Servant employed in Reserve Bank of India, on 27/01/1995, when he open the account in the Standard Chartered Bank, in the account opening form [Ex P-16], he has mentioned his occupation as Business.The statement of account marked as Ex.The investments in moveable and immovable assets, cash, gold and silver articles seized during the search of the premises, as listed in Statement-B extracted above, by no stretch of imagination gives an impression that they were acquired through legal source.Just pointing the source to D.S.Rajamanickam, who is no more and others, who have no records to prove their legitimate source for the gift (or) donation to A-1[S.R.Baskaran] or A-2[B.Sreedaladevi] will not exonerate A-1 and A-2 from proper accounting the properties found in their possession.While Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 take care of those situations, Clause (e) an omnibus clause holds a Public Servant accountable for the assets, he possess in his name or his benami.The reason for such a provision is obvious.What the appellants have done is, after the search of their premises and seizure of evidences, had filed Income Tax Returns under Block Assessment admitting undisclosed income and had come forward to pay the Income Tax.The reasons stated by the learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants to exclude certain assets and to give credit to certain alleged income do not merit any consideration.As per the assessment order Ex.P-95 and Ex.D-3, the Income Tax Department has found possession of assets worth of Rs.1,14,14,481/- in the name of A-1[S.R.Baskaran] and Rs.56,37,040/- in the name of A-2[B.Sreedaladevi] respectively.This assessment may be slightly lesser than the assessment of the prosecution, which has valued the assets at Rs.2,25,95,178/- (as mentioned in the charge framed against the accused), but the marginal difference does not change the character of dis-proportionality.Therefore, in the said circumstances, concession on percentage of dis-proportionality does not arise.In the result, these Criminal Appeals are dismissed.The conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.32 of 1999 dated 26.08.2008 on the file of the Principal Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai are hereby confirmed.16.11.2017Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non speaking orderariToDR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,429,321 | Heard Sri Avneesh Tripathi learned Amicus Curiae for accused-appellants and learned State counsel and perused record.Prosecution version in brief is that 'first informant's cousin Rajendra Prasad was employed as peon in UPSIDC, Kanpur.Accused Ram Ratan and Smt Raj Dei are husband and wife whereas accused Sambhu Nath is brother of Raj Dei.On 20.06.1982 said Rajendra Prasad, his wife Ram Lali, Hari Ram and his uncle Ram Yagya were returning after seeing a movie and Ram Lali was having her seven months old girl in her lap.When they reached at the gate of officers colony, all the four accused persons confronted them by saying that why they were after them and thereafter hot talking took place between both the parties.Accused Ram Dei started assaulting Ram Lali with hands and fists.When her husband Rajendra Prasad tried to save his wife, remaining three accused persons namely Sambhu Nath, Ram Ratan and Dishambhar Singh started attacking Ram Lali and Rajendra Prasad with sticks.This appeal has been preferred against impugned judgment and order dated 27.10.1984 passed by learned Special Judge (E C Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Session Trial No. 352 of 1982 (State Vs.Shambhu Nath & Ors), under Section 323/34 and 302 IPC, Police Station , Kanpur, whereby accused-appellants Shambhu Nath, Ram Ratan and Dishambhar Singh have been convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and along with fine of Rs. 500/- each.In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment.Resultantly, Rajendra Prasad, Ram Lali and her infant daughter sustained injuries.On the next day morning the condition of infant daughter became critical and thereafter FIR (non-cognizable report) was lodged on 21.06.1982 at 12.30 PM, which was recorded under section 323 IPC.All the three injured were sent for medical examination.Injured Ram Lali has sustained following injuries:(i) Contusion 3 cm x 4 cm on lateral aspect of right upper arm 17 cm above elbow, placed obliquely.(iii) Contusion 9 cm x 8 cm on lateral aspect of left thigh 8 cm above knee.(iv) Contusion 1 cm x 5 cm on little dorsal aspect of right finger terminal phelynx.(v) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on right cheek.(vi) Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on left side of back over scapular region.All injuries were simple in nature, caused by blunt object.Injured Rajendra Prasad has sustained following injuries:(i) Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on posterior aspect of right upper arm placed horizontally 6 cm below shoulder.(ii) Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm on right side of back.(iii) Abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm on posterior aspect of right forearm 10 cm above wrest.(v) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on dorsal aspect of right hand.All injuries were simple in nature, caused by blunt object.During treatment, infant child succumbed to injuries on 21.06.1982 at 01.10 PM at L.L.R Hospital.Accordingly, the the case was converted into cognizable offence by adding section 304 IPC.After inquest proceedings, dead body of deceased child was sent for post-mortem.As per post-mortem report deceased child has sustained five swelling injuries around her head.As per autopsy surgeon deceased child died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injuries.After investigation, charge sheet was filed under section 304-A IPC.All the accused-appellants along with accused Ram Dei were charged under section 323/34 and 302/34 IPC.In order to bring home guilt of accused persons, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses.Accused persons were examined under section 313 CrPC, wherein they have denied prosecution evidence and claimed false implication.Accused persons have examined five witnesses in defence.After hearing and analysing evidence on record, accused-appellants were convicted under section 323/34 IPC and sentenced as stated in para 1 of this judgment, however, they were acquitted of charge under section 302/34 IPC.Accused Ram Dei was acquitted of all the charges.Being aggrieved, accused-appellants have preferred present criminal appeal.Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that both the alleged eye-witness are interested witness.Independent witness PW 3 Kesheo Ram has not supported prosecution version and turned hostile.As per prosecution version several persons have reached at spot but other independent witness have not been examined.I have considered rival contentions and perused record.She has clearly stated on 20.06.1982 when she along with husband Rajendra Prasad and relative Hari Ram was returning after seeing a movie and she was having her seven months old girl in her lap, at the gate of officers colony, all the four accused persons accosted them.They assaulted her as well as her husband and she and her husband Rajendra Prasad as well her infant daughter sustained injuries. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,431,433 | This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 90/2015 registered at Police Station, Ater, District Bhind, for offence punishable under Sections 376(G), and 506 of IPC.As per the prosecution case, complainant was sleeping in an open area, at that time applicants Janved and Vishamvar came there.Janved closed her mouth and Vishamvar committed rape on her, thereafter, Janved also committed rape with her, then they pointed knife and told that if she disclosed the incident, she would be killed.She narrated the incident to her husband and report has been lodged on 30.5.2015 one month prior to incident.It is submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence.They have falsely been implicated in the alleged offence.It is further submitted that applicant-Vishamvar has lodged the report against the husband and son of the M.Cr.C.No.5813/2015 (Vishamvar Singh & another Vs.State of M.P.) 2 complainant on 7.5.2015 regarding beating given by husband and son of the complainant.Thereafter, the case was registered at Crime No.68/2015 under Section 341, 294, 506 (B)/34 of IPC.another Vs.State of M.P.)It is further submitted that the husband of the complainant and son is pressurizing to compromise and they were also threatening that if they will not compromise the matter, they would be involved in the rape case.It is further submitted that during the investigation of crime No.68/2015, it was registered on the report of the Vishamvar that the police reached the house of the complainant on 16.5.2015 and sickle has been seized from the son of the complainant and in the seizure memo the applicant Janved was a witness.Panchnama regarding search of the house was also prepared on 16.5.2015 in the presence of the husband of the complainant and in this Panchnama also applicant Janved was a witness.It is submitted that no complaint regarding commission of rape has been given to the police officer.The report has been lodged only after filing of the charge-sheet against husband and son of the complainant.There is no likelihood of their absconsion.Trial will take some time.Therefore, he M.Cr.C.No.5813/2015 (Vishamvar Singh & another Vs.State of M.P.) 3 prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.another Vs.State of M.P.) 3The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer.I have perused the case diary.As per the medical report, it appears that no external injury over the private part of the complainant has been found.On perusal of the statement of the neighbors, it appears that all the witnesses have denied the commission of offence.As per the FIR at Crime No.68/2015, it appears that applicant Vishamvar has lodged the report on 07.05.2015 and case has been registered against the husband and son of the complainant.As per the seizure memo and Panchanama, it appears that sickle has been recovered from the possession of the son of the complainant and such Panchnama has been signed by Janved.The report has been lodged by the applicants, thereafter, the case has been registered against husband and son of the complainant and charge-sheet has been filed against them.From perusal of the complaint, it appears that they have made a complaint and and involved in a false case, thereafter, this complaint has been lodged by the complainant.Taking into consideration the allegation against the applicants and the facts and circumstances of the case, this M.Cr.C.No.5813/2015 (Vishamvar Singh & another Vs.State of M.P.) 4 application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting officer/competent Court.The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and they will co-operate in the investigation.They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.another Vs. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,960,401 | For one year after the marriage the appellant behaved properly with the deceased and thereafter used to quarrel and abuse her filthily and also to beat her.Whenever deceased-Ashabai was visiting the house of her parents, she was disclosing all these facts to her mother.Before her death, the deceased lived for 17 days with her mother and returned back to her husband's house on persuation by P.W. 3 mother Shakuntala on the eve of MATA POOJAN festival.The appellant is the step mother-in-law of the deceased.On the date of incident (10-10-1997) in the morning at about 7.30 a.m., a dispute arose amongst the appellant and the deceased-Ashabai which attracted the husband of the deceased, P.W. 1 Bharat who asked as to why they were quarrelling, upon which the appellant started quarrelling with him also.P.W. 1 Bharat went out of the house and after some time over heard the cry coming from the house.He returned to the house and saw that his wife Asha was running in burnt condition.He extinguished the fire and took her immediately to the District Hospital, Dewas.From the hospital, a writen intimation was sent in this regard to the Police Station Kotwali Dewas.In the instant case, at the time of registration of crime, Ashabai did not die and, therefore, offence was registered only under Section 307, I.P.C).The deceased was shifted for treatment to Indore.Head Constable Poonamchand conveyed the message on telephone to the police of Police Station Industrial Area.Dewas where the message was recorded at Daily Diary No. 517 dated 10-10-1997 at 8.40 p.m. Asha was got medically examined by the police through medical requisition Ex. P/5-A. The police also requested in writing for recording of the dying declaration of the deceased.Carbon copy Ex. P/4 was filed with the charge-sheet.The deceased also disclosed about setting her to fire after pouring kerosene oil by the appellant, to her mother.Alter her death, inquest proceedings were conducted by the police and sent the seized articles for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.After necessary investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for having committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.She denied the charges and contended before the trial Court that she was falsely implicated because of ill-will.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the written dying declaration Ex. P/4 recorded by P.W. 4 Dr. K. N. Tripathi in the District Hospital, Dewas on 10 10-1997 and oral dying declaration made by the deceased before her mother P.W. 3 Shakuntalabai.The learned trial Court has also placed reliance on the statement of P.W. 1 Bharat.husband of the deceased regarding ill-relation and dispute between his wife, the deceased and the appellant.The crucial question that crops up before this Court is whether the document Ex. P/4 dying declaration said to have been recorded by P.W. 4 Dr. Tripathi, a photostat copy can be relied upon or not.P.W. 4 Dr. Tripathi has testified that on 10-10-1997, in the night at 8.15 p.m. the deceased -Ashabai was brought in the hospital by her husband Bharat (P.W. 1).He recorded her dying declaration Ex. P/4 wherein the deceased disclosed that the appellant, mother-in-law was levelling false allegations against her, regarding illicit relation with her father-in-law.On the date of incident, after verbal altercation the appellant poured kerosene oil on her person through shoulder and lit fire.None else helped the appellant and her husband was in her favour.The prosecution got proved the document Ex. P/4 which we have perused and found that Ex. P/4 is the photostat copy and not the original dying declaration written by this witness.The prosecution has not put any question to this witness regarding Ex. P/4 photostat copy and original dying declaration written by him in his own handwriting.On the contrary, in examination-in-chief para 2, Ex. P/4 appears to be got proved as original document written and signed by this witness, but the signatures of this witness were not specifically exhibited by indicating portion mark A to A or in any other words.The signatures of Bhanusingh were also not specified by marking B to B or any other words.The prosecutor also did not put any question with regard to availability of the original dying declaration written by this doctor.The doctor also has not stated anything.The original has not been made available to the Sessions Court.P.W. 13 when questioned, merely stated that he had sent to the Court concerned, he did not produce any record to show that he had forwarded the dying declaration to any particular Court.When confronted with the situation, it was certainly the duty of the learned Sessions Judge to have made an attempt to get the original.Learned Sessions Judge, failed to discharge his duty.The dying declaration is not available and necessary conditions for reception for secondary evidence have not been established.The copy does not bear the copy of signature of the declarant.It may be that the original contains the signature we do not know.In the instant case, neither the original dying declaration was filed before the Court nor evidence was placed for taking the secondary evidence.No question was put to the doctor about the original document.It appears from the statement of Dr. Tripathi that Ex. P/4 was proved and exhibited as original dying declaration.Whereas it is the photostat copy.In this case, it would be apposite to discuss the statement of P.W. 5 F. M. Qureshi SI, who has deposed that he asked the doctor by submitting the requisition Ex. P/5-A for medical examination of the deceased who was alive at that time and was referred to M. Y. Hospital, Indore.Overleaf the document Ex. P/6, this is mentioned by Dr. Tripathi on 11 -10-1997 at.4.15 p.m. that he is sending the photostat copy of the document through Constable Satish Kumar No. 116 of P.S. industrial Area, but these mentioning on overleaf of the document Ex.P/6 were not proved and exhibited in the Court.In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that Ex. P.4 photostat copy of the dying declaration cannot be used as substantive piece of evidence against the appellant.So far as the evidence of oral dying declaration is concerned, given by P.W. 3 Shakuntalabai, we do not find the same worthy for placing reliance, because the deceased was shifted in M.Y. Hospital, Indore and no evidence has been led by the prosecution whether in the Indore Hospital after sustaining 90% burn injury and lapse of two days, the deceased was in a fit state of mind to speak or talk relevantly.There is evidence on record of P.W. 1 Bharat, husband of the deceased and P.W. 3 Shakuntala, mother of the deceased that the deceased was residing separate from her step mother-in-law with her husband.P.W. 3 Shakuntalabai, mother of deceased has no where stated that the deceased told her that her step mother-in-law, the appellant, levelled false allegation of having illicit relation with her father-in-law.Shakuntala (P.W. 3) has stated that the dispute occurring between the appellant and the deceased were on account of trivial issue like children were throwing water and regarding performance of household work.The homicidal death of the deceased by burn injuries has not been disputed before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the same has also been proved by the evidence of Dr. P.C. Jain (P.W. 7), autopsy surgeon who proved the postmortem report (Ex. P. 12).in the opinion of this doctor, the deceased died due to heart and respiratory failure and complications arose because of burn injuries.The appellant has examined D.W. 1 Omprakash, step son of appellant and real brother-in-law (Devar) of the deceased, D.W. 2 Ku.Chetna Parihar, daughter of the appellant, D.W. 3 Smt. Mamta, step daughter-in-law of the appellant.All these three witnesses have stated that the deceased-Ashabai was having a quarrelsome nature.Appellant did not misbehave with her and both were residing separately.In view of the aforesaid legal and factual screening of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.Thus, this appeal is allowed.Conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby set aside.The appellant is on bail.Her bail and surety bonds stand discharge. | ['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. |
196,044,756 | in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2011 wherein the said court was pleased to direct that the accused motor cyclist was to be tried in respect of the offence punishable under Section 279/304A and not under Section 279/304-II of the Indian Penal Code and sent back the case record to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta invoking the jurisdiction under Section under Section 228 (a)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for disposal of the same in accordance with law after framing of charge under Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.The de facto complainant has been prejudiced by this order as the learned trial court was not pleased to frame charge against the accused under Section 304-II of the said Code.It is the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner that earlier as per orders dated 22.9.2011 and 14-01- 2013, the same court was pleased to frame charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279/304-II of the Indian Penal Code basing on the same material available before the said court.He further submitted that in the meantime, after the order dated 14/01/2013 was passed, one revisional application was preferred by the accused which was registered as C.R.R. No.332 of 2013 and this court as per order dated 05/02/2013 was pleased to set aside those two orders and directed the learned trial court to reconsider the matter after giving hearing the parties. | ['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,960,472 | A-3 and A-4 are husband and wife, whose children are A-1 and A-2. A-5 is the wife of A-1. A-6 to A-8 are their friends.P.W. 3 is the wife of the deceased, while P.W. 4 is related to the deceased.P.Ws. 1 to 5 are examined as eye witnesses to the crime.The facts noted above show that, on both ides, the parties are closely related to each other.According to the prosecution witnesses, at about 05.30 a.m., on the occurrence day, when Lakshmanan (since deceased) objected the accused, party curing their concrete structure, namely concrete pillars, which, according to the prosecution party, is in the disputed land, the first accused beat Lakshmanan with an iron rod; A-2, with an iron rod hit on his left aide neck; A-3, with a stone, attacked on back, while A-4 and A-5 attacked Lakshmanan all over his body with stones.At that time, A-6 caught hold of one leg; while A-7 caught hold of the left hand of Lakshmanan and A-8 caught hold of the right hand of Lakshmanan.on hearing the hue and cry, the witnesses go there and the accused made good their escape.which he registered in Crime No. 120 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 302 IPC.Ex. P.10 is the printed First Information Report.He sent the Express records to the court as well as to the higher officials, P.W. 13 is the police constable who carried the Express First information Report from P.W. 15 and delivered the same in the Court as well as to the higher officials.P.W. 16 is the investigating officer, who, on receipt of the Express records in this case at 09.30 a.m. commenced the investigation by reaching the crime scene at 11.00 a.m. At the crime scene, in the presence of witnesses, he prepared Ex. P.11, the observation mahazar and Ex. P.12, the rough sketh.Between 12.00 noon and 2.00 p.m on that day, P.W. 16 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses.Ex. P.13 is the inquest report.Then he sent the dead body, with a requisition, to the hospital through P.W. 14, the police constable, for post mortem.P.W. 14 accordingly accompanied the dead body with the requisition to the hospital for post mortem.He was present during post mortem.After post mortem, he handed over the dead body to relatives.6) Bleeding from left ear.7) Lacerated wound 5 x 3 cm into bone depth associated contusion in right occipital region.The doctor opined that the death would have occurred 12 to 14 hours prior to autopsy as a result of the injuries sustained on the brain and on the skull (cranio cerebral injury).He also deposed the injuries found on the back of the deceased would have been caused with the use of stone and the other injuries would have been caused with the use of iron rods and wooden clubs.The appellants/eight in maber, were tried in s.c.On their respective conviction, A-1 to A-5 stand sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, namely under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, carrying a default sentence and A-6 to A-8 also stand sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC, with a fine amount as indicated above.However/we are not referring to the other sentences imposed on then Hence they are before this Court in this appeal.2. Heard Mr. K. Jeganathan, learned Counsel appearing for A-1 and A-5; Mr. T.K. Gopalan, learned Counsel appearing for rest of the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at about 05.30 a.m. on 15.02.200S when the accused attacked the victim by name Lakshmanan, one after the other, resulting in his death.P.W. 8 is the duty doctor in the Government Hospital at Usilampatti, who, on receipt of the requisition, commenced post mortem at 5.15 p.m. on 19.02.200C. During post mortem, he found.various symptoms as noted by him in Ex. P.3, the post mortem report.The symptoms noted therein are as here under:1) Abrasion in back below the left scapula 3 x 2 cm.2) Abrasion over left fore head (frontal region) 2 cm x 2 cm.3) A lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm x bone depth of left frontal region4) A lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm x. 1 cm.2 cm in front of left ear.5) Abrasion over left side neck middle 2 cm x 1 cm.While cross-examined.By the defence, the doctor admitted that all the injuries are simple in nature and the examination of viscera did not reveal any poison.P.W. 16 continued the investigation by examining witnesses and recording their statements.At 11.30 a.m. on 16.02.2005 in the bus stop of Karampatti, he arrested A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-8 and.examined them in the presence of witnesses and at that time they gave a voluntary confession statement.Pursuant to which, sticks, namely M.O. 2 (series) came to be recovered under Ex. P.14 attested by witnesses.At 10.00 a.m. on 17.02.2005 P.W. 16 arrested A-6 and sent him for judicial remand.P.W. 6 is the father of P.W. 5 and he is not an eye witness to the crime.P.W. is a witness to the preparation of Ex. P.11 observation mahazar.P.W. 9 is the Village Administrative Officer whose evidence shows that the disputed land is entered in the.revenue records in the name of the accused party.He admits his signature in the confession statement of A-1 marked as EX.P.W. 12 is examined to prove the arrest of A-1 and A-7 and he turned hostile.P.W. 16 arrested A-1 and A-7 at about 11.00 a.m. on.18.02.2004 and examined then in the presence of witnesses.Each one of the accused gave a separate voluntary statement which he recorded.Pursuant to A-1'S confession statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex. P.15, under Ex. P.16 M.O. 1 (series) iron rods came to be recovered.At 10.00 a.m. on 22.03.2004 P.W. 16 arrested A-2 and sent him for judicial remand.All the case properties were sent to the Court.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating circumstances made available against each one of them, they denied each and every circumstances put up against them as false and contrary to facts.in his evidence, he would state that the disputed land belongs to them over which they have been exercising their rights.He had also deposed about the dispute between the parties in the past over that property.He would then state that on the occurrence day morning, none of the accused were present in the crime scene.Ex.D-1 is the revenue record allowing that the disputed property is in the name of the accused.D-2 is the tax receipt.It is also his submission that having regard to the sequence of events that are shown, to have taken place, all the accused were already there in their property curing the concrete pillars and it is only the deceased, who go there and obstruct the accused from continuing the work and therefore there is no question of the accused forming themselves into members of unlawful assembly, especially when in the midst of such protest, all of a sudden, A-1 is shown to have attacked the victim.Mr. T.K. Gopalan, learned Counsel appearing for the remaining accused, took enormous pain to contend that from the evidence of P.W. 16, the Investigating Officer had admitted when cross-examined, that P.Ws.l to 3, during investigation, told him that they are residing at Mahadevanpatti and Mehadavanpatti is at a distance of 25 kilometres from the crime scene.On the above evidence it is argued that therefore P.Ws. 1 to 3 could not have been in the village at all to see the occurrence.It is his further submission that if P.Ws.to 3 to see the occurrence equally cannot be bellowed.Therefore, it is argued that the prosecution had fabricated the case after the arrival of P.W. 1 In the village in discussion with this police and that is the reason Ex. P.1 complaint had reached the court only at 5.00 p.m. on 15.02.2005 , though, within one hour after the registration of the crime, the complaint could have reached the court.The complaint, according to the prosecution, came to be registered at about 09.00 a.m. and there is absolutely no explanation, whatsoever as to why the complaint had reached the court only at 5.00 p.m. on that day evening.Therefore it is argued by the learned Counsel that this court can easily hold that the prosecution is holding back the origin of the case and on that basis the entire prosecution can be thrown out.we heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.Having, regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either aide, we went through; the entire records.He further admitted that if a person fills forcefully on his back, the injuries found on the head's back are, possible, and as such it may result in a shock to the brain.We carefully applied our mind to the argument advanced by Mr. T.K. Gopalan as to whether we can disbelieve the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 in the scene village at the time when the crime is shown to have been committed.It is true that P.W.16 had admitted in cross-examination that P.Ws. 1 to 3 did tell during investigation that they are residing at Mahadevanpatti.From this, the.one conclusion that can be arrived at is that they are the ordinary residents of Mahadevanpatti.That does not necessarily mean that they could not have visited the village in question on the date of occurrence or even a day earlier.There is no dispute that the deceased was residing in the scene village.There is also no dispute that P.W. l's relatives are in the scene village.Therefore, from the were disclosure made by P.W. 1 to 3 during investigation to P.W. 16 that they live at Mahadevanpatti and P.W. 1 had stated in his evidence in crose that their ancient house in Manuthu had crumbled down a couple of decades before, it cannot be said that P.Ws. 1 to 3 could not have gone to the scene village at all.All the three witnesses are very firm in their evidence that they were in the scene village.We went through the cross-examination of all the witnesses and we do not find any worthwhile attempt having been made by the defence to discredit their presence in the scene village.Therefore, without any hesitation, we reject the argument advanced by Mr. T.K. Gopalan based on the evidence of P.W. 16 as referred to above, that P.Ws. 1 to 3 should have been only at Mahadevanpatti on the date when the crime was committed and therefore, it would have been impossible for them to be present at the crime scene as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, Once this argument is rejected, then this Court has to examine the evidence of P.W. 1 to 5 as to whether it can be accepted or not.Keeping in mind the fact that all the witnesses are not only related inter se, but also related to the deceased, we proceed to examine the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 with (sic) care and.Their evidence in sum and substance establish beyond doubt as.To what had happened on that fateful morning.P.W. l to 3 consistently say that all the accused were at the construction site doing some work there, pouring water to cure the concrete pillars that have been put up.From the plan Ex. P.12, we could see that concrete pillars have come up in that site.it is also seen from that there are nine concrete pillars.Therefore, the presence of all the accused belonging to the same family, except A-6 to A-8, at the crime scene, cannot be with any sinister motive but only with, a view to protect their newly constructed property by curing it with water.The consistent case of the prosecution is that Lakshmanan want there to object and in fact he objected the accused party as to why they are pouring water on the concrete pillars, which they have already put.Their evidance even shows that all the accused party were pouring water from plastic vessel which they have in their hands and Lakshmanan, who had gone there in anger, was pulling the plastic vessels from the hands of the women present there.Therefore in all probability, on Lakshmanan reaching the crime scene and questioning the accused party about their propriety in curing the concrete pillars already put up, it is obvious the occurrence could have taken place.being the elder brother of the deceased in her evidence says that she advised the victim Lakshmananan not to go there, but yet he proceeded there in.all anger, misconducted himself with the women folk there by pulling the vessels in their hands.Therefore, without any hesitation, we could safely hold that the presence of the accused at the construction site is only with reference to the exercise of their rights over the property.(documentary evidence shows that the property belonga to them), there is also oral evidence avilable through P.W. 9 to show that the property belonga to them, The evidence shows that Lakshmanan alone had gone there to protest their act.If we view the entire event that had taken place from that angle, construction Materials available: at that place namely cement, bricks, sand, iron rods, etc., it is clear to our mind that on Lakshmanan interfering with their work the evidence showe that A-1 picking up an iron rod available there gave one blow on.the head of Lakshmanan, followed by other accused attacking the deceased According to the prosecution, some of the accused used hands, some of the accused used sticks and some of the accused used stones and A-6 to A-8 caught hold of the victim. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,048,136 | (20.11.2019) Petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 07.07.2017, passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, in Sessions Case No. 130/2015, whereby the leaned 1 st A.S.J. has framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent has filed a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner has given bills of news papers of different publisher mentioning the amount more than its actual price.By the aforesaid act, the petitioner has gained illegal 2 Cr.After considering the material available on record as well as objection filed by the petitioner, the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred in framing the charges whereas no offence is made out against the petitioner.He submits that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has committed forgery with anyone.The petitioner has not created any forged documents, thus, offence of Sections 467 and 471 are also not made out as the condition precedent for forgery, is making of false documents.He further submits that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he expressed himself as a District Representative of various newspapers whereas in complaint, complainant has not mentioned the fact whether in actual the petitioner had expressed himself as stated above.The another allegation is that the petitioner has prepared forge bill by mentioning the higher amount than actual but the complainant has not mentioned that on what basis he said so.The allegation are imaginary and beyond the truth.Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the question of "locus standi" of the complainant to file the complaint.He referred the Section 39 of Cr.P.C. and submits that offences involved in the case, are not mentioned in Section 39 Cr.P.C in which the law has given rights to any person to inform about the same to the Magistrate or Police officer.In 3 Cr.R. No.1824/2017 support of his contention, he has relied upon the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this High Court.Guru Bipin Singh Vs.2. Mohammad Ibrahim & others.Vir Prakesh Sharma Vs.Shankar Lal Vishwkarma Vs.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the submission of petitioner's counsel and submits that there is sufficient prima facie material which is available on record to frame the aforesaid charges.In the present case, the allegation against the present petitioner is that he has prepared forged bill of various news papers agency and received the amount in illegal manner, which caused financial loss to the State.The statement of complainant has also been recorded by the trial Court and he has deposed against the petitioner.Apart from that petitioner has filed a petition being aggrieved by the registration of criminal case and by passing order dated 09.05.2017, in M.Cr.C. No. 13882/2015, this High Court found prima facie material against the petitioner and dismissed the petition.With the aforesaid, he prays for dismissal of this revision petition.7. Heard both the parties and perused the record.Cr.R. No.1824/2017It is evident from the case that learned trial judge has framed the charges against the petitioner-accused under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, so it must be seen that what is the evidence against the petitioner-accused.By filing this instant revision petition, petitioner prays for discharging him from the aforesaid offences.Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with discharge and same reads as under:The 13 Cr. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,053,725 | (c) On 02.03.1995, Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare came to the house of RajendraMahadeo Lokhare (PW-1) and persuaded him to send Sanjay to his house atGhatkopar on the pretext of performing some Pooja.On the same day, in theafternoon, Sanjay left for his elder brother’s home informing that he willreturn the same night but he did not return.On 03.03.1995, at about 09:30hrs, Rajendra Mahadeo Lokhare (PW-1) visited his elder brother’s house insearch of Sanjay but he returned after finding that Kishore was presentthere.She has not statedanything further.In the examination, he has mentioned thatKishore (A-1) has two brothers, viz., Rajendra Mahadeo Lokhare (PW-1) andSanjay (deceased).He also stated that Sanjay was dumb and had flexedfingers and he was unable to lift anything.He further narrated that on03.03.1995, at about 12 noon, Kishore (original Accused No. 1) met him nearK.V.K. School.At that time, Kishore was under the influence of alcoholand requested him to come to his place in the evening.At about 7.30-7.45p.m., he went to his house.As soon as he reached the house of A-1, SureshSakharam Nangre - the present appellant (original Accused No. 3) also camethere.At that time, the deceasedwas present in the inner room.He along with Kishore (A-1) and Suresh(appellant herein) was sitting in the first room.At that time, A-1 tookout ganja and all of them smoked it.P.Sathasivam,J.1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated04.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 865 of2001 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the order ofconviction and sentence dated 15.10.1998 passed by the Court of AdditionalSessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 816 of 1995 against theappellant herein.2) Brief facts:(a) Rajendra Mahadeo Lokhare (PW-1)-the complainant, Kishore MahadeoLokhare-(original Accused No. 1) and Sanjay Mahadeo Lokhare @ Sanju (sincedeceased) are brothers and were residing at Room No. 11, Gangabhaiya Chawl,near K.V.K. High School, Sainath Nagar Road, Ghatkopar (W), Bombay.(b) Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare (A-1) was addicted to ganja and liquor andused to ill-treat his wife-Surekha (PW-2) and other members of the familyincluding his younger brother-Sanjay Mahadeo Lokhare-the deceased.Due tothe said behaviour, all the family members except Kishore Mahadeo Lokhareshifted to Punjab Chawl, Near Tata Fission Pipe Line, Mulund (W), Bombay.Surekha (PW-2) was very loving and affectionate to Sanjay-the deceased andwas used to take care of him as a mother as he was suffering from deformitydue to typhoid and had also lost his speech.Sanjay was also having loveand affection as a son towards Surekha (PW-2) and he used to intervenewhenever his elder brother assaulted his wife-Surekha and children.Onthis account, Kishore developed enmity against Sanjay and wanted to get ridof him.(d) On the very same day, i.e., on 03.03.1995, between 10:30 pm.to 11:00p.m., PW-1 was informed by two residents of Ghatkopar at his residence thathis younger brother-Sanjay has expired due to burn injuries.(e) After investigation, the police filed chargesheet against 3 persons,namely, Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare, Shabbir Fariyad Khan and Suresh SakharamNangare for their involvement in the death of Sanjay Mahadeo Lokhare.Thecase was committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions CaseNo. 816 of 1995 and charges were framed against the accused persons underSections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short ‘the IPC’).(f) During trial before the Court of Sessions, Shabbir Fariyad Khanturned approver and by impugned judgment and order dated 15.10.1998, theAdditional Sessions Judge convicted Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare and SureshSakharam Nangare (original accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively) under Section302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorousimprisonment (RI) for life.The accused persons were also convicted underSection 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment (RI) for 3 years each alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, indefault, to further undergo RI for 6 months each and the sentences were torun concurrently.(g) Being aggrieved, Suresh Sakharam Nangare preferred Criminal AppealNo. 865 of 2001 before the High Court.By impugned judgment dated04.08.2006, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal andconfirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional SessionsJudge, Greater Bombay.(h) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred thisappeal by way of special leave before this Court.3) Heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned amicus curiae for the appellant-accused and Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel for the respondent-State.4) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned amicus curiae appearing for theappellant raised the following contentions:i) There is no direct evidence showing the complicity of the appellant- accused and he has been convicted on the sole evidence of Shabbir Fariyad Khan (PW-7), the approver, as to his presence and participation in the crime.ii) It will not be safe to rely on the sole testimony of PW-7 - the approver which lacks corroboration.iii) Even if the evidence of PW-7 - the approver is accepted, still it cannot be said that the appellant-accused shared common intention with Kishore- original accused No.1 to commit the murder of his younger brother-Sanjay Mahadeo Lokhare.iv) The medical evidence and the post mortem report (Exh.21) clearly indicates that the victim did not die due to assault but the cause of death is due to 100% burns which was confirmed after receipt of the C.A.’s report.With these contentions, learned amicus curiae contended that the convictionand sentence insofar as the appellant-original Accused No.3, deserves to beset aside.5) On the other hand, Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel for therespondent-State, submitted that on a conjoint reading of the statements ofthe prosecution witnesses including that of PW-7-original accused No.2,(Approver) by applying the provisions of Section 34 of IPC, the courtsbelow were justified in convicting the present appellant along withoriginal accused No.1 under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.6) We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused allthe materials including oral and documentary evidence.7) It is not in dispute that originally, 3 persons, viz., KishoreMahadeo Lokhare, Shabbir Fariyad Khan and Suresh Sakharam Nangare wereimplicated as A-1 to A-3 respectively for the cause of death of Sanjay.Based on the materials led in by the prosecution,the trial Court convicted Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare (original Accused No.1)and Suresh Sakharam Nangare (original Accused No. 3) - the appellant hereinunder Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to sufferrigorous imprisonment for life.In addition to the same, both were alsoconvicted under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced tosuffer R.I. for 3 years each along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, indefault, to further undergo R.I. for 6 months each.Further, it is not indispute that Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare-(original Accused No.1) has notappealed against his conviction and sentence, hence, we are concerned onlywith Suresh Sakharam Nangare (original Accused No. 3) - the appellantherein.8) The first witness examined by the prosecution was Rajendra MahadeoLokhare (PW-1), who deposed that the appellant herein (original Accused No.3) and Shabbir Fariyad Khan-Approver (original Accused No. 2) came to hishouse and told him that Sanjay has committed suicide by setting himself onfire.His evidence relating to the cause of death by suicide has beennegatived by the evidence of Dr. Balkrishna (PW-10) who conducted the postmortem.When a specific question was put to the doctor by pointing outthat whether a person like Sanjay, who was having flexed fingers would bein a position to light a match stick or lift a can containing Kerosene, hespecifically negatived the same and confirmed that all the injuriessuffered by the victim were ante mortem.He also pointed out that thedeath was due to 100% burns.We will discuss the evidence of doctor andhis report in the later part of our order.The above deposition of PW-1shows that he has not implicated the appellant herein (original Accused No.3) in the crime.She narrated about the conduct of her husband as well as the disabilityof the deceased.According to her, the deceased was unable to speak andboth his hands were disabled and he had flexed fingers.She furtherexplained that when Sanju was young, he had suffered from Typhoid andduring that, he had an attack due to which he lost his power of speech andbecame disabled.Since he was unable to take bath and to wear his clothesetc., she used to hold him.She also explained about the habits of herhusband (original Accused No. 1) and complained that he was addicted toGanja and liquor and used to beat her and her children because of which sheused to go to her parents house.In the entire evidence, she has notimplicated the appellant herein (original Accused No. 3).10) In addition to the same, the prosecution has also examined twoneighbours – Chandrakant as PW-3 and Durgavati Ashok Thakur as PW-4.Though they explained about the conduct and character of Kishore MahadeoLokhare (original Accused No. 1) and his brother, there is not even awhisper about the role of the appellant herein in the commission of thecrime.11) The only person, who named the appellant herein (original Accused No.She deposed that she knowsall the accused persons.She narrated that on 03.03.1995, at about 6:45p.m., when she was standing outside her house, she saw the deceased andKishore Mahadeo Lokhare (original Accused No. 1) in their house.At about07:45 p.m., on that day, when she was sitting near the door of her house,she noticed Suresh Sakharam Nangare- appellant herein (original Accused No.3) coming out of the house of Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare (original Accused No.1) in a frightened state.He was looking here and there and, thereafter,he left the place.She identified the present appellant in the Court.Shefurther deposed that she heard the shouts of Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare(original Accused No. 1) as “Sanjune Jalun Ghetale” i.e., “Sanju has sethimself on fire”.She also deposed that she made a statement to thepolice.12) A perusal of the evidence of PW-5 shows that at the time ofoccurrence, the appellant herein (original Accused No. 3) was coming out ofthe house of A-1 in a frightened state of mind.Thereafter, A-1 went inside the innerroom where Sanjay was sitting.After some time, he heard the sound ofassault.Then A-1 called him and the present appellant (original AccusedNo.3) inside the said room.As soon as they went inside, they noticedthat Sanjay was lying on the floor and A-1 was sitting on his abdomen andwas holding his neck with one hand and fisting with the other hand on hischest and both sides of the stomach.A-1 asked him and the presentappellant (original Accused No. 3) to hold Sanjay.Accordingly, theappellant herein caught hold of the legs of Sanjay.Thereafter, A-1removed his hands from the throat of Sanjay and he (PW-7) caught hold ofthe throat of Sanjay.When Sanjay had stopped his movements, A-1 got downfrom his abdomen.Thereafter, A-1 abused them and told them to go out.However, PW-7 did not leave that place and saw A-1 lifting kerosene can andpouring it on the person of Sanjay, who was lying on the floor.On seeingthis, he ran away from the place to his house.It should be noted that A-1 was sitting onhis abdomen and was holding his neck with one hand and was also fisting hischest with the other hand and after fulfilling the work, at the end, hedirected the other two accused persons to catch hold of the legs of thedeceased.Beyond this, there is no role assigned to the present appellant.14) Since the conviction of the appellant is based only with the aid ofSection 34 of IPC, it is useful to refer the same:Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention – When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”A reading of the above provision makes it clear that to apply Section 34,apart from the fact that there should be two or more accused, two factorsmust be established: (i) common intention, and (ii) participation ofaccused in the commission of an offence.In other words,it requires a pre-arranged plan and pre-supposes prior concert, therefore,there must be prior meeting of minds.15) We have already referred to the evidence of prosecution witnesses.Nobody has implicated the present appellant except the statements made byPW-5 and PW-7 (the approver).We are satisfied that absolutely there is nomaterial from the side of the prosecution to show that the presentappellant had any common intention to eliminate the deceased, who wasphysically disabled.16) The other important circumstance which is in favour of the appellantherein is the evidence of the doctor (PW-10) who conducted the post mortem.In his evidence, PW-10 has stated that on 04.03.1995, at about 08:15 a.m.,the dead body of one Sanjay Mahadeo Lokhar was brought by the police forpost mortem.He started the examination at 2 p.m. and the same wasconcluded at 3 p.m. According to him, it was a burnt body, averagelynourished with presence of rigor mortis in muscles.His tongue wasprotruding outside and surface wounds and injuries were 100% superficial todeep burns.The categorical evidence and the opinion of PW-10 for thecause of the death of Sanjay make it clear that the appellant herein –original Accused No. 3 has nothing to do with the same since the evidencebrought in shows that it was Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare – (original AccusedNo.1) who took Sanjay to the other room where he burnt him to death.Thisimportant aspect has not been considered by the trial Court as well as bythe High Court.17) On appreciation of the entire material, we have already concludedthat the present appellant had no role in the criminal conspiracy and nomotive to kill the deceased.On the other hand, the evidence led inclearly implicates Kishore Mahadeo Lokhare – (original Accused No. 1) inall aspects including motive and the manner of causing death by littingfire.Apart from all the evidence led in by the prosecution, the aboveposition is clear from the evidence of the Doctor (PW-10) – who conductedthe post mortem and his opinion for the cause of the death.Merelybecause the approver (PW-7) has stated that based on the direction ofKishore Mahadeo Lokhare (original Accused No. 1), the present appellant(original Accused No. 3) caught hold of the legs of the deceased, in theabsence of any motive or intention, mere act of holding his legs that tooat the end of the event when original Accused No. 1 throttled his neck bysitting on his abdomen, the appellant (original Accused No. 3) cannot bemulcted with the offence of murder with the aid of Section 34 of IPC,particularly, when the medical evidence for the cause of death isotherwise, namely, due to 100% burns.18) In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecutionfailed to establish the guilt insofar as the present appellant (originalAccused No. 3) is concerned and the trial Court committed an error inconvicting him under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC andsentencing him to imprisonment for life.For the same reasons, the HighCourt has also erroneously confirmed the said conclusion.Accordingly,both the orders are set aside.The appellant (original Accused No. 3) isordered to be released forthwith if he is not needed in any other case.The appeal is allowed.(P. SATHASIVAM) ………….…………………………J.(RANJAN GOGOI)NEW DELHI; | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,235,378 | The revision petitioner is the fifth accused in S.C.No.157 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode.The said case has been instituted by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 364, 394, 395 r/w 397 and 414 of IPC against this petitioner and six other accused.At the end of trial, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode, found the present revision petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 395 and 120-B of IPC and awarded conviction and sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment for each offence.As against the said conviction, the petitioner preferred an Appeal [in Crl.A.No.5 of 2011] before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.I], Erode [S.C.No.157 of 2008].At the end of proceedings in Crl.A.No.5 of 2011, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.I], Erode came to the conclusion that the petitioner was found guilty only for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC and confirmed the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.Aggrieved over the judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.I], Erode, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court to check the correctness of the said concurrent judgments.At the time of submitting the case of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seriously disputed the findings arrived by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.I], Erode and made a submission that during the time of Identification Parade, the witness not identified the revision petitioner, they identified the other accused alone, thereby, if really the petitioner is involved in this offence, there may be a chance for identifying the petitioner also.In the said circumstances, without noting the said aspect, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.I], Erode, confirmed the judgment passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode, which is against the principle of law.Now, on going through the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side reveals that it is true that at the time of identifying the accused, the present petitioner was not identified by any one of the witness.However, on going through the entire facts and circumstances, it appears that on the date of the alleged occurrence, the petitioner was with P.W.1 for nearly for 2 days.Moreover, in the Trial Court, P.W.1, who is the witness in this case has clearly identify the present petitioner and deposed that he was also present at the time of committing the offence.So, identifying the accused in the Identification Parade is not at all necessary to know the involvement of the present petitioner.So, the only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any merits.Accordingly, the above submission made by the learned counsel is not a ground for allowing the revision.Now, at the end of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed this Court to show some leniency against this present petitioner.Subsequent to that, the order of suspension was passed in favour of the present petitioner.In the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment as three years and fine as fixed by the Trial Court.Accordingly, the conviction passed by the Courts below are confirmed and the sentence imposed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode, in S.C.No.157 of 2008, is modified to that extend that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine as fixed by the Trial Court instead of seven years Rigorous Imprisonment.Further ordered that the above said sentence is set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. if the petitioner is already undergone.In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed in part and the conviction imposed on the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC in S.C.No.157 of 2008 is confirmed and the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the above case alone is reduced.1.The Additional District Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.I], Erode.2.The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode.3.The Inspector of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.5.The Record Keeper, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.R.PONGIAPPAN, J.,sriCrl.R.C.No.1395 of 201125.04.2018 | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,962,405 | In the complaint, it is alleged by the complainant that he was enticed by the Directors and officials of the Hoffland Group of Companies to deposit the money.It is also alleged that after maturity of deposits, repayments have not been made despite persistent demands, though he was given categoric assurance that the money would be refunded after the maturity of deposits.It is also alleged that like the complainant hundreds of other investors had deposited their life time savings with the Hoffland Group of Companies.In most cases neither the principal nor the interest amount has been refunded despite all kind of assurances.A number of FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner, against B.B. Sharma (Chairman & Managing Director) and others and they are pending in various courts all over the country.ORDER Dalveer Bhandari, J.The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 226/99 registered under Sec-tions 420/406/409/120-B IPC.It is not disputed that the petitioner is in custody for more than 26 months (since 6th May, 1998).Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under :A complaint was filed by Major General Ranjit Singh (complainant) with the Police Station Prasad Nagar, Delhi.The allegations against V.K. Sharma are much graver and serious in comparison to the allegations against the present petitioner.The judgment of the Apex Court has to be respected both in letters and spirits. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,962,496 | Birbal, deceased, and his brother Jaipal Singh, P.W. 1, have a tailoring shop in the village which consists of three portions.On the fateful afternoon Birbal was stitching a coat in the northern portion while Jaipal Singh, P. W, 1 and his two apprentices Shiv Kumar, P. W. 3 and Ram Kumar were working in the middle portion.Smt. Anguri, P.W. 2, daughter of Jaipal Singh had come there to call her father to come to the house and to feed the cattle.The house of Jaipal Singh and Birbal is close to the shop but lies on the other side of the road.JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J.at about 4 P.M. He has been awarded the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life.Tt is the admitted case of the parties that Birbal, deceased, and Ratan Singh appellant were friends and were not at all on badr terms.It was then that the appellant arrived and asked Birbal to accompany him to assist in chopping fodder.Birbal refused on the ground that he was busy.The appellant did not like the refusal with the result that words were exchanged between the two.Birbal had then got up putting aside the coat which he was stitching.The prosecution case is that after warning Birbal that the consequences for the refusal shall be serious he (Ratan Singh) took out a knife and stabbed Birbal on the left side of the chest below the nipple.As a result of this injury Birbal fell down dead at the spot.Thereafter the appellent fled away.Jaipal Singh and others and also the pas-sersby, namely.Ram Saran, P.W. 4, and Alia Mahar.chased the appellant but could not arrest him.It is further alleged that chase was given up when the appellant threatened to stab the pursuers.then commenced the investigation and reached the scene of offence at about 9 P.M. He first of all held an inquest on the dead body and sent it to Bulandshahr Mortuary for post-mortem examination.He took in his possession blood stained earth from the floor of the shop and thereafter examined witnesses.Ratan Singh appellant pleaded not guilty and alleged that on the day of the murder he was in Delhi.His case is that in connection with the illness of his mother he was staying in Delhi and returned to the village about a fortnight after the murder.It was suggested that Birbal was a person with weak intellect and either he committed suicide or had been murdered.It was further suggested that Jaipal Singh had a case made out against the appellant because he had once caught Jaipal Singh and Birbal's wife in a compromising situation and reported the matter to Birbal.He pleaded enmity with Hari Singh and the members of his group suggesting that he was also responsible for making out thia false case.No evidence was adduced in defence.Both these pleas raised by the appellant have not been proved nor do they appear to have any substance.In case there was any illicit intimacy between Jaipal Singh and the wife of Birbal, she would not have left her husband's place and would not have continued to live with her parents.In case there was any litigation with Hari Singh or his relations, copies of papers could be filed to prove such litigation.In these circumstances, it must be held that there was no enmity between the appellant on one side and the witnesses, in fact, the residents of the village, on the other.The plea of alibi cannot also be accepted.In case the appellant's mother was ill he could have adduced some evidence that his mother was confined in hospital or was being medically treated at Delhi.A person who was of weak intellect and could commit suicide would not have been, at the time of the suicide, doing his normal work.In other words, none of the pleas raised in defence have any substance.This takes us to the consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.Two eye-witnesses of murder are Jaipal Singh, P. W. 1 and Shiv Kumar, P.W. 3, who were then working in the same shop though in the adjoining portions thereof.The house of Jaipal Singh is very close to the shop.In case Smt. Anguri P.W. was created as an eye-witness she could easily be called upon to say that on hearing the alarm she came out of the house and saw the appellant running away with a knife and when she went to the shop she found her uncle dead.The presence of Smt. Anguri in the shop can, therefore, be accepted.Ram Saran and Alia Mahar P.W. 5, reside at a distance of about half a furlong from the shop.But, it is not necessary that a person should remain in his house all the twenty-four hours.People always go to the market and can witness even happenings away from their houses.Ram Saran stated in the committing court that he had witnessed the assault also, but before the Sessions Judge he merely stated that he saw the appellant coming out of the shop and running away.The prosecution declared Ram Saran hostile but we are of the opinion that before the Sessions Judge he stated only what he had seen without associating the fact that he later on found the dead body and the natural assumption was that the appellant had murdered Birbal.Ram Saran, however, made one incorrect statement.He denied to have been cultivating the land of Shiv Sahai, but Alia Mahar admitted this fact.Too much importance cannot be attached to this incorrect statement, but his testimony, can be viewed with caution and be not accepted unless corroborated by reliable evidence.Alia Mahar, as already indicated, is also an independent witness.There do exist a few contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses, but in our opinion also they are not of any importance.At 4 P.M. people would be busy in their daily work and they may not be at their houses, Persons inside the houses may come out late and may not be able to witness the event.Importance could have been attached to this factor only if the eye-witnesses examined were interested persons or they had not made satisfactory statement.The prosecution has thus proved beyond doubt that he was Ratan Singh appellant who had stabbed Birbal with the knife in the latter's tailoring shop in village Kota.The next point for consideration is whether the offence of murder was proved or the conviction be for the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,251,446 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant seeking bail and Shri Prachish Pandey, learned A.G.A.-I for the State through video conferencing in view of the Covid 19 lockdown on a mention being made by the learned counsel for the applicant.The instant bail application has been filed by the accused/applicant Sri Ankit Tiwari alias Shubham Tiwari, involved in case crime no. 798/2017, under Sections 147,148,149,302,120-B IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Faizabad.Even in the CCTV footage he is only seen standing on the spot without any active role in the alleged incident.She fairly invited attention of the Court to the earlier order dated 12.7.2019 by which the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar has rejected the second bail application of the applicant with the observation, inter alia, that the applicant is at liberty to file a fresh bail application after the witnesses of fact are complete.She says that ever since then none of the witnesses have been examined.Accordingly, she says that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.She denies any criminal history of the applicant.A copy of the chargesheet is annexed with the said counter affidavit.Learned counsel has also invited attention of the Court to an affidavit of Baljeet Singh Chhabra (subsequently deceased) filed in the said case stating that the concerned persons were extorting money from him, though the name of the applicant is not mentioned therein.Apart from it he is also an accused in one other criminal case.Firstly he alongwith others tried to extort money from late Baljeet Singh Chhabra and attempted to murder him.Thereafter they threatened the prosecution witnesses in the said case and when they did not succeed, they murdered Baljeet Singh Chhabra who was the injured witness in the said case which has led to the filing of the present case. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
196,254,454 | Aggrieved by the order dated 25th May, 2016 the petitioner who is the complainant in FIR No.1062/2015 under Section 406/498A registered at PS Patel Nagar prefers the present petition.The said application was opposed by the petitioner claiming that she was residing in the matrimonial home and by way of the application praying for recovery of the articles, the respondent No.2 could not oust her from the matrimonial home.According to the CRL.M.C. 2339/2016 Page 1 of 7 petitioner even as per the memo of parties in a petition filed by the respondent No.2 before the Family Court, Saket the present address of the complainant was that of the matrimonial home.CRL.M.C. 2339/2016 Page 1 of 7After hearing the parties the learned Trial Court allowing the application of respondent No.2 passed the following impugned order:Arguments have been advanced on behalf of the applicant, the State and the learned counsel for the complainant.But the same is a false proposition.The applicant/ accused wishes to give the articles of the complainant back to her but she is not accepting the same.It is submitted that the articles are unnecessarily occupying space in the house of the accused due to which he is facing space issues.Hence, as he does not require the custody of these articles and the articles are belonging to the complainant, necessary directions may be passed to this effect.The IO submits that on 9.11.2016, she had issued a notice to the accused to handover the istridhan articles of the complainant along with the admitted list.CRL.M.C. 2339/2016 Page 2 of 7As per the report of the IO, she had given a notice to the accused to handover the dowry articles of the complainant.In compliance of the same, the accused has offered to handover the articles but the same are not accepting by the complainant.The complainant is directed to collect her articles as per admitted list from the accused in the presence of the IO.Once the complainant has sought dominion over her articles, the investigating officer is entitled to recover the same and hand over the dominion of the same to the complainant.Had the complainant been residing in a clearly marked portion of the matrimonial home, she could have insisted that the articles recovered be kept over there.As noted above the complainant is not residing at the matrimonial home and thus while seeking prosecution of the respondent No.2 for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, she cannot at the same time claim that no recovery of the articles be made.If after demanding the goods, the complainant fails to receive the same it will be for the Court to draw an adverse inference if the facts so warrant.CRL.M.C. 2339/2016 Page 6 of 7Petition and application are accordingly dismissed.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE OCTOBER 17, 2016 'ga' CRL.M.C. 2339/2016 Page 7 of 7CRL.M.C. 2339/2016 Page 7 of 7 | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,962,587 | Factual position as highlighted by the appellant is asfollows:The respondent, who is a resident of Jammu &,Kashmir, was apprehended at Sheila Cinema in Delhi on05.03.1997 on the basis of information that he belongs to aterrorist outfit "Tehreek-ul-Mujahideen' (TUM) of J&K. Froma search of his person and his hotel room, a letter containinginstructions regarding activities to be carried out in Delhi forcollecting money and arms for freedom of Kashmir wasrecovered.The letter contained coded information regardingRDX and Grenades as "AT'TA' and 'ANAR' and was allegedlywritten by one Abu Ibrahim.A personal diary containingtelephone numbers of Pakistan and a sum of Rs.30,000/-suspected to be Hawala money were also recovered from therespondent.It was found that the respondent had beenfrequently coming to Delhi and stayed at Welcome Guest 2 House and used to make telephone calls to his contacts inPakistan and collected money in Delhi which he used totransfer to Srinagar through carpet dealers at Kashmir andCommission agents for goats and thus, he actually gottransferred Rs.17-1/4 lacs through Ghayasuddin and Mohd.Ahad of Srinagar.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by alearned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing theCriminal Revision Petition (Crl.R.P.No.356/2004) on the ground that there was inordinate delay in filing and re-filingthe revision petition.The respondent was charge sheeted under Sections121/121A/122/124-A/120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (inshort `IPC') on the above allegations of being a member ofTUM and for conspiring in waging war against theGovernment of India.The respondent was thereafter tried inthe Court of the Addl.By order dated 30.10.1998 in Sessions Case No.7/98,the learned Addl.Sessions Judge discharged the accused atthe threshold, holding that prima facie there was no legalevidence to show that the respondent has committed any ofthe alleged acts.3 Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Revision Petition356/2004, along with an application for condoning the delayin filing the petition.After filing the revision petition, theRegistry of the High Court raised certain objections, and thefile was received back in the Department for curing thedefects.The revisionpetition was thereafter re-filed along with an application forcondonation of delay in re-filing.The High Court dismissed Crl.Rev. PetitionNo.356/2004 and Crl.It is pointed out that theconclusions of learned trial Judge directing discharge areunsustainable both on facts and in law.Learned counsel for the respondent on the other handsubmitted that merely because the allegations were seriousin nature, the order impugned before the High Court doesnot require interference as it is blemishless.According to us, theexplanations offered were plausible and deserved to beaccepted.Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order ofthe High Court and remit the matter to it to hear theCriminal Revision on merits.It is made clear that we havenot expressed any opinion on merits.The appeal is allowed. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,947,389 | In this writ petition the petitioner inter-alia seeks the following reliefs:On June 14, 1998 an FIR being No. 230/98 was registered by Bihar Police under Section 302 read with Sections 34/120-B, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station, Khajanchi Hat, Purnia, Bihar, relating to murder of four persons.After registration of the FIR the State Police took up the investigation in the matter.However, by order dated August 11, 1998 the State of Bihar accorded its sanction under Section 6 of the Act to the investigation of the case by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment.In the meantime, the Bihar Police on September 20, 1998 filed an incomplete challan under Section 173(2) against five persons in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia While taking cognizance of the offence the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia, vide his order dated September 23, 1998 observed as follows:by the C.B.I, and the issue of notification by the Central Government dated September 28, 1998 the petitioner has filed the instant petition.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits mat the further investigation in the matter can only be carried out by the Bihar Police and the CBX has no power to undertake the same under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,741,552 | According to the prosecution case, appellant Ramlal persistently subjected Godabai to cruelty and harassment on the ground of her dark complexion and disinclination towards work, to such an extent that she was left with no other option, except to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance.She died on 6/3/96 at 10 p.m. in her matrimonial home at Village Gurjikala.Morgue intimation Report No.0/96 (Ex.P/5) was registered at Police Outpost Salaiya, on 7/3/96 at 8.30 p.m. Thereafter, original morgue no.7/96 (Ex.P/11) was registered at Police Station Rithi on 8/3/96 and after investigation, Crime No.46/96 (Ex.( 19 /7/13) The appellant has been convicted under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine stipulation, though he was acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").Appellant is husband of Godabai (since deceased).Their marriage was solemnized ten years prior to the date of incident.P/12) was registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and thereafter impugned judgment was passed.3. Charges under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC were framed.Appellant pleaded false implication and not guilty.Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record.He submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, then too the appellant cannot be convicted.In response, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction was well merited and the impugned judgment does not deserve to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, record of the trial Court was perused.However, no report was ever lodged by parents of Godabai regarding the alleged cruelty meted out to Godabai at the hands of appellant.Siyaram deposed in paragraph 3 that despite the alleged cruelty, Godabai used to return to her matrimonial house.He further deposed that Godabai was residing in her matrimonial home for 2 months from the day when she breathed her last.It clearly shows that Godabai returned to her matrimonial home forgetting all the alleged incidents of cruelty and ill- treatment.In other words, it can be deduced that the behaviour of appellant was not so bad that it can be termed as physical or mental cruelty, otherwise she would not have returned to her matrimonial home.Appellant was acquitted of the charge of 306 of the IPC.Moreover, prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 498A of the IPC against the appellant, beyond a reasonable doubt.In the result, the appeal stands allowed. | ['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. |
194,743,459 | Allegation against the applicant in short are that the applicant, who is husband of the deceased had extramarital relationship with one Renu, due to which, the deceased and the applicant used to quarrel with each other.On the day of incident, hot talked took place between the applicant and deceased, therefore, the applicant went outside.Shri Yash Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station University, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No. 349/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 306 of IPC.Thereafter, the deceased made lot of phone calls to the applicant, but he did not lift the phone.At about 1 Am in the night, when he came back to home, he found that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself.On the basis of aforesaid, the applicant has been implicated in the present case.The applicant aged 44 years is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal antecedents alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.According to him, looking to the prosecution HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Dr. Shivkumar Semal Vs.State of M.P.) 2 M.Cr.Further, there are omnibus allegations levelled against the applicant.It is further submitted that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the applicant 15 years ago and during this period, not a single complaint has been lodged by the deceased against the applicant in regard to torture and harassment.The applicant is a Government Doctor by profession.The charge sheet has since been filed and further custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary.The applicant is in jail since 23/08/2018 and early conclusion of the trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.2 M.Cr.C. No. 44098/2018Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application on the ground that as per the statement of 13 (Thirteen) years old son of the deceased, it can be clearly seen that the applicant used to harass and torture the deceased due to which she committed suicide.It is submitted that applicant had extra marital relationship with one Renu, who was also instrumental in commission of the alleged offence.There are ample evidence on record to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment and torture by the applicant soon before death of the deceased, due to which, she committed suicide.He further submits that the Apex Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda Vs.The State of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Dr. Shivkumar Semal Vs.State of M.P.) 3 M.Cr.C. No. 44098/2018 Karnataka ((2017)5 SCC 406) has held that mere filing of charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution.On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused person.Looking to gravity of the offence, role played by the applicant being husband of the deceased and period of custody, learned State counsel prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.3 M.Cr.C. No. 44098/2018(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* SANJAY N.DURGEKAR 2018.12.01 13:58:48 +05'30' | ['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,746,549 | Heard on application filed on 4.9.2020 under section 439 of CrPC on behalf of applicant Sanju Singh Parihar alias Sanjay Singh, who is confined in custody since 26.8.2020 in connection with Crime No.155/2020, registered at Police Station Jaso, District Satna, under section 34(2) of M.P.Excise Act.It is submitted by the counsel for applicant that challan has been filed.Photocopy of challan has already been submitted.It is further submitted that there is no any evidence against the present applicant.The place from which the liquor has been seized, was not under the possession of present applicant.For showing his possession or ownership, no any document has been filed along with the challan.Therefore, the applicant should be enlarged on bail.On the other side, the counsel for State strongly opposed the application.It is submitted by the State that sufficient evidence is available with the challan.The applicant is also having criminal background.Therefore, he should not be enlarged on bail.It appears from the record that 150 boxes of Goa Whiskey total 1350 litres of liquor has been seized from the place, which was under the possession of the applicant.The applicant made a Ahari in the forest.The police received the secrete information.Thereafter, police broke down the lock of aforesaid house and the liquor was recovered.Panchanama of the possession/ownership has been made by the police in the presence of witnesses Raj Kumar Vishwakarma and Ram Manohar Kushwaha.Therefore, sufficient material is available with the challan for showing the prima facie possession of the applicant upon the aforesaid place and the seized liquor.The applicant also having criminal background.As per list submitted by the Signature Not SAN Verified State, total 15 cases have been registered against the present applicant.The applicant Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2020.11.18 14:41:07 IST 2 MCRC-32908-2020 has filed only one copy of judgment dated 18.8.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.468/2008 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagod. | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,747,328 | 2) Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:(i) The victim was residing with P.W. 1 Shantabai Choure who happens to be cousin aunt of the victim.On 06/09/2008, P.W. 1 lodged a report at Shantinagar Police Station Bhiwandi alleging therein that she resides with her family and the victim.Her husband happens to be a labour and the victim who is aged about 16 years old is working as labour in the scrap godown of Hazrat Sheth.Her daughters are also doing labour work at Gove Toll Naka.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::three girls had left the house for their respective jobs.At about 5.00 p.m., all the girls had returned home as usual.At about 5.00 p.m. victim had been to Kongaon to fetch milk from the stall which was situated next to Ajit Petrol Pump.She did not return for quite sometime and therefore they started searching for her.They continued to search her.At about 9.00 p.m. the victim was spotted passing from the Kongaon Goa Naka.Complainant called her.As soon as the victim saw the complainant, she started crying.Upon enquiry, she informed the complainant that when she had been to fetch milk near Ajit Petrol Pump, three boys (Present Appellants) who were working in the adjoining scrap godown met her.Basudev asked her whether she would marry him.She refused.When she was proceeding further, all the three accused came in an auto rickshaw and pulled her in the auto.They left the rickshaw near Vidyamandir.Thereafter, Vikram and Babulal had gagged her mouth and had held her.They had taken her behind the school.Despite her resistance, they all ravished her.Then they gave her Rs. 100/-.They threatened her of dire consequences.Ajit Petrol Pump is at distance of 15 minutes from the house of the victim and is situated at Kongaon.That Kongaon and Govegaon are distinct villages.It takes 10 minutes to reach Kalyan railway station from Ajit Petrol Pump.It is specifically admitted in the ism ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 ::: 5 472.10 apeal cross-examination by P.W. 1 that victim returned home after 28 hours.The victim had disclosed to P.W. 1 that she had stayed at Kalyan railway station for the whole night and was wandering in Kalyan city during the whole night.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::That she was having injuries on her both hands.6) P.W. 2 the victim has deposed before the Court that she was working as labour in a godown.Accused were also working there.She had been to Kongaon to bring milk.She did not get milk there and therefore she returned home.She then reached near Atgaon road.Accused no. 1 was standing on the road.He had called her by name Ashwini.According to her, she is also known as Ashwini.He had taken her by the side of the road and proposed to her.She had denied the proposal.He had again offered her that he would marry her and take her to his village.At that juncture, other 2 accused who were standing near the gate approached her.They gagged her mouth.She had attempted to raise cries, however, they threatened her.They had taken her near the school and thereafter she was ravished by all three accused persons.She then went to Kalyan by rickshaw.She stayed at Kalyan throught the night.She had no money to go to her ism ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 ::: 6 472.10 apeal village.The same has been admitted in evidence.It is a matter of record that the victim was examined by P.W. 5 on 06/09/2008 at about 2.30 p.m. The date of incident is 04/09/2008 between 5.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. Suffice it to say that as defined by P.W. 5 the injuries observed on the private parts of the victim cannot be said to be fresh injuries as she had been examined almost after 45 hours.The proforma shows that the blood grouping was done, however, it is clear that from the evidence of P.W. 5 that Medical Officer had not taken the blood sample of the victim.Appellants herein are convicted for offence punishable under section 366 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 ism ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 ::: 2 472.10 apeal months each.They are also convicted for offence punishable under section 376 (2) (g) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 30,000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.Appellants are also convicted for offence punishable under section 506 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months by Ad-hoc Asstt.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::against the accused/appellants for offence punishable under sections 363, 366 (A), 376 & 506 of Indian Penal Code.Prosecution examined 7 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.3) Case rests mainly on the evidence of P.W. 1 Shantabai who happens to be the first informant and maternal aunt of the victim, P.W. 2 the victim, P.W.5 Medical Officer and P.W. 7 who happens to be Investigating Officer.4) P.W. 1 Shantabai has deposed before the Court in accordance with the F.I.R. lodged by her.5) It is elicited in the cross-examination that P.W. 1 was not acquainted with the accused.The milk vendor stays near Ajit Petrol Pump and the complainant resides with the victim behind Royal Petrol Pump at village Gove.There are shops in village Gove also.She then went to Govenaka by bus and proceeded to the petrol pump.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::She met her maternal aunt near the petrol pump and thereafter she had disclosed the incident to P.W. 1 who happens to be her aunt.7) In the cross-examination, she has admitted that after she was left by the accused, they did not follow her to Kalyan and then she returned to Kongaon on the next day.She has also admitted that she was taking education in Ashram Shala Kalyan for 2 years when she was studying in 5 th & 6th standard.She was aware that she could reach Kongaon by bus from Kalyan.That she was sitting at Kalyan railway station since evening.Kalyan railway station is a junction.It is also admitted that she had seen the police on Kalyan railway station.She had not disclosed the incident to the police nor to the public on railway station.She had never been to Beed alone prior to the incident.She did not have any difficulties to reach Kongaon to Kalyan on the next day in the morning.She was at Kalyan railway station on the next day evening.She has also admitted that there are several milk shops in Govegaon.Atgaon school where she was ravished is at distance of 5 to 10 minutes walk from Kalyan.School was having holidays at that time.That she had sustained injuries on her back during the incident as well as on her elbows.She had ism ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 ::: 7 472.10 apeal shown the injuries to the doctor when she was examined.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::8) P. W. 3 Mohd. Yunus is the panch for spot Panchanama.It is elicited in the cross-examination that at the time of conducting spot Panchanama no other person had acted as a panch.It is also admitted that victim, police and P.W. 3 were the only persons when the spot Panchanama was prepared.P.W. 4 Popat Rokade is the panch for seizure of clothes of the victim.Their evidence in the present case need not be discussed.She has deposed before the court that according to the police officer and the complainant the victim was subjected to gang rape.She examined the victim.She did not find any external injury.Vulva of the victim was swollen, reddish.There was a fresh tear of hymen.In the cross-examination, P.W. 5 has admitted that certificate Exhibit 26 is prepared from the notes in MLC register.There is no communication in the medical certificate that the victim ism ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 ::: 8 472.10 apeal was subjected to forcible intercourse.The ossification test of the victim was not conducted.P.W. 5 did not observe any traces of injury on the back or elbow of the victim, neither there were any external injuries on her person.She did not notice any signs of mud on her body.She has further admitted that in case where victim is subjected to forceful intercourse by 3 to 4 young persons, there may be internal injuries, however, in the present case, she did not find any such injuries.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::on 06/09/2008 P.W. 1 had lodged the report.Offence was registered and the investigation was handed over to him.He had taken the steps for investigation and had filed the charge-sheet.13) In the cross-examination, it is elicited that father of the victim resides in Beed District and his statement has not been recorded.Investigating Officer had not called for birth certificate from Grampanchayat Jeevachiwadi where the victim was born.That the victim was learning in Ashram School at Kalyan.Investigating Officer had not issued any letter to school for obtaining the birth certificate or the school leaving certificate.He had not requested the Medical Officer to conduct ossification test in order to ascertain her age.It is also admitted that incident has occurred in the rainy season and there was ism ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 ::: 10 472.10 apeal mud and soil at the spot of incident.The clothes seized from the victim did not have any marks of mud or soil.It is also admitted by P.W. 7 that he had not recorded statements of any person from Kalyan station.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::14) Exhibit 35 is the Chemical Analysis report of the victim.The report shows that on 19/09/2008 two phials were received for analysis.Exhibit 2 is the vaginal swab and Exhibit 3 is pubic hair.15) The Jurisprudence contemplates that in a case under section 376 of Indian Penal Code the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix can be relied upon provided that :(i) It is a sterling testimony (ii) It appears to be truthful (iii) and would inspire the confidence of the Court.If the version given by the ism ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 ::: 11 472.10 apeal prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix.The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen."::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::17) In the present case, the evidence of the victim does not appear to be truthful and therefore, would not inspire the confidence of the court.In the present case, the victim admits that there are several milk shops in Govegaon.15 to 20 minutes are required by walk from Govegaon to petrol pump of Kongaon.That she had been all the way to Kongaon to bring milk.She has deposed before the Court that when she did not get milk at Kongaon, she had returned home but had gone to Atgaon road.That the accused no. 1 was standing on the road.There was no reason for the victim to go to Atgaon road.It is not her case that she could not get milk at Govegaon.It is further pertinent to note that accused persons had not kept the victim under detention not had restrained her from moving freely.That instead of going home, victim had gone to Kalyan all the way by rickshaw.She stayed at Kalyan station for ism ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 ::: 12 472.10 apeal the whole night.No reason is assigned for not returning home.She has neither deposed before the court that due to the said trauma, she was in such a state of mind that she could not go home.Accused had not followed her.Moreover, her oral version is not corroborated by medical evidence.F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 1 on the basis of hearsay statement of the victim.It cannot be ignored that the victim was acquainted with all the accused.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::Accused nos. 1 & 2 had in fact filed an application to withdraw the appeal as they accepted the conviction.20) Learned counsel appointed for the appellants submits that accused nos.1 & 2 had been misguided by the jail mates that appeal would not be heard in the near future and that the possibility of enhancement of sentence cannot be ism ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 ::: 13 472.10 apeal ruled out.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::21) In the facts and circumstances of the case, accused who have almost undergone the whole of the substantive sentence of 10 years, deserve to be acquitted.22) This Court cannot part with the Judgment without recording appreciation for the learned counsel appointed for the appellants.Legal fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee to the appointed Advocates is quantified at 2,000/- each, to be paid to them within three months from today.Sections 366, 376 (2) (g) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Ad-hoc Asst.Sessions Judge, Thane, vide Judgment and order dated 15/05/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside.(iii) The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.(iv) The appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other offence.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 :::the tune of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand only) each, to be paid to them within three months from today.23) Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.As the appeal is disposed of, the Criminal Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:23:25 ::: | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,754 | SANTOSH HEGDE, J.The appellant herein, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police,Special Branch, Sikkim Police, along with one RollandChristopher Chhetri (A-1) who was then a Sub-DivisionalPolice Officer in the Sikkim Police, was charged for an offenceunder Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC forcommitting the abduction and murder of one Dharma DuttSharma, and causing disappearance of evidence.It is stated that while going away with theaccused persons and PW-5, the deceased possibly afterapprehending some harm to himself, informed PW-3 to tell hiswife that he was being taken by A-1 in his jeep.It is the furthercase of the prosecution that on the way PW-5 got down fromthe jeep and the jeep proceeded towards Chakung.Theprosecution alleges that on the way the accused committed themurder of the deceased, took his body across the check-posttowards Singla within the territory of State of West Bengal anddropped the body below the road near the forest quarters atKerabari, and returned back to Naya Bazar.The above incidentof the accused persons crossing the check-post was witnessedby PW-15, the Havildar in-charge of the check-post and theirreturn to Naya Bazar was noticed by PWs.-15 and 22 latter ofwhom by that time had come to the check-post.It is the furthercase of the prosecution that on the very same night of12.2.1988, A-1 with his family visited the check-post at around9.45 p.m. without there being any official reason for the same.The prosecution then alleges that on 13.2.1988 the appellantand A-1 visited the check-post in the morning at about 10 a.m.ostensibly on the ground that they wanted to give two torch-lights to the constables manning the check-post.It is furtherstated that on 13.2.1988 a group of about 20-25 people came tothe check-post from Kerabari-Singla side out of which about 7-8 persons approached the check-post and asked PW-15 as towhose jeep it was which came to Kerabari side on 12.2.1988evening and after being told that it was the jeep of A-1, one ofthe persons named Damber Singh Subba, a CPM leader of thatarea, told PW-15 to get A-1 to the check-post.Under the saidinstructions of D.S. Subba, PW-15 asked PW-22 also aHavildar at the check-post to bring A-1 which he did and on A-1 coming to the check-post, it is stated that he went along withD.S. Subba towards the forest headquarters along with PW-22where it is stated that the people who had gathered, tried togherao them.On seeing the same, said Subba pacified thecrowd and took A-1 to the house of one Kazi Lohagan wherethe prosecution alleges that A-1 admitted having brought thedead body from Naya Bazar side to Singla side and havingdropped the same there.He allegedly assured the said Subbaand others present that he would take care of the situation andhe also allegedly gave a written statement to said Subba givinghis version as to the existence of the dead body at that place.Thefurther case of the prosecution is that on 13.2.1988 at about5.30 p.m., the appellant came to the office of PW-5 and onbeing inquired by PW-5 about the whereabouts of the deceased,the appellant allegedly told him that when the deceased wasbeing taken away in the jeep at a place called Zoom, A-1 gotdown from the jeep to ease himself.A-1 diedduring the trial of the case, hence, the proceedings against himabated.The appellant on being found guilty by the SpecialJudge, Human Rights, South & West Districts, Sikkim, wasconvicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life andto pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default to undergo further RI fora period of one year.For the offence under Section 364 IPC, theappellant was sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and for theoffence under Section 201 he was further sentenced to undergoRI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default toundergo RI for 6 months.At that time, the appellantallowed the deceased to flee.It is the further case of theprosecution that again on 16.2.1988 the appellant met PW-5and told him that as a matter of fact when deceased was runningaway, he fell down and injured himself and when they werebringing the injured person in the jeep for treatment atJorethang, he died on the way, therefore, they took his body toSingla and dropped it there and later on 13.2.1988 they wentback to Singla and disposed of the body with the help of O.C.Bijanbari (in West Bengal) and some other CPM workers forwhich he and A-1 paid money.The prosecution also alleges thaton 14.2.1988 the appellant told PW-36 that when they werebringing a smuggler in the jeep from Darjeeling side to Sikkimside, the said person tried to escape from the jeep and in theprocess, fell down and died.The prosecution also relies onthe evidence of PW-1, the wife of the deceased, who stated thata letter and other material objects like tobacco container, IDcard, chappal recovered from the place where the dead bodywas thrown as that belonging to the deceased D.D. Sharma andalso the fact of she having been told by the messenger who gotthe message from PW- 3 that the deceased was taken away byA-1 in the Police jeep.It is based on this allegation that theappellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge who in theabsence of any eye-witnesses to the actual murder of thedeceased, relying on a chain of circumstantial evidence, cameto the conclusion that the prosecution has established the chargethat was levelled against the accused and convicted theappellant.The circumstances relied on by the learned SessionsJudge are as follows :There was panchayat election going at the material time andthat 12th February 1988 was fixed as last date for filing ofnomination papers.Dharma Dutt Sharma had gone to Soreng to submit hisnomination paper as a candidate.Dharma Dutt Sharma obtained nomination paper.On 12th February, 1988 the accused Rolland and theappellant were searching for the victim Dharma DuttSharma.On 12th February, 1988 deceased Dharma Dutt Sharma hadleft Timberbong in Gypsy No. SKM 999 towards Sorengwith the accused Rolland and the appellant.The deceased Dharma Dutt Sharma was last seen in thecompany of the accused Rolland and the appellant and theyabducted the deceased Dharma Dutt Sharma.The appellant Mani Kumar Thapa was with the accusedRolland all along with from Soreng to Timberbong.Theappellant opened the door and made the deceased to sit inthe back seat and that the deceased left with both theaccused Rolland and the appellant on the evening of 12thFebruary, 1988 from Timberbong in the direction of Soreng.Both the accused Rolland and the appellant were togetherwhile returning from Singhla side of West Bengal.The accused Rolland and the appellant murdered thedeceased Dharma Dutt Sharma and concealed the evidenceof the murder."In appeal, the High Court after discussing various case-laws and on appreciation of circumstantial evidence held thatthe presence of the appellant in the jeep along with A-1 insearch of the deceased was established beyond all reasonabledoubt and also found that the prosecution case of taking thedeceased in the jeep on 12.2.1988 from the evidence of PWs.3,5 to 9, 11 and 12 was held proved.From the evidence of PWs.-15, 22 and 25, the High Court came to the conclusion that theidentification of the appellant at Ramam check-post on12.2.1988 was established beyond all reasonable doubt.The court alsorelied on the stand taken by the accused in his statement madeto the trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as also the conductof the accused in giving different versions to different people inregard to the incident of 12.2.1988, and on that basis held theappellant guilty of the charges framed against him andconfirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on him.In the instant case PW-1, wife of the deceased,has spoken about some enmity between A-1 and the deceased.In the instant case thechain of circumstances starting from the afternoon of 12.2.1988right up to 16.2.1988 clearly shows that the deceased was takenby A-1 and the appellant in the jeep and thereafter the deceasedwas never seen.The subsequent conduct of A-1 visiting thecheck-post in the night, A-1 and A-2 visiting the check-postthereafter at different times without an acceptable reason, A-1and PW-22 visiting the Kerabari Forest Headquarters on13.2.1988 and thereafter recovery of the belongings of thedeceased from the place where the dead body was allegedlythrown in the first instance, the apprehension entertained by thedeceased which was made known to PW-3, the apprehensionentertained by PW-5 which was made known to his superiorvide letters Ex. P-2 and P-3, the statements of the accused madeto PW-5 (to the extent they are acceptable), the contradictoryversions given by the appellant to PWs.5 and 36, the presenceof the appellant and A-1 together at the farewell function oftheir colleague in the evening of 12.2.1988 and unacceptableexplanation amounting to falsehood given by the appellant inregard to his whereabouts on 12.2.1988 cumulatively establishthe continuous links in the chain of circumstances which was,in our opinion, rightly accepted by the courts below to base aconviction.Assuming forargument's sake that he was an obedient or innocent or ignorantenough to keep quiet right through the journey then one wouldhave expected him on his return at least to having informed ofthe incident to some person in authority or at least to a friendwith a view to exculpate himself from the incident in which thedeceased lost his life except what he told PW-5 on 13th and 16thof February.It isfurther seen that on 13.2.1988 the appellant accompanied A-1went to Ramam check-post without there being any officialreason for the same except to deliver two torch-lights.It has come in evidence of PW-5 that theappellant had told him that after the body of the deceased wastaken from the place where it had fallen in the first instance, theappellant had taken away certain possible identificationmaterials like Panchayat seal and some personal papers with aview to create a false evidence as to the whereabouts of thedeceased. | ['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,754,752 | He has drawn my attention to a portion of the report wherein it has been observed that in course of investigation, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code were not found and accordingly a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the 'Code') was filed before the relevant magistrate vide Bankura Police Station C.S. No.62 of 2014 dated February 28, 2014 under Sections 498A/ 406/506/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code leaving aside Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that there has been no fair and proper investigation as result of which, Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has not been inserted in the charge sheet.He also submits that a perusal of the report of the superintendent would reveal that the petitioner's claim of overwriting made by the concerned police officer to change Section 307 to read Section 506 has been 2 established.Having heard Mr. Banerjee, and Ms. Nandy, learned advocate for the State and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to keep the writ petition pending.If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the charge sheet that has been filed before the learned magistrate without the accused being charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it shall be open to her to file appropriate protest petition before the learned magistrate under Section 173 (8) of the Code and if such an application is filed, I hope and trust that the learned magistrate shall proceed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.Insofar as the other allegation of the petitioner that there has been overwriting, which appears to have been prima facie established, I grant leave to the superintendent to take follow up steps in accordance with law against the erring police officer as early as possible.The writ petition stands disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.) 3 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,755,289 | And In Re : Amirul Molla @ Amanur Molla & Anr.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on 2 condition that petitioner no. 1 shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of fortnight from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,947,659 | a. The Appellant/Accused and the injured PW.2 Karuppannan are brothers.On 14.9.2001 at 8.00 a.m when the appellant was laying the channel, PW.2 and his son Venkatesan PW.1, who at that time were working in their field, came and told the Appellant not to lay the channel, but the Appellant continued with his work and against, PW.2 prevented the Appellant from laying the channel.In a fit of anger, the appellant attacked on the head of PW.2 with the handle portion of the spade telling him that only if he is alive, he would prevent him and PW.2 fell down and sustained head injuries and immediately, Pw.2 and PW.5 Brabhu took the injured to the Government Hospital, Kallakurichi for treatment.b. PW.8 Doctor Ponnusamy attached to the said Hospital examined the injured on 14.9.2000 at 9.45 a.m., gave treatment and found the following injuries on his head:-A lacerated injury at centre of parietal region 3x1x1 cm.A contusion left parietal region 3x5 cms tendon.A contusion of both left eye lid."c. On receipt of information, PW.10, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Kallakurichi Police Station went to the said Hospital and PW.1 gave the complainant Ex.P1 to PW.10 and PW.10 came to the Police Station and registered a case in Cr.No.727/2001 under Section 307 of IPC and prepared printed FIR Ex.P7 and sent the same to the concerned court and the officials and also to PW.11, the Inspector of Police for further investigation.d. PW.11 took up the case for investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P2 and a rough plan Ex.P8 in the presence of the witnesses PW.1 and PW.4 Kumar and another Venkatesan and recorded their statements.This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgement dated 31.12.2002 passed in SC.No.24/2000 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Kallakurichi, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.On the same day at 14.30 hours at Chinnasalem Old Bus Stand arrested the accused and recorded his confession statement in the presence of the witnesses PW.6 Oomaidurai and PW.7 Chinnathambi and on his confession statement, seized MO.1 spade under Ex.P4 in the presence of the same witnesses and sent the accused for judicial custody and on 26.11.2002 examined PW.8 Doctor Ponnusamy who gave treatment to the injured and recorded his statement and after completing investigation, filed a final report against the accused under Section 307 of IPC.The case was taken on file in SC.No.24/2000 on the file of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Kallakurichi and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.11} and also relied on Exs.P1 to P8 and one material object Mo.1 spade.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as totally false.The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the material records placed.According to the prosecution, when the accused/appellant and his son were laying the channel, PW.2 prevented and told them not to lay the channel.But, the accused/appellant continued with his work and again when P.W.2 resisted him, the appellant attacked him with the handle portion of the spade telling him that only if he is alive, he would prevent him.According to PW.1, the accused gave two blows on his head.PW.1 admits that there was frequent quarrel between the two families and for the past 20 years, the water was flowing through the said channel.He would also admit that his father obliterated one portion of the channel, that was restored by the appellant and his son.The evidence of PW.2 is more or less the same.He also admitted that there was a dispute between them in connection with the channel which persisted for so many years and they did not obey the decision of the Panchayathars.It is revealed from PW.2's evidence that there is one field in between the channel and the field where PW.3 was working on his tractor.PW.4's field was at a distance of 100 feet from the place of occurrence.According to him, PW.3 is the tractor driver working under PW.2 and it is clear from the evidence that he came to the place of occurrence only after hearing the noise.PW.4 also had gone to the spot only after hearing the noise.Mr.AG..Rajan, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that PW.3 and PW.4 cannot be the eye-witnesses, as they had come to the place of occurrence only after hearing the noise and it is unlikely for them to have seen the attack and it is not the case that even when the quarrel was going on, they reached the spot.On the other hand, Mr.A.Saravanan, the learned Government Advocate supported the judgment of the trial Court, placing reliance on the evidence of the Prosecution.It is no doubt true that the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 would indicate that they had reached the spot only on hearing the noise of quarreling, and their evidence is not clear as to when they reached the place of occurrence.As regards the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2, it cannot be said that their evidence is unreliable.It is seen that the entire incident had occurred when the appellant and his son were trying to restore the channel, which was obliterated by PW.2 few days before the occurrence.But, however, the evidence shows that when the appellant was laying the channel, PW.2 prevented him, which resulted in the attack of him by the appellant.So, it is evident that the appellant had attacked PW.2 with the spade's handle and gave him two blows.The medical evidence is consistent with the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, though the injury on the eye-lid is not spoken to by the said witnesses.It is possible for him to sustain the said injury on the eye-lid during the attack with the spade.It is to be borne in mind that when the testimony of the eye-witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence, unnecessary and undue importance should not be given to the minor discrepancies, which neither goes to the root of the matter nor in any way affect the credibility of the version of the eye-witnesses.That apart, the testimony of the eye-witnesses is of great value, unless their evidence suffers from serious infirmities.PW.2's presence in the place of occurrence and sustaining injury in the hands of the appellant has been established in this case.The accused/appellant had attacked PW.2, when he was laying the channel and there is evidence that there was consistent and persistent dispute regarding the channel.The testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 cannot be discarded, merely because they are enimical witnesses.In this case, the complaint is given almost immediately after the occurrence and the version in the FIR is consistent with the evidence adduced by PW.1 and PW.2, though Chinnasalem Police station was situated on the way to Kallakurichi Government Hospital.But it is to be borne in mind that PW.2 was injured on his head and the witnesses would tend to take him to hospital to give immediate medical treatment in the hospital.PW.1 was admitted in the Kallakurichi Government Hospital at 10.15 a.m. and on the same day i.e. within two hours from the occurrence, the statement of PW.1 has been recorded i.e. at 10.45 hours.Therefore, in my opinion, there is no delay in lodging the complaint.There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the appellant also sustained injury in the incident.Hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution witness has suppressed about the injury sustained by the accused.The genesis of the occurrence is spoken to by PW.1 and PW.2 and there is nothing to discredit their testimony.Though the prosecution established their case that the appellant attacked PW.2, however the evidence disclosed that PW.2 was the aggressor i.e., the entire incident had occurred only, when he attempted to prevent the appellant from laying the channel.To justify the conviction under Section 307 IPC, though nature of injury actually caused to him is material in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, but such intention could be inferred from other circumstances also.When the appellant was provoked, he had started attacking the aggressor and therefore, at the said situation and state of mind, he cannot be expected to choose the non vital part on the body of the victim.May be the attack in this case landed on the vital part, but it cannot be said that the appellant had any intention to cause the death of the injured.He submitted that the appellant was in prison for 96 days.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the age of the appellant and the genesis of occurrence, I am of the considered view that the appellant is not liable to be convicted under Section 307 of IPC, instead, he is convicted under Section 324 of IPC and to meet the ends of justice, the sentence is reduced to one period already undergone.Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is convicted under Section 324 of IPC instead of 307 IPC and sentence is modified to the above extent.08.12.2009kj/srcm Index :Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoSrcmARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.1.Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Kallakurichi2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasCrl. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,777,228 | No.1/State.This petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for transfer of Criminal Case No.163/2012 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior to the Court of JMFC, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha.The case of the applicant/complainant is that a written report was made by her on 19.5.2011 at police station Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha against the respondents No.2 to 4 alleging that they were harassing and treating the complainant/applicant with cruelty for bringing 25-30 tolas of gold and Rs. 2,00,000/- from her father.As the complaint did not disclose any cause of action at Ganj Basoda and after considering the complaint, the concerned police was of the view that the entire offence of cruelty has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of police station Kotwali, District Gwalior, therefore, the complaint was sent by police station Ganj Basoda to police station Kotwali, District Gwalior.After completing the investigation a charge sheet was filed before the court of JMFC, Gwalior against the respondents No.2 to 4 for offence punishable under Section 2 MCRC 6051/2015 498-A, 34 of IPC.A petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed and the High Court by order dated 20.2.2013 allowed the said petition and the proceedings in Criminal Case No.163/2012 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior were quashed.If this contention of the applicant is considered in proper perspective then it would be clear that on 11.5.2015 the application filed by the applicant against the respondent No.2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act was fixed before the Court. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
194,779,286 | This is First application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Applicants Ramlal, Gangaram, Vinod, Pappu and Radheshyam are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.57/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506, 294, 324 & 34 and 324 & 326 of the IPC registered at Police Station Suwasara, District Mandsaur.Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the case was registered under Section 323, 506 and 294 of the IPC and the applicants have been enlarged on bail, subsequently during investigation offence under Sections 324 and 326 have also been added.The applicants have applied for anticipatory bail as they have apprehension of arrest, however, learned A.S.J. has rejected the application.The applicants have not misused the liberty after granting bail.The applicants are ready to co-operate with the trial.In such circumstances, applicants be granted anticipatory bail.Applicants Ramlal, Gangaram, Vinod, Pappu and Radheshyam are directed to appear before the concerned Magistrate on or before 26.10.2015 and on their appearance they be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for their appearance as and when directed and required.Applicants shall ensure that they would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on him.It is made clear that if the applicants breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicants.Certified copy as per rules. | ['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', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
Subsets and Splits